1910-02-23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEOFFRION moved that the third report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Lumsden charges be concurred in.
Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: This report asks that leave be granted the committee to employ counsel for the purpose^ of assisting' them in the investigation of matters referred to them. The question of employing counsel is a very important one, and I propose to offer a few remarks regarding the advisability of adopting this report. We have had in discussion in the committee the question of counsel. Yesterday, Mr. Smith, of Montreal, appeared before the committee as counsel for the commission. The matter to be investigated arises out of statements made by Mr. Lums-den in his letter of resignation. Mr. Lumsden in that letter said that the classifications on the road had not been in accordance with his instructions, and that in effect they were so erroneous that it was quite clear his instructions had been entirely ignored by a certain section of the engineering staff. That statement necessarily reflects upon the manner in which the road is being constructed. The commission appointed by the government is responsible to see that not only competent but thoroughly _ honest engineers are employed; and prima facie if the engineers have not satisfactorily carried out the work, the commission is to blame. The commission would be in a very deplorable position if it should turn out that, with its connivance, the engineering staff had deliberately conspired to defraud the public, but it would still be in an unfortunate position if the fault was due simply to incompetency or carelessness on the part of the staff. The charge, therefore, of Mr. Lumsden, is necessarily a charge against the commission, and it is important to it that it should clear its skirts by showing that there has been nothing wrong at all. On the other hand, it is in the public interest that this matter should be thoroughly probed; and if any wrong-doing has taken place, that it should be exposed and put a stop to, and that those responsible should be made known. The commission has appointed as counsel, Mr. Smith, to represent it. The commission is appointed by the government and is responsible for its engineers just as the government is responsible for the commission.
So the government are responsible for the acts of these engineers who are now charged with wrong-doing in the letter of resignation of Mr. Lumsden. Therefore we have this effect that we have counsel representing the one side and the one side only. It has been suggested that as Mr. Lumsden does not desire counsel, that is therefore an end of the matter. After discussion upon that matter the committee has come to the conclusion that it will be necessary to have counsel. That counsel is to be a counsel, as I understand it, represent-Mr. GEOFFRION.
ing the public and the public alone. Therefore I want to have an understanding before this matter goes any further whether this is, bona fide, a movement on behalf of the people to have a counsel appointed to represent them or whether it is not merely a colourable movement for the purpose of adding another counsel who will fortify the ranks of the commission and in that way the ranks of the government. What is the position now? We have a committee of judges, seven of them, of whom four are the appointees of the government, men in sympathy with the government and with the government alone, interested, as far as politics are concerned, to try and come to the conclusion that this matter has been all moonshine, that there is nothing in it. Now we have the majority of the judges who are to try the government supporters of the government, we have the commission in close alliance with the government employing a counsel at the public expense of course, and without consulting the minority of the committee, and we have a well organized staff, as far as political warfare is concerned in the personnel of the commission and we have all the staff of engineers, who are interested in showing that there is nothing wrong and as against that we have only three members of the opposition to watch that whole matter and try in the interests of the public to elicit the real facts of the case. I therefore, feel that this is only another gold brick added to what we had when this matter was inaugurated a little while ago. If we are not to have a clear and definite understanding that, as has been done on former occasions, the minority of the committee, the persons who are interested in bringing home these charges, the Conservative members of the committee if you like, shall have the selection of the counsel who shall represent the public on this occasion. I have no use for it and no faith in it. I want to make no bones about the matter at all, I want to say that when I make this statement I am not assuming, as I might be quite justified in assuming, that the majority of the committee will force upon the minority. A counsel in in whom the minority have not confidence, but I claim as a distinct right and by reason of precedents which have occurred before as well as upon principle, that the minority necessarily in this case represents the public and the public interests and that the selection should be left absolutely in their hands. Although I might have confidence in this committee, that the majority when we meet would accord to the minority what is manifestly their right and what is manifestly only consistent with fair play, yet as having a public duty

to discharge, I do not feel that I would be right in taking any risks in this matter because we know that risks can be taken in a matter of this kind. Therefore, to put the matter beyond any question, I shall take the responsibility of asking that the responsibility for this shall be placed where it ought to be placed, on the government; I shall ask that the government will intimate at this stage, in order that I shall not have to press this matter to extremities, that the preference of the minority of the committee shall be acceded to and in order that the government may have an opportunity of taking a definite position in this matter, and without referring to cases which have been before parliament on previous occasions and which have been dealt with in the committees, I shall move to amend the motion by adding thereto the following words:
It is further ordered that the members of the opposition upon the said committee shall have the right to select the counsel so to be appointed, and that such counsel shall be instructed to protect the interests of the people of Canada in the said investigation.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: As a member of the committee that was appointed to investigate the charges in question I am very much surprised indeed at the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). The report which has been presented to the House is one which was adopted to-day by the committee unanimously. It was not suggested then by my hon. friend that there should be any amendment to the report. The motion was made, the committee was not even divided upon it and by the unanimous voice of that committee .the report was made which was presented to the House to-day and which the House has been asked to concur in by the motion of the chairman of the committee. It seems to me that it is a reflection on the committee, a suggestion that they are not competent to appoint counsel who are entitled to the confidence of the public in dealing with this matter. It is a rather singular reversal of the usual order of things that a minority should govern instead of a majority. If the majority of that committee is not entitled to the confidence of the community, to the confidence of this House, I would submit to my hon. friend that his motion ought to be to substitute others for the majority of the committee instead of reversing the established order of things, that the majority shall rule.


Mr. BARKER.: The motion made in the committee that an application should be made to the House for authority to appoint counsel to represent the public was
declared to be, so far as it went, satisfactory, and so it was. It was in that sense that we accepted it. It would not have been proper to begin the discussion of who the counsel should be, or exactly how he should be appointed by the committee, until we had got permission from this House to make an appointment. I am surprised at the hon. gentleman making an objection of this kind. One would imagine he thought that the minority of that committee would be quite safe in allowing this appointment to go to the vote of the committee as a whole, trusting that the majority would accept our suggestion. Anybody who has been present at the committee so far knows that the hon. gentleman who has made this motion (Mr. Lennox), is strictly within his rights, and is only acting with common prudence. If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken felt that the suggestion made was a reasonable one, all he would have to do was to say: We concede that much to the minority, we regret that they did not ask for it before. The hon. gentleman has not yet given the slightest intimation of his own opinion as to whether or not we ought to nominate that counsel. What are the facts? The committee met and they notified the commission to appear be-for them, as well as Mr. Lumsden. The commission appeared there at once by counsel, a very eminent counsel of Montreal, paid out of the public purse. He is the counsel of tire commissioners, and if anybody is charged, or if there is anybody to whom misconduct has been imputed, it is the commission. They, through engineers appointed by themselves, are charged with misconduct of so grave a character that the Prime Minister was compelled to move for a committee upon it. What does this gentleman tell us. He rises and says: I represent the public, we are going to investigate these grave charges reflecting upon the commission, and I, their counsel, am going to act for the public in the investigation. Could anything be more ridiculous, more monstrous as a matter of public interest. The gentleman said to the committee that the instructions of the Commission were to probe this matter to the bottom, and he would do his duty! We have, in days gone by, heard counsel employed, apparently on behalf of the public, make such assertions and we know what was the result, we know that the inquiry, instead of being probed to the bottom, was stifled, and while I' do not for a moment impute any thing against the character or probity of Mr. Smith, I do say it is a ridiculous thing to think that in an investigation of this character involving the reputation of the government

who appointed this commission, and of the commission who appointed the engineers charged with misconduct, involving all their positions, that the Commission should appoint counsel to act for the public, and that the majority of a committee named by the government should appoint ing counsel on the other side. I am talking to men of knowledge, business men and politicians who sit on both sides of this House. I ask them if they seriously think that a counsel appointed by the majority of that political committee, politicians on both sides, four on one side and three on the other, will be a counsel who will probe to the bottom questions involving the reputation of the government?
I am surprised that the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke) would stand up in his place and for a moment give colour to such a pretense as that the majority on the committee have any right to make such an appointment. The hon. gentleman knows that we have questions of this kind again and again in committees, and that there is as straight a party vote as there would be in this House. We have on this committee-^three on one side and three on the other, the chairman's casting vote deciding the question. It is a foregone conclusion when we go to a vote how it will result, and we must either agree to the proposition made or there will be a v(te and the vote is sure to go against us. Why do these gentlemen object? Is it a matter of courtesy or ceremony, that we have not been sufficiently ceremonious to these gentlemen in asking them to let us appoint counsel? We ask here in the House that we, as the minority who are concerned in probing this thing, and are determined to probe it to the bottom, shall name the counsel who shall nrosecute the investigation, and that we shall not have appointed another counsel, like Mr. Smith, who acts only for the commission. We do not doubt that an able man would be appointed by the majority, but we would like to know that the man had his heart in the work as well as his head. We want this thing probed no matter what the consequences may be, no matter who may suffer. We have made no charge. This committee was moved not by this side of the House, but by the Prime Minister. Surely he did not mean to go through a farce in moving for this investigation to be not con' tent with a majority of the committee, but must also appoint all the counsel. Through the commission they have appointed Mr. Smith, K.O., and the majority of the committee wish to appoint Mr. Brown or some one else, and we will be told: Oh, you agreed that counsel should be appointed. you have counsel, this is a thorough investigation and the public is Mr. BARKER.
represented. I would have expected the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke) to he the first man to stand up and say: We will hear counsel, we will let you nominate them because you are the attacking parties in this , committee. Does any one doubt that the majority of that committee are on the defensive? Are they not anxious, by every means in their power, to find a verdict of ' not guilty ' as against the commission and against the engineers? Every man on both sides of the House knows that is the fact.
I do not wish to occupy another moment of the time of the House on this question. I say that hon. gentlemen on the other side who refuse this reasonable proposition, that we who are the investigators in fact should have the nomination of the counsel who is to conduct the investigation, are supporting the government in an evasion of the inquiry.
House divided on amendment, Mr. Lennox.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Arthurs,	Lennox,
Barker,	Lewis,
Beattie,	Mac don ell,
Best,	McCall,
Blain,	McCarthy,
Borden (Halifax),	Meighen,
Boyce,	Middlebro,
Bradbury,	Monk,
Bristol,	Nantel,
Broder,	Owen,
Burrell,	Paquet,
Campbell,	Reid (Grenville),
Chisholm (Huron),	Rhodes,
Clare,	Roche,
Cowan,	Russell,
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Crothers,	Sexsmith,
Currie (Simcoe),	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Daniel,	Sharpe (Ontario,
Doherty,	Sproule,
Donnelly,	Stanfield,
Edwards,	Staples,
Elson,	Stewart,
Eraser,	Taylor (New
Gordon (Nipissing),	Westminster),
Haggart (Lanark),	Thoburn,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Thornton,
Herron,	Wallace,
Hughes,	White (Renfrew)
Jameson,	Wilcox (Essex),
Kidd,	Wilson (Lennox
Lake,	Addington),
Lalor,	Worthington,
Lancaster,	Wright.-66.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allen,	MacNutt,
Aylesworth,	McAllister,

Beauparlant,	McCoig,
Beland,	McColl,
Borden (Sir	McIntyre,
Frederiok),	McKenzie,
Brown,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bureau,	Martin (Montreal,
Carvell,	Ste. Mary's),
Cash,	Martin (Regina),
Chew,	Martin (Wellington),
Chisholm (Inverness),	Mayrand,
Clark (Red Deer),	Meigs,
Clarke (Essex),	Michaud,
Congdon,	Miller,
Currie (Prince	Molloy,
Edward),	Neely,
Delisle,	Oliver,
Demers,	Papineau,
Devlin,	Pardee,
Douglas,	Pickup,
Dubeau,	Proulx,
Ecrement,	Prowse,
Emmerson,	Pugsley,
Eielding,	Rankin,
Fisher,	Robb,
Fortier,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fowke,	Roy (Dorchester),
Gauvreau,	Roy (Montmagny),
Geoffrion,	Rutan,
Gervais,	Savoie,
Girard,	Schell,
Gladu,	Sealey,
Gordon (Kent),	Seguin,
Graham,	Sinclair,
Guthrie,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Harris,	Smith (Stormont),
Hodgins,	Sperry,
Hunt,	Stratton,
King,	Talbot,
Kyte,	Templeman,
Lachance,	Tobin,
Lafortune,	Todd,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Tolmie,
Napierville),	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Turcotte (Quebec
Lapointe,	County),
Lavergne,	Turgeon,
Law,	Turriff,
LeBlanc,	Verville,
Lemieux,	White (Victoria,
Lovell,	Alta.),
Macdonald,	Wilson (Laval).-100.
Amendment negatived. Motion agreed to.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
CREW OF DREDGE NORTHUMBERLAND. Mr. STANFIELD:
1.	Were any of the officers or crew of the dredge ' Northumberland ' given leave of absence from their work at East river, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, for the purpose of going to vote at election in Lunenburg county on November 24, 1909 P
2.	If so, what are the names and positions on dredge of each person who obtained such leave?
3.	On what day did each leave the dredge and on what day did each return?
4.	Was the dredge working as usual while such persons were absent from duty?
5.	Was the work of the dredge carried as. efficiently without the persons in question as when they were on board and working?
6.	Were the said persons or any of them provided with free transportation over the Intercolonial railway, or otherwise provided with free transportation from their place of work to the county in which election was being held, or for any part of the distance?
7.	Were the said persons paid or will they be paid usual wages for the time they were absent to said election?
['Haying disposed of this little matter and knowing it would be quite impossible for me to do justice to the important subject before the House, on which we are called to express as fully as we can our views, I would respectfully beg, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 

[Stage Direction]
reference to the department, and the department, therefore, cannot state, without communicating with the agent, whether or not permits are being granted to these settlers on vacant Dominion lands.
3.	This statement was made in a communication recently received at the department. An inspection has been ordered, and if it is found that any of the lands do not contain merchantable timber to such an extent as to make them commercially valuable, they will be withdrawn from the berth.
Mr. LAKE:: 1.	Has the Minister of the Interior received a petition from the residents of township 50, range 27, W. 2nd M., relative to the difficulty of getting dry wood for fuel, etc., and asking for permission to obtain it from timber berth No. 876? If so, what assistance is he able to give them ?
2.	Are permits to cut wood being granted to these settlers on any government land? If so, where and to what extent.?
3.	Is the minister aware that on several sections comprised in timber berth No. 876 there is said to be not sufficient timber to make them commercially valuable? If so, will he take steps to withdraw them from the berth and throw them open for settlement? If not, will he cause inquiries to be made?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	Yes. Berth 876 was acquired at public competition, and the department is not in a position to issue settlers' permits thereon.
2.	Permits to cut wood for fuel are issued by the local Crown timber agents, without


Mr. RHODES.: 


HOMESTEADING ON SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 12.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Is the northeast J of section 34, township 12, range 21, west 3rd meridian, province of Saskatchewan, open for homesteading? If not, why not?
2.	Has it been entered for homesteading? If so, by whom, and when?
3.	Has there been any settlement duties done on it? If so, what is the nature of the duties ?
4.	Is it subject to cancellation, and will it be open for settlement?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Not open for homesteading at the present time. Already entered for.
2.	Taken as a homestead by Howard A. Moore, October 27, 1908.
3.	According to a declaration filed here
by the homesteader, the following duties are claimed:	Residence-Was on homestead part of June, August and September, 1909. Improvements-26 acres of breaking,

1909; 300 fence posts cut and ready for fencing in spring.
4.	Cancellation proceedings were instituted on the 23rd of November, 1909, and the homesteader has been notified that by the 1st of April next he must satisfy the local agent that he is in residence with the intention of remaining there and completing the required duties, failing which the agent will cancel his entry summarily and dispose of the land in accordance with the regulations.


R. E. A. LEECH.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Is R. E. A Leech in the employment of the government? If so, what position does he hold?
2.	When was he first employed by the government, and for what purpose?
3.	What years has he been in the employment of the government, and what doing each year ?
4.	What salary and expenses has he drawn each year, respectively?
5.	What is he engaged in at the present time?
6.	Is the government aware that he is said to be spending all his time at Liberal headquarters at Winnipeg?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes; inspector of Dominion lands agencies for Saskatchewan.
2.	On the 1st January, 1905, as inspector of Dominion lands agencies.
3.	From 1st January, 1905, to the present time. Engaged in inspecting Dominion lands agencies,-except in 1908 when he was employed for part of the year in connection with seed grain distribution.
4.	Salary: 1904-5, 6 months, $1,000; 1905-
6, $2,000; 1906-7, 9 months, $1,500; 1907-8, $2,000; 1908-9, $2,666.66; 1909-10, 10 months, $2,500. Expenses: 1904-5, 6 months, $840.60;
1905-6, $3,676; 1906-7, 9 months, $2,736.02; 1907-8, $3,403.59;	1908-9, $2,766.53; 1909-10,
10 months, $3,350.
5.	Inspecting Dominion lands agencies.
6.	No.


W. L. McQUARRIE.
Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	What position does Mr. W. L. McQuarrie hold under the Department of the Interior at Prince Albert, and what is his salary?
2.	Is he required to devote his whole time to the performance of the duties of his office? If not, may he properly accept another position of a public nature?
3.	Under these circumstances, does the minister consider that the department has a claim only upon a part of the time of Mr. McQuarrie ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	W. L. McQuarrie is senior assistant in the Dominion Lands Office at Prince Albert, and his salary is $1,200 per annum.
130	,
2.	Yes, his whole time during office hours.
3.	The department claims Mr. McQuar-rie's whole time during office hours.


THE ROSS RIFLE AT BISLEY MEETING.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Has any Ross rifle mark II., double star, or any other mark, been submitted to the National Rifle Association of Great Britain, for its opinion as to the eligibility of the rifle for competition at the forthcoming Bisley meeting? If so, with what result?
2.	If no rifle lias yet been submitted to the National Rifle Association, will such a course be adopted? If so, when?
3.	Have inquiries been instituted as to whether the Ross rifle will be eligible at the next Bisley meeting? If so, what reply has been received?
4.	Has any rule or regulation for the admission of rifles for competition in the various national or other contests at Bisley been recently adopted by the National Rifle Association?
5.	If so, what was the nature of the resolution and when was it adopted?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: This is a matter which pertains exclusively to the Dominion Rifle Association, and will, I have no doubt, be dealt with satisfactorily by the executive council of that association.


WHARF AT PORT DUFFERIN.
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	When was the government wharf at Port Dufierin, Nova Scotia, built?
2.	When was the wharf repaired?
3.	Is the government aware that the wharf is reputed to be in a bad condition, and unsafe for traffic?
4.	What is the present condition of the wharf?
5.	What revenue has been derived from it each year since it was built?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	In 1898-99.
2.	In 1904-5.	'
3.	The department is informed that repairs are required.
4.	The resident engineer has been asked to report.
5. In 1899-1900	$ 211 50
1900-	01	
295	141901-	02	
36	001902-	03	
54	071903-	04	
50	371904-	05	
33	761905-	06	
35	501906-	07	
19	861907-	08	
28	381908-	09	
16	961909- 10	
Nil.Total	$ 781 54


BOUNTIES ON IRON AND STEEL.
Mr. BOYCE.: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the government if it is the intention this session to introduce any legislation with a view to a renewal of the bounties on iron and steel?


Mr. FIELDING.: At the present moment, we have no such intention. I am not prepared to make any statement more than that.


NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95), respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr.   J.. W. EDWARDS@Frontenac: When the House adjourned yesterday, I was considering the resolution unanimously passed by this House last March. If you examine carefully each clause of that resolution, you will find that the position taken to-day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is absolutely consistent with every one of those clauses. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition does call for speedy organization, for co-operation, for close relations with the British navy and for active participation. I also contend that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has gone back on every principle embodied in that resolution. Sir, the Bill before us is not a policy of speedy organization, but one of delay; it is not a policy of co-operation, but one which makes co-operation absolutely impossible; it is not a policy of naval service in close relation with the British navy, but a policy designed to keep our fleet of vessels separate from the British navy; it is not a policy of active participation, but one of useless inactivity; it is not a policy to render our commerce and the empire more secure, but a policy of graft and ingratitude, a policy to breed another flock of political vultures to add to those that have followed in the wake of this government since 1896 and have grown fat on what they have_ stolen from the people of Canada. This is not an imperial policy; it is not a Canadian policy, but it is, in my estimation, a policy of rank and brazen hypocrisy which waves the British flag before the eyes of the Canadian people as the talisman of liberty and plots the disintegration of the empire behind its protecting folds. Never in the history of the British empire has any statesman occupied so pitiable a position of weakness and vaccil-lation as that now occupied by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House. It is difficult to follow


William Pugsley: the right hon. gentleman in his political gymnastics on any great question, but, on this question, I contend he has well earned the title of champion political lightning change artist of the continent of America.
What has been his course? Speaking in this House last March, the right hon. gentleman gave pledges of sympathy and loyal support. Last November, he said that not a ship should go without the consent of parliament. Last December he modified that somewhat by saying that we might help if England were severely pressed. Early this month, he said that if England is at war, Canada is at war. And later in the present month he modified that again by saying that he meant that when England was at war Canada was at war, inasmuch as Canada formed part of the empire and was liable to attack when England was at war, but he did not mean that Canada was necessarily involved in taking part in all England's wars. I was somewhat amused, the other evening, at the effort of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) to reconcile the positive and negative statements of his leader. Any such evolutions and contortions as the hon. member went through in order to reconcile the two positions of his leader would give a snake lumbago. On this great question, involving the future destiny of Canada and the empire, we see the premier of this country suspended in mid air. like Mahomet's spirit between heaven and hell and fit for neither place, wobbling about like a Chinese kite answering to the sentiments of whatever popular audience he happens to be - addressing-one day uttering sentiments for the ears of British Canadians, and furnishing headlines for such papers as the Toronto ' Globe,' the next day uttering sentiments for those Trench Canadians whom he has carefully schooled to look in the direction of his highest aspirations. Sir, the right hon. gentleman has become an expert in the manipulation of the English language. The people of Canada have become somewhat accustomed to the right hon. gentleman's lingual inconsistencies; but on this great question I think the people of Canada would like from the premier of this country, definite, clear-cut and unequivocal statements. The right hon. gentleman, speaking a few days ago, and referring to the conquest of Canada by Wolfe in 1759, made use of these words:
My ancestors lost on that occasion, but it simply transferred their allegiance from one sovereign to another. They lost the battle, but they did not lose their independence, their liberty, their rights and privileges; and to-day the sun in his daily career does not shed his light upon any people on the face of the earth enjoying more liberty than my fellow countrymen of French extraction. And my last words to the doubters is that

freedom is worth fighting for and worth dying for.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that these words are true. And yet, Sir, time and again it has been impressed upon us in this House that there is an anti-imperial sentiment in the province of Quebec which has to be reckoned with when any great political question comes before this House and country. There is no getting around this, and there is no use in mincing words in dealing with it. We have heard it stated in this House within the last few days that if one should undertake to criticise an estimate for a wharf or a post office in the province of Quebec he is liable to be misrepresented in that province as being antagonistic to the French Canadian people. We know that, time and again, we have been cautioned to be very careful how we considered any question on which the people of Lower Canada have an opinion which differs from ours. In the consideration of the French treaty it was almost as much as a man's position was worth to express an adverse criticism, no matter how honestly he might held that view, for fear of being misrepresented as an Anglo-Saxon bigot. In the case of the hanging of Louis Riel, who was judged to be a traitor, it was represented as due to his French origin. In the matter of dealing with the Manitoba school question, the people of this country were given to understand by one leader that Manitoba must submit to the will of Quebec, while the other leader took advantage of the position to gain power in order that he might use that power to coerce the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and, subsequently as has been made apparent to everybody in this country, has given Manitoba to understand that she must remain the ' postage stamp province ' until she is willing to bend the knee to the will of Quebec. While we recognize the fact that there are people in this Dominion of French origin, I wish to remind hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do it in all kindness, that there are also people of English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh origin, and that the interests of the English-speaking people must receive more consideration in the future than_ they have in the past. I maintain that the English-speaking portion of this country has been held up before the eyes of the world by the premier and his delegates at different imperial conferences as being indifferent and callous to the calls of their kindred across the sea. That is the only conclusion we can come to from the position taken by the Tight hon. First Minister and other delegates at different imperial conferences. It seems that the uppermost thought in the mind of the government is: What will Quebec say or think? Ontario and the other provinces, they seem to conclude, can be relied upon I 130J
to be fooled as usual with a few sentenceshaving an imperial ring, but really as empty as sounding brass. I have not one word to say against the French Canadians of this country. I believe they are an energetic and intelligent people. I, myself, think that they are an exceptionally intelligent people, because, Sir, if what the hon. member for Hochelaga said yesterday, that there is no feeling of disloyalty among the French Canadians of Quebec is correct, I say it speaks very highly for the intelligence of the people of that province, for if there is no feeling of disloyalty in the province of Quebec it is not for lack of teaching by hon. gentlemen opposite. Battleships and cannon are very necessary implements of war, but a country's strength does not depend on these alone. It does not depend on these so much as on the men behind the guns. We cannot measure the military and naval strength of Canada by the calibre of our cannon or by the number of Bristols. But, if we are honest with ourselves and honest with the people of the country, we have to take into consideration, in viewing this question, the sentiments not only of Canada as a whole, but of each part of Canada.
The hon. member for Hochelaga challenged any one in this House to say that there is a feeling of disloyalty in Quebec. I do not like to use the word disloyalty, but I do believe we have ample evidences in this House in the expressions which have fallen from the lips of different speakers that there is in the province of Quebec an anti-British, or, if you like it better, an anti-imperial sentiment. I propose to deal with that matter squarely and to place the blame for that sentiment, which I do not consider in the interests of Canada, where it justly belongs. Is there an hon. member in this House who will deny my assertion that separation from the empire is preached in the province of Quebec? Is there an hon. member in this House who will deny my assertion that public money of the province of Quebec has been used to buy books to disseminate such doctrines in that province? I will challenge any man in this House.	I
will challenge any man in the piovince of Quebec to deny that assertion.	I
say that that separation from the empire has been preached in the province of Quebec not only on the platform but through subsidized books.


An hon. MEMBER.: What book?


Mr. EDWARDS.: The hon. gentleman asks me what book, and I will tell him. The following statement was'made by the Winnipeg 'Telegram' some time ago A
The Quebec element opposed to aiding the nary of Great Britain, is also the element which talks seriously of the disintegration of confederation.

The late Mr. Tardivel's book, ' Pour la Patrie/ advocating the organization of a French republic on the northeast corner of the American continent, which book was designed to imbue the rising generation in Quebec with the idea of separation from the English-speaking portion of Canada, is still the subject of very general comment east and west. Three hundred dollars was spent by the Quebec government to distribute this book as prizes among the children of the schools of Quebec.


Mr. E. ROY.: Where is the wrong-doing?


William Cameron Edwards: There may not appear to be any wrong from the hon. gentleman's standpoint and in that respect he and 1 will have to differ, but from the way I look upon it, it is decidedly wrong not only for any man in this House but for any person in this country to preach the separation of Canada from the empire. In my estimation the wrong is accentuated when the legislature of the province of Quebec votes, as it did vote, $300 of public money to buy these books to scatter that treason throughout the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman may not see any wrong in that but I do.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: I asked what was the wrong, because I have read that book. The true meaning of that book is not that which is given to it by the 'Telegram'.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. gentleman rise in his place in this House and tell us that that book does not advocate the establishment of a French republic in Quebec?


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: Not at all. That is only the workings of the hon. gentleman's imagination.


William Cameron Edwards: I assert that $300 of the public money of the province of Quebec was voted for that purpose, and the proof of my assertion will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of the legislature of Quebec for December 3, 1896. Nor is that the only instance. Mr. Tardival's idea has been elaborated by Rev. Father Hamon who advocates the formation of a federation of the French Canadian societies of Canada and the United States. Father Hamon's work received the approval of Archbishop Taschereau. At chapter 18 of the book you will find these words:
See what will happen when the French 'Canadian race shall have completely occupied the space relatively restricted and found between the north shore of the St. Lawrence and the American boundary, that which we call the eastern townships. It will not probably take more than another generation to accomplish this work. Then the grand invasion (of the republic), will commence. When the French Canadians shall have ar-Mr. EDWARDS.
rived in mass at the American boundary line they will find more than half a million of their compatriots awaiting them who have the Canadian parish organized as absolutely as in Quebec, and are very decided, while discharging their duties loyally as citizens, to remain everywhere French. The French Canadians in the United States will soon be too numerous and influential for any political party, whatever it might wish to do, to dare to dispute their privileges. The American union is too big to be managed successfully. It is within the range of the possible that there will be a break-up when Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and, possibly, eastern Ontario, will constitute a distinct republic, French and Roman Catholic, Quebec giving a spirit and character to the new republic. Thus it may be, in the order of Providence, that there will be regained, by the observance of nature's laws of increase, and religious fidelity and love of country that which, in September, 1759, the sword wrested from the French Canadians on the Heights of Abraham.
I have not one word to say against the aspirations of Father Hamon to extend his religion as far as he possibly can. That is a worthy aspiration from h'is standpoint. But I do object to the preaching of any doctrine in any part of Canada which means the disintegration of this country and the separation of it from the British empire.


Mr. BELAND.: Will my hon. friend allow me one question. Will he tell me in what year the book he refers to was published by the Quebec government?


William Cameron Edwards: I have already stated it was in 1896.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may say that in the year 1896, in the province of Quebec, the party in power was the Conservative party; the party which is to-day led in the province of Quebec by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


William Cameron Edwards: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is just about what I expected. I stand here to say that I do not care whether it was done by the Conservative party in Quebec, or by the Liberal party in Quebec, I object to this as un-Canadian.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend will not find that in the Liberal ranks.


William Cameron Edwards: I was just as well aware as the hon. member was, what party was in power in Quebec when that book was prepared. This seems so interesting to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that I want to give them a little more of it. Let us see what some of their great politicians and statesmen have done; let us see the stand that the Hon. Mr. Mercier took in that province. I might remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beland)

that, Mr. Mercier was one of the lights of the Liberal party. He was premier of Quebec from 1887 to 1891, and he was an advocate of cutting the tie with Britain and of declaring Quebec a great French Canadian nation, to which the Canadians who had gone to the New England states would return. Let me give you a quotation or two from his great Sohmer Park speech. On that occasion Mr. Mercier said:
Taking everything into account French Canadians owe nothing to England. If they had prospered, it was in spite of England, not because of her, and if England had done them any good, it had also done them still greater harm. On the whole we owe nothing to England, and we may separate ourselves from her when the majority constitutionally decides to do so without any pangs of conscience and without any shedding of tears. I advise my compatriots to ask for independence for four leading reasons. From necessity, from patriotism, from the natural advantages of independence, because we are capable of existing as an independent people. As a free man, on this free soil of Canada, I defend The sacred cause of my compatriots, whatever may be their race or their religious belief, and I demand for all, men, women, and children, colonial emanciption and liberty. You have colonial dependence; I offer you independence. You have ruin and misery; I offer you fortune and prosperity. You are now only a colony, ignored by the entire world; I offer you the opportunity of becoming a great people, respected and known by all free nations. Men, women and children, it is for you to choose. You may remain slaves in the colonial state, or become independent and free, in the midst of other peoples, who, by their all-powerful voices, are inviting you to the banquet of the nations.


Mr. PAQUET.: Mr. Mercier was not Prime Minister of Quebec in that year.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say he was.


Eugène Paquet: He was turned down by his province for that language.


William Cameron Edwards: I said that Mr. Mercier was a very prominent Canadian.


Eugène Paquet: Not at that time.


William Cameron Edwards: Oh, yes, he was prominent even at that time. I say he was sufficiently prominent that he in the course of time occupied the position of premier _ of the province of Quebec from which position he was turned out by the people of Quebec in 1891. Later on, when addressing a meeting of the French Canadians of New England, at Fall River, he said:
You who were driven out of the province of Quebec by the constitution and non-progressive policy of that country, as she is ruled by the English, have been more than able to hold your own in another country which is a free republic. I appeal to you to always be ready ' to assist your
compatriots in Canada who are struggling for liberty; and the only thing wanted to release them from their present bondage is independence.'
Now, it has been objected that Mr. Mercier was not at that time a very prominent man. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the same gentleman of whom the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada said:
Mr. Mercier is the greatest Canadian since the time of Papineau. I believe with Mr. Mercier, and I am here to make him prevail.
And Mr. Speaker this is the same man, Hon. Mr. Mercier, to whose memory the legislature of Quebec voted $10,000 to erect a statue.	'


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will my hon. friend allow me to say that he should add to that statement this: Mr. Mercier is the same man who obtained from the legislature of the province of Quebec


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order. The hon. member for Frontenac, having the floor, cannot be interrupted without his permission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have asked his permission.


William Cameron Edwards: Did the hon. gentleman wish to ask a question?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. Does the hon. member know that it is the same Mr. Mercier who obtained from the legislature of Quebec a sum of $10,000 to help the Toronto university, an English institution, after it was destroyed by fire?


William Cameron Edwards: I was not aware of that fact, and I wish to very cordially thank the hon. gentleman for his information. It is most interesting but I really cannot see what bearing it has upon my argument. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that to vote money for the purpose of erecting a statue to the memory of Mr. Mercier is to publicly endorse the cause which Air. Mercier advocated, and if he asked the legislature to give the university of Toronto or any other university a million dollars it does not alter that circumstance at all. It is nothing more nor less than public endorsation and approval of one who taught sedition and scattered the seeds of treason. That is my position and I object to that sort of thing. And I say, Sir, that it would be equally consistent for this House to erect a statue to Louis Riel on Parliament Hill as it was for the legislature of Quebec to erect a statue to a man like Mercier who advocated these views.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: You do not know what you are talking about.


William Cameron Edwards: I say to my hon. friends that it would be as consistent for them to erect a statue to Louis Riel, because although he did incite two rebellions he had at least the courage to undergo himself the risk that he induced other people to take. Now, Mr. Speaker, did the right hon. gentleman who leads this House exert his powerful influence at that time to try and stop that sort of thing. In Toronto, a short time ago, the right hon. gentleman said: That if he had any success in this country he owed it to the fact that he had told his compatriots in Queoec to lay their prejudices and preferences on the altar of their country. But let us follow the course of the right hon. gentleman and see about that. On the 22nd of November, 1885, there was an immense gathering assembled on the Champ de Mars, Montreal, for the purpose of protesting against the execution of Louis Riel. At that meeting a telegram was read from the open and undisguised foes of Great Britain in New York city. That telegram read:
We tender you our warmest sympathy and assure you of our earnest support againsc Orange brutality and English tyranny.
(Signed) J. B. MURPHY,


A. E. FORD.
[Stage Direction]
Did the right hon. gentleman, the leader of this government, arise to protest against that? Did he rise and protest, and appeal to the people there assembled to lay their prejudices and preferences on the altar of their country? No, Mr. Speaker, but as soon as the cheers that had greeted this telegram had subsided, the right hon. gentleman got up and said. If I had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan when the revolt broke out, I would have taken up arms against the government. Is this an isolated instance of such expressions on the part of the premier of this country? No. The very next year after that when he had full time to consider and deliberate, the very next year at Chambly he repeated that assertion and added:
We are now on the classic ground of Canadian liberty. In the graveyards of this country are to be found the bones of those who were not afraid co face British bullets.
Mr. Speaker, I have no faith in the Prime Minister of this country when he gets up in Toronto and tells the people theTe, and tells the country through the press, that he has told the people of his province as patriots to lay their prejudices and preferences on the altar of their country. I say that his whole career shows an entirely different course. If you follow the right hon. gentleman's career a little further what do you find him doing? Four or five years later you find him trying to persuade the people of Canada to adopt a policy which Mr. E. ROY.
Edward Blake said meant nothing more or less than annexation. And, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman at that time did not seem to be at all concerned about Canadian autonomy either. In 1892, page 1142 'Hansard', he said:
I hold out to my fellow-countrymen the idea of independence.
Again, 'Hansard', page 1144, he said:
I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada.
In Boston about the same time he was declaring that it was a fatal mistake to make allegiance-that is British allegiance -the basis of trade; that the present position of Canada to Great Britain could not last, and that separation must take place; that the conduct of Canada and of Great Britain -had been unworthy of the civilization of Canada and Great Britain during the American civil war. And, mind you, Mr. Speaker, that in face of the fact that thousands of Canadians assisted the North in that war and that our records contain the published thanks of the American government to the government of Canada for the wise and neutral course they pursued on that occasion. And, as to the position of Great Britain in connection with that historical period, let me give you the words of the right hon. W. E. Gladstone, who in writing to an American friend said:
I can state that the British government never at any time dealt with the subject of recognizing the southern states in your great civil war, excepting when it learned the proposition of the Emperor Napoleon III., and declined to entertain that proposition without qualification, hesitation, delay or assent.
The whole political career of the Prime Minister is marked by utterances designed to weaken Canadian respect for and loyalty to the motherland.
Eugène Paquet: Will you allow me a question? Do you think that all French-Canadians to-day are not loyal to the British Crown?


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I stated some time ago, very clearly and distinctly-


Eugène Paquet: Please answer.


William Cameron Edwards: Just sit down now; I stated very clearly and distinctly that I accepted the position taken last night by the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet) when he said that the people of the province of Quebec were not disloyal. I am not charging, and I have not said one word to charge the mass of the people of the province of Quebec with disloyalty; I have not said anything that could be construed into such a charge. On the contrary, I have said that the people of the province of Que-

bee have shown a more than ordinary intelligence in resisting the political leaders who for political purposes essayed to lead them from their allegiance, and I do not propose to allow any hon. gentleman from the province of Quebec or from any other province sitting on that side of the House or this to pervert my language. I repeat, Sir, that, by the leader of this government history has been perverted; I say that British diplomacy has been misrepresented by him on more than one occasion. I am not going to enter into details with Tegard to British diplomacy. But, Sir, I believe the time will come when British statesmen will receive more of credit and less of adverse criticism for their diplomacy in connection with Canadian affairs than they have received in times past. I want to say this more:	That it comes with very
bad grace from any member from the province of Quebec to attack British diplomacy, because the people of the province of Quebec have more reason to be grateful to British diplomacy than any other people in the Dominion. I say, Sir, it comes with exceeding bad grace from the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, for. Sir, if Canadian diplomacy as represented by the right hon. gentleman himself and his party had succeeded in 1891 we would not have any Canada to-day-we would be an annex of the United States. When trouble broke out in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand responded with alacrity; Canada held back. Now, supposing in the case of the item that came up in the House the other day for a vote of $50,000 for the sufferers in Paris, any hon. gentleman m this House had got up and opposed it, saying:	I do not believe that there is any
distress there; I believe that all this talk is the talk of a lot of scare-mongers; I think you should wait a while and if, after careful investigation, you find there is real distress, then instead of sending the money to France to help these people you should buy Canadian wheat and have it ground in Canadian mills and send the flour over to France. Now, Sir, if we had taken that position, we would have taken an absolutely ridiculous position, and any French Canadians in this House who would have supported any such proposition would be justly branded by their neople as having not much regard for their own flesh and blood over in France. And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the position that the right hon. gentleman has taken in this House and that his delegates took at the imperial conference; that is the position they placed the British Canadian people in, branding them before the people of the world as being callous and indifferent to their own flesh and blood. I have good reason for my lack of confidence in the professions of the Prime Minister. I want to make the application more general; I
want to call the attention of this House, and especially the attention of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to the kind of literature his party circulated in the province of Quebec just prior to the elections of 1896. In the Liberal campaign literature of that year you will find strictures respecting the expenditures by the Conservative government for the better equipment of our soldiers, and notwithstanding that under the Conservative regime the expenditure on militia was about $1 for every $7 that this government is spending now. This is the kind of stuff that was published in the pamphlet:
Why all the armaments if we are not to have war, and why fight for England.
That is the very question that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are asking to-day.
Why all the armaments if we are not to have war? And why fight for England? The electors will recall that these hig and litt e chiefs who are always most anxious to demonstrate that they are more patriotic than anybody else, more loyal, and ready to throw us into war for the benefit of others are not those who carry the burden.
These carbines, these guns will be used by the electors. They are considered good enough to be chained to the cannon. _ Tupper, Angers, Taillon, will be in their ministerial offices, not surrounded by death but with joy in their hearts and a glass of champagne ill their hands. Once more why all thes, rifles, these bayonets, if the good Tuppei and company do not meditate some coup ?
They would send our children to Africa, to Asia, from where they would never return.
If you vote for the blue candidate you will approve of these warlike preparations.^.... Vote for Laurier and his candidates, if you would have your country enjoy peace, and not expose yourself to be sent away some fine morning to some other country, leaving your wives, your children and all that is dear to you.
When the hon. member for Pictou gets up in this House and charges the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) or the representative of any other constituency with raising the race cry, he is exhibiting an unmitigated gall and a cheek which cannot be compared to anything on the American continent except the Rocky mountains or the prairies, for it is as col-lossal as the one and as boundless as the other. If you want further evidence, let me give you one or two. The hon. A. G. Jones, who was Minister of Militia in the Mackenzie government, used this language in the speech he made at Halifax: 'When the British flag is hauled down from Citadel Hill, I will take off my hat and cheer.'


William Stevens Fielding: I was present at the meeting and I know that Mr. Jones did not use any such words.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what words he did use?


William Stevens Fielding: No, and it is not necessary that I should. Mr. A. G. Jones was the son and grandson of United Empire loyalists, and never in his life uttered any sentiment at variance with loyalty to the British Crown.


William Cameron Edwards: I hope that the hon. gentleman's statement is correct. This is not the first time this charge has been made, and, if I am not much mistaken, it has hitherto been unchallenged.


William Stevens Fielding: It has always been denied.


William Cameron Edwards: Take the case of Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ellis was a Liberal candidate m New Brunswick in 1896. In 1884 he said:	'
Nothing could be more unfortunate for Canada than the British connection.
Mr. Ellis has since been made a senator by this government, and is, I believe spoken of universally as a very decent fellow indeed. Probably his views have since changed. Another instance is that of the Hon. Louis H. Davies, now Sir Louis Davies. Speaking of the Canadian Pacific railway, that gentleman said:
It is a contract from which there is no escape, politically or commercially, except
Statesand that 1S annexati<m to the United
by the Liberal party and paid for by them, that party may have a few in stock yet, and I would ask my hon. friend to be good enough to send me one. Germany is not without ambition. She has the same spirit that actuated Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and Carthage in the olden times; and which later impelled Spain, France, Russia and Japan to do and dare. Her population is increasing at the rate of nearly a million a year, and she requires colonies for that rapidly increasing population. Her army is the largest, the best equipped and the most thoroughly disciplined in the world. There is only one thing that stands between her and the domination of all Europe, and that is the British navy. There is only one thing which prevents her being the greatest power in the world, and that is the British navy. You will find therein sufficient motive to excite the ambition of such an ambitious country. But if you are looking for motives, I would ask you what motive Germany had in 1864 in attacking Denmark. What was her motive for attacking Austria in 1866, and France in 1870? From France she took the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and exacted an indemnity of $1,000,000,000. Yet in 1868 and as late as November, 1869, Napoleon III assured General Lebrun that the relations between France and Prussia were as good as could be desired, and as late as June 30, 1879, Emile Olivier said that never was peace so cordially assured. And within two weeks Germany and France were at war.
Sir Louis Davies occupied a seat in thd Liberal cabinet formed in 1896. Another instance I might give is that of Senator Choquette, who was the member for Mont-magny, and one of the Grit whips in the parliament of 1896. In the Montreal 'Witness ' of July 28, 1897, Senator Choquette is reported to have said: ' I would vote for annexation to-morrow if it were to come before the House.'
Hon. gentlemen opposite pretend to believe that there is no reason to apprehend any danger from Germany. They ask what motive has Germany to go to war with England? Well, it is the old story of lust of power and domination.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN.: Might I ask a question? The hon. gentleman spoke a great deal about a pamphlet circulated in the province of Quebec, I would like to have his opinion of a pamphlet circulated in Ontario and the western provinces, called the ' Duty of the Hour.' To my mind' it is one of the worst publications ever circulated.


William Cameron Edwards: I never had an opportunity of reading that pamphlet, and so am not in a position to speak concerning it; but inasmuch as I believe it was circulated Mr. FIELDING.
I think there is ample evidence of an emergency impending. I am not going to give many quotations. That has been done very well indeed by those who preceded me, but I want to read one or two very short ones. Lord Charles Beresford said quite recently:
We have arrived at a great crisis in our history when, if we do not ourselves put things right we shall be too late.
Sir Edward Grey said:
When the German programme is completed, Germany will have a fleet of thirty-three Dreadnoughts. The fleet will be the most powerful the world has ever yet seen. . . . That imposes upon us the necessity of rebuilding the whole of our fleet. That is the situation. ... If we fall into a position of inferiority we should cease to count for anything among the nations of Europe, and we should be fortunate if our liberty were left, and we did not become the conscript appendage of some stronger power. That is a brutal way of stating the case, but it is the truth.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) echoed these sentiments, and described the situation as ' most grave, and to us not only unforeseen but unexpected. . .the falsification of one of the hypotheses on which we had hitherto proceeded.' He gave the fol-

lowing figures for the respective strength of Great Britain and Germany in the 'critical month ' of April, 1912:
British-
16,	certainly,
20 (with extra four ships).
German-
11, certainly,
17,	if the acceleration of the programme continues.
Mr. McKenna gave the following esti mate:
British. German.
December, 1910	
10	9July, 1911	
14	13April, 1912	
16	17
That is without counting the extra four ships to which I referred a moment ago. Now, as regards this question of emergency, let us see for a moment the position of the British government in that regard. The British government, in March, 1909, had in their programme four Dreadnoughts and possibly four more if, on considering the state of affairs, these latter four were found necessary. They looked carefully into the matter, considered what other nations were doing, and, on the 26th of July, 1909, Mr. McKenna said that the other four, which had been spoken of in March of that year, would certainly have to be built. Now, Sir, add to that, some words taken from the speech from the Throne delivered no later than last Monday:
The requirements of the naval defence of the empire have made it necessary to prepose a substantial increase in the cost of the navy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend that when we on this side of the House claim that there is an emergency impending, we do not deserve to be styled ' scaremongers.' But, if you would have even further proof, allow me to give you still another authority, and one who, I have no doubt, will appeal to every hon. member on the other side of the House-no less an authority than the right hon. premier of this country. Speaking in this House last March, the right hon. gentleman uttered these words:
This brings us to something which is in the air at present and which no British subject can ignore. For a hundred years and more the naval supremacy of Great Britain has been unquestioned-nay more, British supremacy on the seas has been so absolute that no one supposed it could ever be disputed. But this is an age when events happen very fast. We have learned lately that the foremost military power of the world at present is contemplating perhaps to cope with Great Britain on the high seas. We have, perhaps, reason to believe, as we have just been told that Germany is building more ships than Great Britain and building them more rapidly. Possibly there is a conclusion to be drawn from this, and the only conclusion is that Germany intends some time to do with Great Britain on the high seas what she has done with France on land. Everybody knows, it is a matter of history that Prussia had for years been silently preparing to cope with France, which, up to that time, had been the greatest military nation in the world, that Prussia waited its opportunity, and when that opportunity came, delivered a mortal blow. If it be true then that Germany is organizing on the seas, no British subject can afford to be indifferent to the prospect.
Well, Sir, we on this side are not indifferent to that prospect, but I contend that hon. gentlemen opposite, in the present policy, are indifferent to- the prospect referred to by their leader. And, if you take these words of the premier and place them before any audience in the Dominion of Canada and ask the members- of that audience what these words mean, I believe that every man will say that these words were meant to indicate- that the situation was grave, and that the premier apprehended danger to Britain and to the empire from Germany. And, if any man in that audience should need anything further to confirm him in that view, he could take these further words of the premier, spoken a little later on the occasion already referred to:
Vigilance and eternal vigilance must be the watchword to-day, not only in England, but in Canada and every other part of the British empire.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, including their leader, now tell us that there is no emergency, and that we are ' scaremongers,' who believe that there is an emergency impending. Sir, not even Robert Blatchford himself has used language more significant or more pregnant with alarm than that used by the leader of this government last March. If there is no cause for apprehension on our part, what is the necessity for the plunge into this new policy? If no danger is to he apprehended from Germany, why not submit this policy-involving, as it does, the expenditure during the .next four or five years of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 and, in the near future, an expenditure running into hundreds of millions- to the mature consideration and decision of the people of Canada?
Well, Sir, will this proposed flotilla of unarmoured cruisers add anything to the strength of the British navy or be an effective and complete defence for Canada itself? Is it not true that we shall have still to depend on England to protect us from the vital thrust of war, while we toot our tin horns and provide a toy fleet against possible and improbable pin pricks. We pretend to assume insignificant minor risks from stray raiding cruisers which we very well know would not dare to take the risk cf going three thousand miles from their

base of supplies, but we leave it to England to provide our real protection. If England provides such protection, no large vessels can get at us. This government is assuming that Great Britain will still Tetain her general command of the seas. If the right hon. Prime Minister had any intention of strengthening the empire on the seas, he would have supplemented the British navy where the British navy needed supplementing. Where is the British navy weakest, according to the expression of opinion of her best statesmen? It is relatively weakest in Dreadnoughts. And where is it strongest? Figures show to us that it is relatively strongest in cruisers. And I contend that if there were any real desire on the part of this government to strengthen the British navy, they would give assistance where the British navy was relatively weakest, and not where it was relatively strongest. On the 3rd of the present month, the hon. member for South York (Mr. W.
F.	Maclean) proposed this question to the leader of the government:


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? The interpretation clause of the Bill says that ' emergency means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended.' If it requires one year to construct the plant and four years to construct the navy, what would he do if such an emergency arose in the meantime?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think, Mr. Speaker, we are getting pretty far from the question we have in hand just now.
Surely, that was a very proper question to ask. And surely I am Tight in saying that from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from one end of Canada to the other, there are thousands of Canadians who are asking that question to-day, and who want an answer. That was the answer given by the Prime Minister, who introduced this policy to the^ House. Then, take the position of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). He was asked some questions by [DOT]the hon. member for West Algoma:


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has the minister any proposal to make in regard to providing for an emergency in the meantime?


Frederick William Borden: Our friends of the opposition are doing that?
A statesmanlike answer, was it not? A nice way of crawling out of a hole.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then I have to ask my hon. friend if the proposals of the opposition are satisfactory to him ?


Frederick William Borden: I am not aware that the members of this side of the House have treated any of the opposition speakers, particularly leading members of the opposition, in this way. I can stand any amount of heckling or nonsense, but I did not come here for that purpose to-day, and I think perhaps I might be allowed to get Mr. EDWARDS.
through with my statement and allow somebody else to follow.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I must beg the minister's pardon; I had no desire whatever to embarrass him in his speech. I asked him a question, and had it not been for his answer, nothing further would have been said.


Frederick William Borden: I think the question he put as to an emergency is not a proper question to interject.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I can understand that, if the minister did not want to answer it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty position for any cabinet minister to put himself in. A question as to what this country is going to do if England and Germany, or England and any other country, come to blows in the next few years, is, in the estimation of the Minister of Militia of Canada, utter nonsense, and should never have been asked at all; and when the question is put to him he almost sheds tears, and pleads to this side of the House not to ask such questions, that he is a leading member of the House, and therefore, should be respected because of his high and mighty position, and because of the gold braid he wears on his clothes once in a while. Now, Sir, I am sorry the Minister of Militia is not in his place at present, but we have two or three other ministers here. I want to ask the hon. the Postmaster General, who may be regarded, I think, as one of the leading men on that side, certainly one of the leading men, if the Minister of Militia counts himself as one-I want to ask the Postmaster General if he is prepared to say to-day what this government will do in the event of an emergency occurring in the next few years, before their fleet is completed. Will the Postmaster General answer that question?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert, but I can tell my hon. friend what I believe would be the duty of any self respecting government in case of emergency overtaking the mother country. I think that Canada should certainly lend her navy to the mother country, and assist in the defence of the mother country.


William Cameron Edwards: The Postmaster General did not understand my question. I am asking him what the government would propose to do in the event of this emergency occurring before their navy is constructed, that is within the next four or five years. The Prime Minister says it will be five years before their fleet is ready; now I am asking the hon. gentleman what the government would do if an emergency occurred before that time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no hesitation in saying that in case of an emergency occurring before we had a navy, Canada as a whole would support the mother country.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman has given us no intimation how they would

support the mother country; they will have nothing to support her with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We would support her with our assistance.


William Cameron Edwards: In what way?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Substantially.


William Cameron Edwards: In what way substantially? Would it be done by a contribution, or would it be done by stumping Quebec and Ontario and the other parts of Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by his question. I may tell him this, that Canada did her duty at the time of the South African war.
I may go a little further, since my hon. friend has addressed this question particularly to me, and say that, as he spoke a moment ago of the attitude of the province of Quebec on this occasion


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to let even so great a man as the Postmaster General interject a speech here. If he is prepared to answer my question, I will let him do so with pleasure, but I do not propose to let him take up my time by making a speech. .


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was going to say to my hon. friend that the mother country would naturally expect that help would come to her as it did at the time of the South African waT; and I may add for his own information, since he seems to take me as a target in the present instance, that a brother of mine served in the South African war for his King.


William Cameron Edwards: I am not impugning the loyalty of the Postmaster General, I am asking him a very simple question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And I gave a simple answer, I think.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, exceedingly simple in one sense of the word, much too simple for a gentleman occupying the position of the Postmaster General. I would expect from him an answer that was not quite so simple, one that contained moTe information. Well, it seems impossible to get a definite statement from the Postmaster General. I am not picking on the Postmaster General particularly. I might have asked the Finance Minister the question, but I asked the Postmaster General because he has spoken in this debate, and has given a long and eloquent address, and I asked him in the absence of the Prime Minister and in the absence of the Minister of Militia and Defence. I hope he will not think that a humble member like myself would think of picking on the Postmaster General. Now, sir, we are in this position. The Postmaster General says that in the event of an emergency Canada
would do its duty as it did when the South African war broke out. Well, when the South African war broke out it was the people of Canada that sent the soldiers and not the government. Now I. think every man in this House, no matter on which side of it he sits, will agree with me that the emergency, if it does occur, the battle, when it does come, will he on the sea, and we will not have an opportunity to send soldiers if the fight is on the sea. Now, Sir, we want to be in' the position of being able to render assistance to the motherland in case of an emergency. That is the way I feel about this matter, that is the way I feel as a Canadian, as a descendant of the United Empire Loyalists, since other hon. members on both sides have declared themselves to be of that stock. I may also mention that I am of United Empire Loyalist stock, and I take pride in it. Now, as a Canadian I feel, that if a war should break out between England and Germany, and if New Zealand and Australia were represented on the firing line by their Dreadnoughts, and Canada was the only daughter nation which was not so represented, I would feel, as a Canadian, very sorry indeed, and I believe that sentiment is shared by the vast majority of the people of Canada. They would geatly regret the occasion. And I feel it is too great a risk to take. As Canadians we do not wish to Tun the risk of being unable to render assistance if the need should occur.
There has been something said here about imperialism. The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Rivet) seemed to think there were two kinds of imperialism. There is only one kind of imperialism so far as I know. I have no hesitation in subscribing to the words: When England is at war, Canada is at war'. I do not want half a dozen interpretations put on those words either, I want them literally. I believe there are no statesmen to-day in the world who better appreciate the horrors of war than English statesmen. I believe that, I have full confidence in the humanity and the judgment of the statesmen of England. I firmly believe that Great Britain would not go to war with any country except it were to maintain the honour and integrity of the British empire. So I say there is only one kind of imperialism for me. Believing that Great Britain will only go to war to maintain the honour and the integrity of the British empire, I say that when England is at war, Canada is at war. That is my sentiment, and I do not attach any rider to it at all. The matter of cost has been referred to by some hpn. members. On this side of the House the leader of the opposition proposes two Dreadnoughts at a cost of $20,000,000. The right hon. the First Minister proposes an expenditure during the next

four or five years of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 and an untold expenditure in the future. If hon. gentlemen object to the principle of sending Canadian money out of Canada over to England to buy Dreadnoughts why do they proceed at once to violate that principle by sending $2,000,000 over the seas to buy a Rainbow and a Niobe? They violate their principle although they talk for hours about it. Now, one word with regard to the protection of trade routes. It has been said that this navy is necessary for the protection of our trade routes. Our principal trade is with Great Britain. I think that no member of this House will contest my statement when I sav that at the present time there is only one European nation whose activity along ship-bulding lines could be taken as a menace to the trade route between Canada and Great Britain. That country is Germany. I will ask you. Mr. Speaker, to take a glance at the map of Europe and see what the position of Germany is. Is it not true that Germany, in order to get her war vessels to the Atlantic to attack our trade routes, would have to defeat either the British Channel squadron or else defeat the British squadron in the North sea? There are only two ways in which any German war vessel could attack our trade route.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: Would not the boats of the Geiman-iHamburg-American line blockade the whole of the Atlantic coast of Canada?	_


William Cameron Edwards: How are the boats of the Hamburg or any other line going to get into the Atlantic ocean to attack our trade routes?


David Alexander Gordon: Out of New York.


William Cameron Edwards: Are they all going to be in New York?


David Alexander Gordon: They ply 'between Hamburg and New York.


William Cameron Edwards: And your claim is that this fleet you are going to build will be able to handle anything of the kind?


David Alexander Gordon: Beyond any question of doubt, so the best authorities say.


William Cameron Edwards: I differ from you on that. In my judgment common sense and prudence would dictate that the proper thing for Canada to do would be to strengthen the British navy in the North sea where the test of strength is most likely to occur.
Now, let' us consider our position with regard to another country. Let us consider the position of Canada with regard to the United States and see what this government has done. The Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 has been openly violated by the United States ever since this govern-Mr. EDWARDS.	"
ment came into power. There is not a fort along the American frontier which existed previous to 1817. All the -forts have been replaced with modern up to date structures, and behind these forts are 6,000 American soldiers. The Lake Champlain and Niagara districts are fully equipped with cavalry, infantry, and batteries of artillery. Cleveland has a training school for naval purposes. There are naval corps at Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester, Chicago and Duluth, and a post has been established in Dakota-this, I contend, is in violation of the compact or agreement entered into in 1817, and without one word of protest from this government. On the lakes the United States have a large force of cutters armed with quickfiring guns, and lately this government permitted the United' States to place war vessels on all the Great Lakes, thereby deliberately placing central Canada absolutely at the -mercy of the United States. Yet, they talk of defending the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Not one move has been made to prevent the United States from violating that treaty, no protest on the part of this government. The United States have gone on, and I claim that they would -absolutely control all central Canada in case of a difficulty arising between Canada and the United -States. Our forts do not amount to anything. Take the fort at Barriefield, for instance-what is it? If you took a modern -cannon and fired it off there, the whole thing would fall to pieces. A good lusty crowd of boys might attack that fort with every confidence, with nothing better than snowballs and pop-guns. They have a rickety old bridge across from Barriefield to Kingston, and they dare not take a cannon across that bridge at a trot, notwithstanding the fact that they pay $1,400 a year rent for it for military purposes. While the fort at Kingston is crumbling into decay, they have something else there which, of course, would be a great protection to Canada ilithe event of trouble-$6,000 cottages for men drawing $20 a month salary. Fancy the position of Canada with British naval supremacy gone. We would simply be at the mercy of any country that saw fit to attack us. The right hon. gentleman who leads this House says that independence is Canada's ultimate destiny. I entirely dissent from that view. Situated as- we are, in my judgment, it would simply, mean ruin for Canada. A country with 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 people would be a small affair in this day of giant nations and great armaments, and independence would make us practically helpless. Not only that, but if the imperial tie was broken, Canada would have no weight or influence whatever in the world. The government and railways of Canada now owe over $800,000,000 to Great Britain. That represents nearly the whole of their bonded

debt. In addition to that, vast sums are owed there on account of municipal and other bonds. As regards our indebtedness to England, I wish to place on ' Hansard ' a statement of the well know writer, Mr. J. Cartel! Hopkins:
What Great Britain has done for Canada.
When Canada was in its birth-pains of United States revolution, invasion, and attempted conquest, Great Britain was unstinted in her supply of blood and men and money; when our youthful nation, that was to be, needed soldiers to support its growth and maintain its interests and hold its territory, British troops and fortifications were maintained here at an expenditure of $300,000,000 during the nineteenth century; when our growing commerce became a matter of international concern, as our vast, unbroken territories had so long been an object of international cupidity, they rested securely within the scope of Britain's naval supremacy; when British dignity and Canadian feeling were shamed by the Trent affair, 10,000 British soldiers came to Canada as fast as ships could bring them here ; when the Fenian invasion illustrated the helplessness of a country like ours, lying alongside the territory of a great power, Britain paid the damages rather than risk war with a country stirred to fever heat by passions of the moment, which have now, happily, disappeared.
If Canadian settlers needed roads and canals and bridges in early days British money supplied them; if the Indians for half a century required expensive coddling and yearly gifts and payments, the money was provided by Great Britain; if our churches wanted vast sums for pioneer work and continued development, British voluntary^ societies contributed some $100,000,000 during the nineteenth century; if railways, such as the Intercolonial, had to be constructed, at a period when provincial credit was poor and interprovincial unity a dream, Great Britain guaranteed the loans to a total amount of $25,000,000; if in recent years countless enterprises, private and national, required money, it has been freely accorded in London up to a present total of $1,500,000,000 which is invested in the Dominion; if we wanted^ to build canals, or construct a Canadian Pacific, or a Grand Trunk railway, or a Canadian Northern, or a Grand Trunk Pacific, we have readily obtained the money in London at a rate of interest and with a facility which no small nation not under the British flag, and not having British power and stability to guarantee its position, could possibly have commanded; if, since confederation, our trade upon the seas of the world, totalling over $6,300,000,000, has never been disturbed by even a threat, or a shadow of a fear, it was due to the protection of the imperial navy; if the French Canadian people to-day have the full and free exercise of their religion, their laws, and perfect racial equality, it is due to British guarantees of liberty in the beginning, with British constitutional instincts in the rest of the Canadian people since that time; if all Canadians can now most fully recognize that the greatest privilege in the world-that of being a British
citizen-and the most vital world-force in promoting and ensuring peace and advancing the progress of our common civilization, are alike bound up in British power, they cannot but also recognize that these things depend upon a colossal expenditure which is drawing upon the life blood of the British nation, and which must be maintained qn behalf of the empire at large, as well as of the British people.
Some practical considerations and temporary embarrassments may advise limitation in our help at this juncture; every consideration of manliness and national instinct and Canadian honour seems to demand action.


J. CASTELL HOPKINS.
[Stage Direction]
Toronto, March 24.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the only position for Canada to take is one of continued unity with the empire. I contend that the policy proposed by the premier in regard to this navy is a policy making for separation, and I want to express my own opinion flatly, that in view of the right hon. gentleman's record in this country I am not prepared to trust him with the power of saying whether or not that navy shall go or shall not go to the assistance of Britain. That is my own opinion and I want to express it freely. I dissent from the view that Canada's destiny is independence. I am proud of my British citizenship; I am proud to belong to an empire which comprises one-third of the earth's surface and which contains probably one-fourth of the people on this planet. Eminent philologists tell us that during the last 100 years the people speaking the French language have increased sixty per cent, that the people speaking the German language have increased 110 per cent, and that the people speaking the English language have increased 600 per cent. The same eminent authorities also estimate that at the end of 100 years there will be in this world some 96,000,000 people speaking French, 124,000,000 speaking German, and over 800,000,000 speaking the English tongue, of whom some 80,000,000 will be in the Dominion of Canada. That estimate of 80,000,000 for the Dominion of Canada is not so very different from the estimate of the great Canadian, Lord Strathcona. And, Sir, whether these figures are correct or not, they express the idea of eminent authorities, and they certainly go to show that the Anglo-Saxon race is to continue to be the dominant race in this world. Sir, in the course of time the Dominion of Canada must have a population larger than the population of the British isles. I do not look forward to independence as Canada's destiny. I believe in a higher and nobler destiny for Canada. I look forward (though of course I will never live to see the day) to the time when Canada will have a larger population
[Stage Direction]
than Great Britain, and still be a portion of the British empire. I look forward to that day when Canada will be the dominating and controlling factor in the affairs of our empire. I say, Sir, that for Canadians that is a grander and nobler destiny to look forward to than independence or annexation either. The late Principal Grant whom everybody recognized as one of Canada's brightest and brainiest sons, said that he believed the day would come when the Dominion of Canada would be the link that would bind the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race together; meaning the Anglo-Saxon race within the confines of the British empire, and that other great branch of the race which inhabits the United States, Well, Sir, I think we can look forward with pride and hope to the time when Canada, because of her population, because of her vast resources, and her great wealth, may occupy a dominant position in the British empire, and be the link which will join that empire to the United States-not politically, but in an alliance which will be able to say to the world: Henceforth there shall be no more war, no more Dreadnoughts; no more forging of cannon; henceforth devote your energies to the amelioration of the condition of your peoples and advance the arts of peace I believe that is the noblest destiny for us to look forward to. I believe that the time i3 reasonably near when Canada will occupy that position, Are we of the Anglo-Saxon race in Canada so poor in national spirit that we shall quietly submit to be led like vassels by any political party, or any political leader to our own humiliation and shame? This policy enunciated by the Prime Minister, and by his government, is, I firmly believe part of a plan to bring about separation. Canada's destiny is in our hands; the issue for us to decide upon is not one as between giving Dreadnoughts and building Bristols; the issue we have to decide now is as to whether we shall turn in the direction of separation and independence, or rejecting that, turn ourselves to a closer unity between Canada and the empire at large. Our fellow citizens appeal to us from across the sea to stand by them and co-operate with them in the upholding of the British empire; in the language of the great poet of the empire they say to us:
" Sharers of our glorious past,
Brothers, must we part at last?
Shall we not through good and ill Cleave to one another still?
Sons be welded each and all Into one imperial whole,
One with Britain, heart and soul!
One life, one flag, one fleet, one throne! Britons, hold your own."
Now, Mr. Speaker, to my mind the question is simply this:	Shall we stand for
William Cameron Edwards: the one flag, one fleet, one empire, or, shall we forget our race and blindly follow the right hon. the Prime Minister in his policy of separation? If, we should pursue the latter course then in time to come it may be truly said that Canadians:
Living shall forfeit their fair renown And doubly dying shall go down To the vile dust from whence it sprung, Unwept, unhonoured and unsung.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Frontenac takes his seat I would like to ask him if he would be kind enough to allow me to put him a question. He has raised quite a doubt as to the loyalty of the French Canadian Liberal leaders in the province of Quebec; would he be good enough to tell me the nationality, the political allegiance, and the object of those who burned down the parliament buildings in Montreal in 1848.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker. There is no member of this House to whom I would be more glad to impart information than to the hon. member (Mr. Talbot) because I recognizes the fact, as I am sure every hon. gentleman recognizes it, that there is no gentleman in this House who stands more in need of information. But inasmuch as I cannot hope to fill up the void which exists in the cranium of the hon. gentleman in the short space at my disposal, I will leave that question which he has ask ed me for further consideration.


Mr.  H. S.@: BELAND (Beauce) (Translation)-Mr. Speaker, I am taking up this important question of the naval defence as a citizen of the greatest, most populous and most prosperous self-governing colony of Great Britain. True, I belong to the French Canadian minority, but, following on the footsteps of those eminent countrymen of mine who for a period of sixty years have been the leaders of the Tace, Lafon-taine, Cartier, Laurier, I should in dealing with a question which interests Canada as a whole view it from a Canadian standpoint, and not lose sight of the fact that, being a Canadian, I am a subject of the King of England.
The quality of British subjects carries with it inestimable advantages and privileges, but also on the other hand implies duties and obligations which it is not permissible to ignore. Under every clime the British subject commands respect and finds his interests protected. And while I do not wish just now to go more deeply into a consideration of that subject, I think I am justified in stating that there exists no country under the sun where the word ' liberty ' is better understood and put to more constant use than England, whether it be in religious, civil or political matters. Ail of these British dominions have hence-

forth enjoyed the greatest security against outsiders, under the protection of that navy the most powerful which has navigated the seas in the course of centuries. It is indeed a matter of pride for every Canadian to proclaim himself at all times and in all countries a British subject.
On the other hand, there is no precious boon but has as its counterpart certain duties and obligations. In the present emergency, the creation of a marine presents this especially happy feature! that it evidences our loyalty to England while at the same time promoting the best interests of the Dominion.	j
When Sir George Etienne Cartier, in 1862, introduced his militia Bill, and in 1868 his fortification Bill, he was working in the true interests of Canada. An experience of fifty years has shown it. In supplementing our means of defence on land by providing means of defence on sea-a still greater necessity in view of our growing sea-going trade-the government is carrying out the idea of the man who may be termed the father of confederation. Loyalty to Canada, loyalty to England, such are the facts evidenced by the measure submitted to the House.
The discussion of that important Bill, which for the past few weeks has monopolized the attention of this parliament, has been the occasion of excesses of speech which cannot be ignored or left unanswered. And despite my anxiety, following on such a prolonged debate, to take up your time and that of the House for a few moments only, I should not forego the task of referring to and refuting certain charges brought against the French Canadian members of this House.
One cannot help wondering how charges so utterly contradictory can be proferred by two hon. members both occupying side by side prominent positions within the ranks of the Conservative party, and who for nearly twenty years have had a hand in its management, who were political mates yesterday, and who although apparently divided are still allies for electoral purposes, and will to-morrow be even closer allies, you may be sure. I refer to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). In the eyes of these two hon. gentlemen we are disloyal; disloyal to the province of Quebec, according to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, because we are doing too much for England; disloyal to England, according to the hon. member for North Toronto, because our Bill is too Canadian, too much in the interest of the province of Quebec, and not enough in the interest of England.
It is hardly necessary to attempt a refutation of such a childish charge. We acknowledge that this measure for naval defence is of a nature to greatly promote the prestige of England; but I may say to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that it is in providing for the defence of Canada primarily that we are helping to enhance the prestige of England, and that in so doing, we are contributing to the upbuilding of the nation, inasmuch as we are promoting our interests as Canadians. We are living within an empire, we recognize that it is an estimable advantage for Canada to be part of the greatest empire of the world, and I have no hesitation in stating that the province of Quebec has a greater interest in remaining under the protection of the British Crown than any of the eight English-speaking provinces which together with ours make up confederation.
England safeguards the religious and national interests of French Canadians. In helping to uphold its prestige, we are not such improvident trustees or such disloyal representatives as others would fain picture us to be, but we are working indirectly towards the maintenance of these special privileges or rights, if you prefer, which the province of Quebec enjoys from the national and religious standpoint.
Accordingly, associated as we are with eight English-speaking provinces which apparently are unanimous in favouring the idea of a contribution of some sort, I maintain that far from shewing disloyalty, we are taking the only stand of a nature to promote the development of the province of Quebec, in peace and harmony with the remainder of Canada. Any other position would be likely to isolate it, and prepare for it a very dark future in the Dominion.
As regards the hon. member for North Toronto, his attitude is very different from that of his friend from Jacques Cartier. In his eyes we are disloyal to England. Why? Because we refuse to abide by the policy of the Conservative leader, which provides for the establishment of a Canadian navy entirely at the disposal of the British Admiralty, besides giving away 25 millions to Great Britain. On that account, we are taxed with disloyalty to Great Britain. Here again it is indirectly against the province of Quebec that the hon. member for North Toronto directs his blows when charging Sir Wilfrid with disloyalty. There is nothing to surprise us here; he has repeatedly done so.
Is he not aware of what happened in 1776, when our forefathers indignantly rejected the insidious proposals of emissaries from the United States in arms against England, their mother country. At the time we had not yet obtained from England those privileges conferred by the Quebec Act.
Does he not know with what patriotism, what courage and what success a further generation of our forefathers repulsed the

American invaders of 1812 and thereby retained Canada to the British Crown.
Is he not aware that from the time of Bishop Plessis in 1794 down to the present archbishop of Quebec, all the leading dignitaries of the Catholic clergy have on all occasions advised the French Canadian people to show the greatest loyalty and remain unswerving in their atachment to Great Britain.
Does he not know that it was Sir George Etienne Cartier, a French Canadian who introduced and carried through the House the Militia Bill and that relating to fortifications, measures like the present one having for their object to relieve the mother country of part of the burden of Canada's defence? Does he not know that his old-time leader, Sir John Macdonald, in London, on a memorable ocoasion stated that Queen Victoria had no more loyal subjects in Canada than those speaking the French language and professing the Catholic religion.
Is he not aware that the first preferential tariff clauses in favour of British products coming into our market were introduced by a French Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that same man whom he has attempted to injure in the eyes of the English-speaking people of this country by imputing to him disloyal motives on account of the so-called inadequacy of the naval service Bill. Surely, he is aware of all those facts. But the object which the hon. member for North Toronto has evidently in mind, is to develop an ill-feeling towards Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by making him pass for a disloyal subject of the King. The Conservative leaders have divided the task between themselves. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, unable to find any solid ground for attacking the provisions of the Bill, tries to frighten the French Canadians with the scarecrow of militarism, and purposely exaggerates its tenor; the hon. member for North Toronto, on the contrary endeavours to minimize its purport with a view to working on the feelings of English-speaking Canadians; the same old dishonest and disloyal tactics which will he exposed to light before long, on the part of two political leaders who seemingly divided for the present will be seen to-morrow hugging one. another after the the elections are over.
Mr. Speaker, before discussing on its merits the Naval Defence Bill now submitted to parliament, it is in order that we should consider the proposal emanating from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and set forth in some newspapers, of submitting the measure to the people for their approval, under that fallacious pretense that the question is a novel one.
Numerous reasons and facts, which cannot be controverted, stand in the way of Mr. BELAND.	.
such a proposal. In the first place, there is the stand taken more than seven years, ago, that is in 1902, by the delegates of the Canadian government at the Colonial Conference in London. At that conference, our ministers stated that our government had decided on establishing a Canadian naval service. They spoke in unequivocal terms. They stated in the first place! that the time had oome for Canada .to relieve the mother country of part of the burden laid on the shoulders of the British taxpayer, through our assuming the cost of defending our coasts and sea ports; and in second place, they asserted the principle of self-government in the matter of naval defence as well as in matters of militia, and the unswerving attachment of Canada to that country.
I shall now read to the House an extract from the report of the conference of 1902 on this subject; it forms part of the memorandum submitted by the Canadian ministers :
At present Canadian expenditui-es for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval side of defence as. well. On the sea coasts of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, ant it is hoped that at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion, the ministers repeat that, while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purpose of defence in proportion to the insereasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures shall he so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which he now bears ; and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of experienced imperial officers, so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self-government, which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.
It will be seen by the above extract that the question which it is proposed to submit to a plebiscite is not a novel one. It was discussed in London before the two delegates of Canada, and it is in the presence of representatives from all parts of the British Empire that the opinions just quoted was expresed.


Mr. MONK (Translation).: Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The question brought up before the conference of 1902 related solely to the defence of the coun-

trv. and in the same way at the conference of 1907 the question of the defence of the empire was not to any degree discussed. It was in 1909 only that the question of the defence of the empire as a whole was brought up, and that was, of course, after the general elections of 1908.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The question which the hon. member wishes to put turns out to be a speech on a small scale.
I for -one cannot perceive much difference between the questions discussed at the conference of 1902 and subsequently at those of 1907 -and 1909.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the facts which I am bringing forward just now occurred in August, 1902. At the opening of the enduing session of parliament, that is on March 13, 1903, the speech from the throne referred to the Colonial Conference in London, and to the part taken therein by the Canadian delegates in connection with naval defence. The discussion which then took place in connection with the moving of the address in answer to the speech from the Throne clearly set forth the feeling of the House. ' Hansard ' shows that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, leader of the government, Mr. R. L. Borden, leader of the opposition, and Mr. Bourassa, spoke on that occasion, and these three gentlemen, in my humble opinion were supposed to voice the opinions of all parties and sections in parliament as well as outside of it.
Nevertheless, favourable comments only were forthcoming as to the outcome of the Colonial Conference. Therefore I say it would be childish and hardly fair to contend to-day that the principle embodied in the policy submitted to the House was adversely commented upon. No, Mr. Speaker, not a single voice was raised in this House to apprise the government that their representatives in London ' adopted a nefarious policy,' no parliament was unanimous in approving of the stand they had taken. Henceforth, the question was before the country.
Then the elections of 1904 came on. Will any one state for my information in what locality of Canada, in what electoral division, the opponents of this policy advocated their views? I, for one, remember very well having contended before my constituents that it was a matter of common prudence to provide for the safety of our coasts, of out sea-going trade, by protecting the British market. I remember having emphatically stated that the upholding of the British empire as a whole was indispensable towards ensuring the material progress of Canada, as also towards safeguarding the national and religious interests of the province of Quebec; and among' the men of all shades of political opinion who opposed me at the time, there was not a single one to Taise his voice in 131
denunciation of that so-called naval policy, of imperialism, of that backdown or sacrifice of all that honour holds most sacred.
Five years elapsed, five years of unprecedented prosperity. Meanwhile population increased, the West made further leaps in the way of development, the volume of trade doubled, new railways were built in ajl directions; Canada, in short, after being for a long time a mere colony evolved into a nation in the eyes of the world, enjoying new privileges and bearing new responsibilities.
It was then that one of the leaders of the Conservative party in this House, the hon. member for North Toronto inserted in the order paper the following proposal:
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self help and self respect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
When that resolution was discussed, that is on March 9th, 1909, its lack of precise meaning prevented the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition from agreeing to it, especially for fear it might put our country under the necessity of a direct contribution to the British exchequer, a contingency which did not appear acceptable to either party. So, it was thrown aside by mutual agreement, and another, of which I need quote a part only to the House, substituted therefor. For the purpose of this debate, it will suffice to quote the following paragraph which is essential:
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last Imperial Conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and. the peace of the world.'
That resolution was discussed, but when I say discussed, I wish to be well understood. Not a single voice was raised against it, comments from both sides of i h. House were invariably favourable. Where were the men who are to-day opposing the government, and why did they not raise their voices in condemnation of the proposal? And if they did not wish to speak out, why did they not vote against the measure, which in principle and in its essentia] features is the same as that submitted to parliament to-day. It is of primary importance that the people of this country,



and particularly of the province of Quebec, should be made aware that it was then unanimously adopted, witnout even the hon. member for Jacques Cartier dissenting.
Now, I ask again, what is it that carried unanimously at that time? In the first place, the asserting of the unswerving fidelity of Canada towards the mother country; in the second place the disproval of the principle of a direct money contribution to the British exchequer; in the third place, our hearty approval of the establishment of a national navy. So then, the colonial conference held in London in 1902, the stand taken by the Canadian parliament in 1903; the general elections in 1904 and 1908; the resolution unanimously adopted by parliament in 1909, these circumstances, it would seem, are more than sufficient to set aside the contention of those who allege that the question has never been brought up in the past and should take the form of a plebiscite.
Besides, what would be the outcome of a plebiscite on a question of that kind? Have those of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec who advocate a plebiscite pon- dered over the probable results of a consultation of the people? Is it not selfevident that the Anglo-Saxon blood would be stirred ur>
by those who have accepted the tenets of the policy of imperialism as advocated by Mr. Chamberlain, and that through the kindling of prejudices by expert hands through the intense political feeling aroused, and appeals to racial and religious uassions, a majority of electors might pronounce in favour of the nefarious principle of a money contribution to the British admiralty. I, for one, would fear having recourse to a plebiscite, as it would result in dangerous appeals to prejudice, and thereby be a menace to the maintenance of our institutions.
A plebiscite, I readily conceive, would afford extremists a fine opportunity for abetting popular passions, awakening old racial enmities, setting up one against the other the two great races living in harmony in this country from the national and religious standpoint. It is hoped that thereby the two sections of the Conservative party would affect a step in advance, by representing in Quebec the Prime Minister as sacrificing Canada to England, while in Ontario and the west, he would be held up as the sworn foe of England, because the Bill gives Canada control over its navy. As a matter of fact, it should not be forgotten that this is the very reason given by the leader of the opposition for demanding a plebiscite.
The stand taken by the leader of the opposition should not cause too much surprise. It is one among his many shiftings of which we have had the spectacle in the Mr. BELAND.
course of the last year. Indeed, we have seen a moment ago that on March 29th, 1909, that is less than a year ago, the House declared unanimously in favour of the establishment of a Canadian navy. At that date,, the leader freely chosen by all sections of the party opposite, not even excepting the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, proclaimed the principle of selfgovernment in the matter of the navy as well as in matters of militia, urged the government to build forthwith, and to carry to rapid completion, a national naval service, and repudiated the idea of a direct money contribution to the British exchequer. On January 12, 1910, about a month ago, from his seat in this House, he spoke as follows:
It has been suggested that instead of the organization of a Canadian naval force, there should be a system of annual contributions from this country to the mother country; and I am free to admit that, from the strategical point of view, that I would be inclined to agree with the view of the admiralty that that would be the best way for the great selfgoverning dominions of the empire to make their contributions. But, Sir, from a' constitutional and political standpoint, I am opposed to it, for many reasons.
As all may see, he had not yet performed that famous somersault, that most laughable bout-face ever recorded in the parliamentary annals of this country. But after a stormy eaucas during which, if rumour is to be credited, the Quebec Conservatives and those from the English-speaking provinces, came to hands, he emerged with a new policy. Then, Sir, he discards all his great principles hardly twelve months old; what he now advocates is not the building of a national navy with wisdom and prudence, kept under the control of the Dominion government and parliament. Not by any means. To-day, he comes before parliament, and in the name of the great Conservative party, he says: Let us give-125,000,000 to England, -as a gift pure and simple; let us let the country be invited to pay an amount equivalent to three dollars for each man, woman and child; let us make that gift to England, without reserving the right of ever requiring that these ships built with our cash will be used primarily for the protection of our coasts and our trade. That is on the part of the leader of the opposition an overt step in the direction of imperial federation and the complete abandonment of our autonomy. I, for one, shall oppose, with all my might that dangerous proposal of a money contribution.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier demands a plebiscite, and his leader demands the same thing, but is it with the same object in view? Let us see. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, if I understand

him aright, is of opinion that the government measure effects a radical change in our relations with Great Britain; and in support of this contention, he points to clause 18 of the Bill which enables the Governor in Council, that is the Dominion government, to put in a case of emergency the Canadian navy at the disposal of His Majesty. To my mind, that reservation which is incorporated in the Bill on behalf of the Dominion government, is the mere conferring of a discretionary power, is nothing but a further assertion of our autonomy, especially if read in conjunction with clause 19 which states that no such decision will take effect unless it be ratified by the Dominion parliament, that is, by the representatives of the people. In the opinion of the hon. member (Mr. Monk), there is no necessity for protecting our coasts, our sea ports. To his mind, the situation in Canada has not changed for the last twenty years, or within the last decade. To his mind, our sea-going trade is too insignificant to require any protection on our part. His policy is one of expectation, but not one such as is termed in medical practice,
' armed expectation,' but an expectation without preparation or foresight. Should ha have his way, and our trade is harassed at sea, and our vessels loaded with food products sunk by the enemy's warships, our only recourse would be to fold our arms and call on England to protect us. And if England was not in a position to relieve us, her ships being kept busy on the German ocean or in some other quarter, would the hon. member suggest that we invoke the Monroe doctrine, that is to say, the protection of the United States? Surely not, for my hon. friend as a Canadian would be too proud to remain inactive awaiting the protection of a foreign country.
On the other hand, the leader of the opposition, that is to say, the leader of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, would be in favour of a plebiscite, for this reason, that the Bill provides that the proposed navy will remain under the control of the Canadian paliament. He is in favour of a navy, even of a stronger navy than the one proposed, and if he demands a plebiscite, it is with a view of obtaining from the people authority to place it as soon as completed at the entire disposal of the British admiralty. If England and Canada were to be attacked simultaneously, the leader of the opposition is willing that our fleet should be against our will summoned to the mouth of the Thames, the coasts of England, or elsewhere, at the sweet will of the British admiralty. That is a second breach to the principle of autonomy, a second repudiation of his statements of a year ago, of a month ago.
And, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party 1314
is actually identified with the leader of the opposition. It is all very well for the member for Jacques Cartier to seemingly break away from his leader on that question; it is all very well for him to rouse the province of Quebec and acquire cheap popularity; but whenever Sir Wilfrid Laurier relinguishes the reins of power and give3 way before an expression of popular will throughout the Dominion, it is the leader of the opposition who will be summoned to take hold of the government, and the Conservatives of the province of Quebec, who to-day condemn the prime minister on account of his policy of a Canadian navy Kept under our control, would be the first you may be sure, to acclaim Mr. Bordei , though he is in favour of a larger fleet put entirely at the disposal of Great Britain, and besides of paying over a money contribution of $25,000,000.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier may be sure that this old trick will fail as did the others and that the people will understand the duplicity of the Cqnservative party who is attempting to attain office by the worn-out tactics of crying: ' too much ' in Quebec and ' not enough ' in Ontario. The excellent people of Quebec are told: Laurier, your fellow countryman is a traitor, he becoming too English, and in Ontario it is proclaimed that Laurier is disloyal and a traitor to England because he refuses to pay over $25,000,000 in money and to place the Canadian navy unrestrictedly under English control.	_
There exists in the country, both in Quebec and in the English speaking provinces, a party of moderate opinions, rejecting all extremist and dangerous views. This majority has on every important occasion, decided the issue in such manner as the true interests of Canada required. In the present case common issue will prevail against all wild statements, false accusations, insults and denounciations whether they be uttered by ultra loyalists or by demagogues.
The Bill now submitted to parliament is essentially a Canadian measure and the methods of those opposing it are decidedly dangerous from a Canadian point of view. I cannot understand that men of the parliamentary standing of the hon. member for North Toronto and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier should devote themselves to a task calculated to strain the harmonious and friendly relations existing between the two great races who inhabit this country.
The measure is neither extraordinary nor even absolutely new. I say this advisedly, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who opposes it so strenuously and with so little justification, has admitted it himself. I say that this measure is nothing more than an adaptation to the navy of the Mili-


Henri Sévérin Béland: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. member knows quite well that we have no merchant marine.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is not necessary that we should have a merchant marine of our own to export our produce.
I am appealing now to those hon. members representing agricultural constituencies where the dairy industry is flourishing and who proclaim everywhere that in opposing the present Bill they voice the opinion of the farmers. They owe it to their constituents to vote for the measure. I repeat it, the agricultural class has a paramount interest in the Bill, because agriculture should in the first place be protected; we must act with prudence and foresight so that in case of war the farming community may not suffer. That cannot be done, as the hon. leader of the Conservative party suggests, by giving over $25,000,000 to Great Britain to strengthen her fleet, but by expending a smaller but a sufficient sum for the building of a Canadian navy able to protect our own fishermen, our coasts, our sea ports and the produce of our farms shipped for export.
This is (the weak point in the position of the few Conservative abstainers. My first reason for supporting the measure is that it is essentially Canadian; my second is that the navy so established will 'become an indispensable factor in the protection of our export trade; my third that it will powerfully help to maintain the integrity of the colonial bond with Great Britain.
Going a step further, I believe I will be able to show paramount reasons why French Canadians should support this measure. Canada is a part of the British empire and they have every interest that Britain should maintain her naval supremacy. If the British empire were to be dismembered it would be an evil day for t'he French population of this country, not only from a commercial point of view but also from that of their national and religious life.
The fact that all the British self-governing colonies are adopting a policy similar to ours, and protecting, be it even, for the time being, to a limited extent, coasts that have hitherto been unprotected, will produce a most important moral effect upon any nation that may have hoped to 'be able to annoy Great Britain or weaken her naval prestige, or who may have dreamed of her dismemberment. It is easy to understand that being confronted by the finest navy in the world-I mean the British navy-protecting the sea coast of the North Sea, the Channel and the Atlantic; and also by the colonial navies stationed at the entrance of the respective ports of Canada. Australia, New Zealand and other colonies, those bellicose enemies of the

British empire will speedily assume an attitude of respect, instead of that of aggressiveness which has been theirs of late years, and that British peace which has been maintained on the high seas for over a century, will still prevail. Thus the best means of securing peace seems to be in those defensive measures which we are at present considering.
In my humble opinion no province is more interested than the province of Quebec in the maintenance of the integrity of the British empire. By the beneficial influence of Britain our rights and privileges granted by the British North America Act are protected against the attempts made by demagogues. In the province of Quebec the French Canadian population enjoy the greatest liberty in matters of education and also as to the official use of their language. I know, Mr. Speaker, that those rights are secured to us 'by the constitution and that our constitution is the result of a conference between Canadian statesmen of different races and religions. But should the prestige of *the mother country vanish, should England, after an unsuccessful war, lose the dominion of the seas, that constitution would become a dead letter, and with it the right of using the French language in the parliament of Canada, the privilege of religious instruction in the separate schools of Quebec and Ontario. Have we sufficiently reflected upon the dreadful consequences which might follow the breaking of the bond between Canada and Britain? We would have to choose between independence and annexation to the United States. Independence, apparently the most acceptable alternative, would none the less entail great responsibilities and enormous risks. The risks would consist chiefly in the numerous difficulties to be encountered in inducing the English and Protestant majority, without the preponderant influence of England, to respect the institutions so dear to us. I am quite willing to admit the generous spirit and breadth of view of the English speaking population of Canada, but I would place even greater faith in the protection of England, for since fifty years and more we would seek in vain for any expression of hostility towards us from the lips of a British statesman, of either party, whereas, unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Canada.	_
I know full well that men there will be in the province of Quebec who will say to the people: ' Perish England and her prestige rather than have a Canadian navy; let us have independence rather than a fleet for the protection of our coasts and commerce.' They will say to us that if by the rupture of the British bond our rights as French Canadian and Catholics were threatened, we might fight as fought
our ancestors on the fields of St. Denis, St. Charles and St. Eustache. Those who might be tempted to use such arguments would certainly prove the greatest enemies of the French race in Canada! _
For my part, I declare once again that the political state of ' Independence of Canada ' would endanger the exercise of our religious and national rights. ^ Let us now turn for a moment to our obligations.
If, financially, the establishment of a navy for purposes of protection, as suggested, is too much for our weak shoulders, if there is anything alarming in the expenditure of the twelve or fifteen millions requisite for the establishment of a rudimentary navy composed of four cruisers and a few smaller ships, can we forget that on becoming independent we will lose the protection of the powerful British navy, and that with the hundreds of miles of sea coast on both oceans, we would be obliged to establish a complete one. That would be much more serious. What is the situation of independent nations? Let us take, as examples, some South American republics. Brazil with a population of 17,000,000 has a navy of 15 battleships; Chili, with a population of 34 millions, has seven battleships; Argentina, with a population of 7 millions, has nine battleships and cruisers. Take the small independent countries of Europe: Holland, with a population of 6 millions, has seventeen cruisers; Sweden, with 7$ millions, fifteen battleships; Denmark, with 24 millions, 9 battleships.
We find that all those countries, with populations smaller than that of Canada, with the exception of Brazil, have much more powerful navies than that contemplated for Canada; the Bill before the House provides for the building of four cruisers and of some tornedo boats.
I remember having read quite recently a speech delivered at the Monument National, Montreal, in direct opposition to the idea of a national navy, by an eminent speaker well known in this House, Mr. Bourassa. In his speech, he developeu this strange contention that Canada, in case of danger, might apply for protection to the United States and require the application of the Monroe doctrine to our case. I humblv submit that for a country lute Canada to rely upon the protection of its neighbour would be a position of the deepest disgrace. It would mean something more than disgrace. . Does anybody suppose that the United States would consent to a breach of neutrality towards any enemy of England without requiring compensation? Certainly not, and the compensation, m this case, would take the form of territorial and trade concessions; perhaps it might also affect our allegiance.	. .	.
From a national and religious point ot view the annexation of Canada to the

United States would be almost as disastrous 1>
the province of Quebec as independence. It will be immediately seen that the French population, instead of being in a proportion of two to five as in Canada, would stand in the pronortion of one to thirty in the United States. We would be delivered up to the almost irresistible assimilating power of the American people. Americans would never permit the use of any language but English in Congress. It is quite reasonable to suppose that no exception would be made in favour of the province of Quebec as to education in the public schools. Annexation also would entail taxation for the support of the United States navy-one of the most powerful in the world- and such taxation would be much heavier than _ any that may be imposed for the creation and maintenance of a navy under the present Bill.
It is clear, therefore, that irom a financial point of view as well as from commercial, national and religious considerations, we have every interest in firmly dismissing all idea of independence or annexation; nay more, that we should be ready to submit to heavy sacrifices for the maintenance of the British bond.
Mgr. Plessis understood this when, in 1807, he said to the Catholic population of Quebec: 'You have understood that your dearest interests are inseparable from those of Great Britain.' He also said that ' his flock would be unworthy of the name of Catholics and Canadians if they showed disloyalty or even indifference in the accomplishment of their duty as subjects devoted to their sovereign's interests and defenders of their country.'
The same advice was given at different times by Bishop Panet, by Bishops Signay and Lartigue, in 1837-8, by Bishops Baili-argeon and Tache, and later by Archbishop Begin, of Quebec, who some years ago, declared in a sermon delivered in a cathedral of France: ' We are happy to live under the British flag and our country is essentially n land of freedom.'
As I do not wish to make my speech too lengthy, I will now close with the remark that in this matter the Liberal party has avoided extremes; the proposal submitted is moderate and consists in a Canadian naval establishment calculated to protect our coasts and cities, our fishermen and *our foreign trade.
The Navy Bill now before the House is the result of eight years of study; it provides for an exclusively Canadian navy, inasmuch as it will be built in Canada, that all the necessary expenditures will be paid into the hands of the Canadian people and that the whole will be under the control of the Canadian parliament.
A plebiscite would become the occasion of unwise apeals, would inevitably result Mr. BELAND
m rousing the English-speaking population, which holds the majority in the country, against the province of Quebec, thus forming an English party or a French party, a most serious and dangerous situation.
The Bill, moreover, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier said the other day, consists in nothing but a greater scope given to legislation already existing in our statute-books in a less extended form: and this legislation, according to his statement, is by no means extraordinary.
It is the inevitable sequel of our marvellous industrial, agricultural, commercial and political development.
The effect of the establisnment of this national navy will be to secure peace and harmony between the races; it will clearly demonstrate the loyalty of the Canadian people towards the motherland, who has granted to us and more especially to the people of the province of Quebec, national and religious privileges which neither independence, nor German allegiance, nor yet annexation to the United States could ever secure.
The measure entails no forced service on the part of the people of this country, nor the imposition of any new taxation, our ordinary public revenues being sufficient to meet the expenditure under this head.
All this _ is infinitely more1 akin to the Canadian ideal than would be the contribution of $25,000,000 proposed by the Conservative leader, inasmuch as it safeguards our autonomy and opposes the principle of imperial federation which appears at the root of that proposal.
Instead, therefore, of joining the standard of Mr. Borden, who proposes first of all a contribution of $25,000,000 and then the building of a navy at our own expense, but the control _ of which would remain with Great Britain, the people of Canada . will prefer to continue in their support of the eminent statesman who has been guiding our policy since fourteen years, securing at all times the greatness and prosperity of our country and who, in the present instance, is following in the footsteps of La-fontaine and Cartier.	*


Mr.  C. J.@: DOHERTY (Montreal, St. Anne); Mr. Speaker before entering upon anything in the nature of an answer to the very able and eloquent address to which we have just listened with very great pleasure, whether we may have agreed or disagreed with the conclusions reached, I crave your permission to make a very brief reference to an incident that occurred this afternoon, and to some observations of my hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). I need not say that I have no concern with anything that the hon. member from Frontenac has thought proper to say reflecting upon the confidence which should or should not be reposed either in

the right hon. the leader of this House or any gentleman either on the other side or this side of the House, but I did listen, I have to say, with a great deal of pain, to some observations which that hon. gentleman found it proper to make. It was with very particular pleasure that I noted that at the conclusion of these observations the hon. gentleman very emphatically repudiated any desire whatever to reflect upon the loyalty of the French Canadian population of the province of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER.: Rats !


Mr. DOHERTY.: Some of the citations, however, which he thought proper to make, it seems to me should not be allowed to pass unanswered. I give him credit for not intending to reflect upon the loyalty of the population of Quebec.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: You are too good.
Mr. DOHERTY-but I think that enough was said to make it quite proper that something should be said to do away with any false impression on that subject that might be created by the citations which the hon. gentleman thought proper to make. I take upon myself the duty of doing that with the greater pleasure because of the fact that I am not a French Canadian, and therefore am not directly concerned, and of the further fact, which is a fact, that from other points of view I may regret that I have not been able to reach precisely the same conclusions on the question which is formally before the House as have been reached by either mv French Canadian friends who sit on the other side of the House or by the French Canadians, or some of them, who sit on this side of the House. Thus in what I am about to say I am not speaking on either one side of this question or on the other. I have said I am not a French Canadian. I have, however, had the honour and the advantage to be born in a province largely French Canadian.


Mr.   C.@: A'. WILSON. I do not know whether I quite understand the hon. member's remarks, but does he not think it in the public interest that the words that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) this afternoon, should be reproduced all over the country and in the ' Hansard,' at first?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to take upon myself to answer a question of that kind. I do not think it is for me to decide to what extent those words ought to be reproduced. For my own part, I think it is vastly more important that any false impression that might have been based on them should be wiped away at once, and that then both the words and the false -impression should be forgotten. However, it is for the hon. member for Laval
(Mr. C. A. Wilson) to exercise his own judgment as to whether he thinks that good will between the different races in this country would be furthered by the reproduction of words that seem to have given offence notwithstanding the fact of the declaration of the hon. member for Fron-tenac that he intended none.
However, I do not wish to be led into a discussion upon that question^ My desire is to say this much in correction of any false impression that might be derived from the citations made by the hon. memlber. I was about to say that although I am' not a French Canadian, I have the honour and advantage of having been borne in a province largely populated by French Canadians. I have' had the pleasure and the advantage of living with and among French Canadians all my life. I think I can claim to know the French Canadian population of the province of Quebec as well as any man who is not of their race, and I am here to say that everything that I have known of them has been of a nature to create the most absolute confidence in their most unrestricted loyalty to their country and to the Crown under which we all live. I have had the advantage not only of knowing them and living among them in civil life, but I have had the pleasure and the honour of serving with them in the rebellion of 1885 in a purely French Canadian regiment, the 65th Battalion, and I can certify that no braver, no more competent, no more devoted soldiers went out to maintain the cause of this country in that rebellion, than my French Canadian fellow countrymen.
The matter to which I wish especially to refer is a work and what purported to be a citation from that work. I had the pleasure and advantage of knowing Reverend Father Hamon whose work purported to be cited here this afternoon, I would point out in the first place that Father Hamon was not a French Canadian. I do not want to say that to his discredit, because he was a friend of mine, a gentleman for whom I entertained the highest respect; but Father Hamon was a Frenchman, and as a Frenchman would have been at liberty, without its reflecting in any way on the loyalty of the French Canadians, to express what aspirations he might choose with regard to the future of the -French speaking race on the continent of America. But we need not stop at that, because I have been at pains to send for the work, I have turned to the chapter cited, chapter 18, and I have carefully gone through that and there is not one word _ in that chapter that is susceptible of being contorted into what was cited as having been written by Father Hamon. With the other work referred to I am not familiaT.


William Cameron Edwards: With the permission of the hon. gentleman I want to say that I quoted what purported to be a correct English translation of that work. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) says that that was not a correct translation of that work, I gladly accept his assurance to that effect. I do not want to misrepresent any one.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I wish to say not only is it not a correct translation, but that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the language to warrant the interpretation given to it. I do not pretend to have read all the book, but I have read the chapter from which this purports to be taken, and I have found that it has been distorted m such a manner in the translation as to give a false idea of what it contains but of course we cannot hold my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) responsible, and he no doubt gave his citations in perfect good faith. So far from there being any suggestion in these chapters of the formation of a French republic, the writer showed _ the most careful reserve against expressing any opinion regarding the future from a political point of view of the French Canadian race, either in the New England States-and it was of _ these the reverend gentleman was writing-or in the province of Quebec. With regard to the other work mentioned,
I have not read it, but I certainly have never seen any reflection or re-echo of its effects among the French Canadians of the province of Quebec, such as one might expect, if the work were as extreme as is suggested; but if my hon. friend is relying on a translation, my experience of a per-usual of the other book which he quoted may possibly set him right with regard to the last one. I do not wish to push that matter further. We have had some reference to another question-the speech of a late leading political man in the province of Quebec. But, however, people may view the politics or life work of that man, it was after that work had been completed and after he had [DOT] been, rightly or wrongly, sweet from power by the almost unanimous vote of his fellow countrymen that he gave expression to the views my hon. friend from Frontenac has just cited, so that I do not think any possible inference can be drawn from the ^expression of those views whereby they might be supposed to represent the sentiments of the French Canadian population. I must apologize for having gone into this matter, which of course is not pertinent to the subject before us for discussion, but I felt it was incumbent upon me to do what little lay in my power to prevent any misconception which might give rise to any feeling of prejudice as between the different races occupying this country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Haying disposed of this little matter and knowing it would be quite impossible for me to do justice to the important subject before the House, on which we are called to express as fully as we can our views, I would respectfully beg, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 24, 1910.