1910-11-24

DRUMMOND AND ARTHABASKA CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. MONK.: I beg leave to lay on the table of the House the three, letters referred to in the debate now going on, being communications with the officers of the depart-, ment, and the answers thereto.



PHOSPHORUS POISONING IN MATCH MANUFACTURE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 10) to prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus. He said:	It has been
found from experience that evils of a serious nature arise from the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches. The work people not infrequently contract a very painful and loathsome disease known as phosphorus necrosis, popularly referred to as ' fossy jaw.' As a consequence several countries of Europe have taken active measures to prohibit the manufacture of matches made with phosphorus. Suitable substitutes have been found for that ingredient. The Bill which I now introduce is similar to a measure passed by the English parliament in December, 1908.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 11) respecting co-operative credit
[Stage Direction]


societies. He said: The House is already familiar with the objects of this Bill. This year, as well as last year, the principle of the measure is divided into two parts. One feature of it last year was in charge of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris), which provided for co-operation in all fields of activity; this year I am only asking for legislation regarding t|he co-operation of credit societies. Both these Bills, after passing through the primary stages here, went to the Committee of Banking and Commerce. The committee threw out the Bill applying to co-operation generally, there was strong opposition manifested against the Bill (No. 26) as it was numbered last year. The Act respecting co-operative credit societies was very carefully examined by the Committee on Banking and Commerce, who reported it favourably, but it could not receive its third reading in this House because there was no time for it. I may say that the Bill as I now present it, is the Bill which was considered and carefully revised by the Banking Committee. Its operation would be under the direction of the hon. Secretary of State. Last year he looked into it and examined it with care, and his able assistant, Mr. Mulvey, made several changes in it in order to make it applicable throughout the Dominion. I sincerely hope that this year the House will pass this measure, as it meets with the approval of a very large number of people.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BEAUPARLANT moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 12) to amend the Civil Service Act. He said:	This Bill was introduced and explained by me last session, but was not pressed through the House. I may remind the House that the object of this Bill is to permit the garnishment of a certain share of the salary of any indebted public officer of any class or grade. Every one will readily admit that it is only fair that all debtors as well as all creditors should be treated alike, and be put on a similar footing. Under present conditions, the wages of a day labourer earning, perhaps only $30 a month, and such earning the result of painful labour, are subject to garnishment ; while the wages of civil servants and public officials, although they	are much	higher and
earned much more easily, are not subject to attachment. I contend that this discrimination is out of place in a democratic country and under a Liberal government. Let us either put an end to the privilege of a creditor seizing a small salary, or let us extend that privilege to large as well as small salaries, to public officials as well as other persons. I would have pressed this Bill at the end of last session, but I was Mr. MONK.
prevented from doing so by personal reasons. My object last session was merely to call attention to the anomaly and to direct the attention of the House and the public thereto. This session I present it at the beginning of the session, and I intend to push it through, if the House will approve of it.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. PERLEY.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to say a word on a personal matter. Yesterday the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), when speaking of the late election in Drum-mond-Arthabaska, said, as stated on page 165 of the ' Hansard ':-
If my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) were here, perhaps he could give us some explanation of where the money came from.
Unfortunately, I was not in the House at the time, and I take this opportunity of denying absolutely and unequivocally having had anvthing to do, directly or indirectly, with the election in Drummond-Artha-baska. More than that, I desire to say that I know of none of my acquaintances, or of any people who live in this part of the country, having had anything to do with it.
I further would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that although I am not the keeper of the conscience of the hon. minister I should think it was a very extraordinary thing for any person to do to put forth an insinuation of this kind without the shadow of a shade of foundation.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I was simply asking for some information from the hon. gentleman.



CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.

Mr. NANTEL.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the government to the following article that I read in the Ottawa ' Evening Journal ' of Wednesday, November 23:-



CRUISER IS BEING BUILT IN BRITAIN FOR CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
This Fact, now public, does not Coincide with Statement that Ships will he Built in this Country.
British publications devoted to naval and military subjects continue to assert that a cruiser is being built in Great Britain for the Canadian navy. The latest to do so is the United Service Magazine, which in its November issue contains the following paragraph ;
'The armoured cruisers, 'New Zealand ' and ' Australia,' building for service in the Pacific, will displace 18,800 tons, and will be' sisters to the ' Indefatigable.' Orders have recently been placed for a protected cruiser for the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand services.'

This repeated assertion that a protected cruiser, that is, a ship of the Bristol class, is actually about to be constructed in Great Britain for the Canadian navy hardly consorts with the declarations that all the ships will be built in Canada.
Is there any truth in that statement, and what is the truth?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say, in answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Nantel), that this statement was brought to my attention some days ago, and I then stated to the press that it was not contemplated by the government to have these ships built outside of Canada. On the contrary, it is the policy of the department, when tenders are asked for, that these ships shall be built in Canada.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the motion of Mr. Monk in amendment thereto.
Mr. E. PAQUET (L'Islet).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, agriculture is the corner stone of our national fabric. On its prosperity depend the welfare and happiness of the various classes of society. Indeed it is incumbent on me to thank my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) for having once more drawn the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to the need of establishing experimental farms in the province of Quebec.
The establishement of an experimental farm in our region is necessary to ensure agricultural progress. I firmly hope that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will ask parliament to grant in the course of this session a vote sufficient to provide our province with those agricultural establishments which are necessary to its development.
Last session, I requested the government to appoint a French-speaking commissioner from the province of Quebec to the board of management of the Intercolonial. I do not see the necessity of repeating the arguments set forth in my request of January 14. That request is a fair one and in accord with the spirit of the constitution. Therefore I beg insistently of the right hon. gentleman that he bring about that reform in the near future.
Allow me, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, to request the right hon. gentleman and the hon. Minister of Agriculture to appoint a French-speaking commissioner to the census board in view of the work which is to he carried on next summer. I submit these requests in the name of equity and justice.
Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to support the amendment introduced by the hon. 7i
member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and which reads as follows:
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
That request, Mr. Speaker, not to ignore the verdict which has been rendered a few days ago in the Drummond and Arthabaska election, has also been put forward by my hon. friend the member for Quebec county (Mr. Turcotte), who had the honour, at the close of yesterday's sitting, to address the House and whom I regret not to see in his place just now.
With your permission I shall read the words of the telegram which he sent to the 'Montreal Star' on November 4, 1910:
It is impossible to say what appeals made to the electorate most influenced it or what effect the result will have on the country at large. The people have spoken, however, and the government cannot ignore their verdict. It may well be that the ministerial navy policy may have to be modified. At the same time it must be remembered that the two candidates are both liberals.
(Sienedf J. P. TURCOTTE.
I read this message, Mr. speaker, in order to fully satisfy the House that, not only on your left, but on your right as well, there are representatives of the people who are desirous that the government should not ignore the verdict of November 3, 1910. I did not think last session that I would be doing my duty if I approved of the naval policy of the government without beforehand receiving a mandate from the people to that effect. Neither would I think that I was fulfilling my duty if in the course of this session, without such a mandate, I voted the amounts required to carry out that policy.	_
In view of the charges of a -most malignant character aimed at the sincerity, the patriotism and the loyalty of the advocates of autonomist ideas, I think it necessary to assert with the greatest energy that on the hustings, as well as in this House, I am guided by the spirit of our constitution, our traditions, and the rights of the people. In discussing this important question of the war navy, i bear in mind a principle inscribed in the works of the fathers of confederation:	' Canadians for Canada
under the aegis of the British flag.'
In the course of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska, I refrained from considering and discussing the question of the war navy from the viewpoint of provincial, racial or sectional interests of any kind: I discussed that important question solely from the viewpoint of Canadian interests. In the hope of hiding from the country the true causes of their defeat of No-

vember 3, the advocates of a war navy *charge us with having secured that brilliant victory in Arthabaska by appeals to prejudices which Quebec would entertain against 'the other provinces and against Great Britain. In the latter part of this great contest, I was proud to do my utmost in favour of the people's rights, defended with such patriotism by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mt. Monk). I would not appeal to the feelings of the people; I have a higher conception of my duties as a member of parliament. I appealed to the good sense, the intelligence, the reason and judgment of the electors.
On Novemebr 3, the right hon. gentleman consulted the electors of the great constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska. He had expertly chosen the battle ground. Moreover, the voters of that constituency belong to either of the two great races which are working together to further the progress of Canada. The people have given an eloquent reply, in a Liberal stronghold, wherein the Prime Minister enjoys the personal friendship of a large number of electors. My eloquent friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) made yesterday a complaint which must have had a disagreeable effect on the right hon. gentleman. They had not, he said, had time to fight it out. I am at one with my hon. friend from Beauce in protesting against the shortness of the time assigned for the contest. My friend from Beauce had a bitter pill to administer and he forgot the sugar-coating. He may be pardoned for it, being a physician. The Liberal candidate, Mr. Perreault, is highly considered in that constituency. The most eloquent and courageous fighters in the Liberal ranks went into the fray with much vim and confidence of victory. The hon. Minister of Marine was on the spot, and was not, the Liberal army under the command of an eloquent and strenuous fighter, the hon. Solicitor General? Did we not meet there the hon. members for Temis-couta, Kamouraska, Dorchester, Beauce, Saint-Jean-Iberville, Hochelaga, Maskin-onge, St. Mary's, Berthier, Prescott, L'As-somption, Megantic, Richmond, Bagot, Joli-ette, Richelieu, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Montcalm, Yamaska and St. Hyacinthe. It would be insulting these men to suspect them of not having done their duty. They have preached the gospel of the Liberal party from the beginning to the end of the campaign. That army of Dominion parliamentarians was surely capable of crushing the members for Jacques Cartier, Terrebonne, Champlain, Soulanges and L'Islet. Certainly, however, the people would not consent to it. Did not the right hon. gentleman do his duty at the Liberal convention? He has done his duty, and so also have the people. Defeat has been the result of the efforts of our ministerial friends, be-Mr. PAQTTET.
cause they had refused to consult the people. And to-day instead of abiding by the result as courageous men should do, they can only utter words inspired for spite.
For six years past I have been the victim of appeals to race feeling in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. At large popular meetings electors were warned not to vote for me, seeing that the leader of the Conservative party is an English-speaking Protestant. I have not mentioned the fact until to-day for fear of putting in a bad plight fellow-citizens who worked on poplar feeling for the sake of votes. How can ministers of the Crown decently charge us with being demagogues and of appealing to race prejudices when one of their organs, ' Le Soir,' published the following on June 18, 1896:-
Why should we be required to fight for England ? Electors should bear in mind that the conservative leaders who purchase these rifles are not those among the Canadians who will be sent out to fight; no, it is your children who will be enrolled and sent out to Africa or Asia, whence they will never return. . Vote for Laurier and his candidates, if you wish the country to continue enjoying its present state of peace, and if you do not wish to be shipped abroad some fine day, torn away from your wives, your children and all that is dear to you.
Did not the hon. Minister of Marine speak in the following terms in the House of Commons in April, 1896:-
We have over and again been told that in the event of a war taking or Canada being invalid, we could rely on Great Britain's protection, and that the only ground for not severing the colonial tie was, that should international difficulties arise, we might rely on England's strong arm. Now, sir, I am sorry to hear under the circumstances, that the government, for the purpose of arming the Canadian militia have made their purchases not from private contractors, but from the War Office in Great Britain, and that we are asked now to foot the bills. Is that the protection we have been promised by Great Britain? Is that the position in which we stand as a colony?
Has the hon. minister the right to denounce appeals to race feelings? I find fault with the advocates of the war navy in my province for not giving due credit to our forefathers as regards the acquirement of the privileges which we enjoy nowadays under the constitution. Speakers have been abused for expressing the belief that Canadians had taken a hand in conquering the franchises which we enjoy. 'Ire they not as justifiable for doing so the right hon. gentleman?
In 1907, did not the right hon. gentleman speak as follows in the city of Ottawa?
If we look over the treaties, from that concluded in 1783 to that concluded in 1903,

we have no reason to be particularly satisfied of the treatment received by Canada at the hands of the British plenipotentiaries. We are obliged to own that John Bull has not always done his duty towards his Canadian children.' In the month of September, 1907, at the manufacturers' banquet, did not the right hon. gentleman sneak as follows :	' We consider what
British diplomacy has done for Canada, and we find that it amounts to a succession of sacrifices of Canadian interests.'
In the course of the election campaign in Drunnnond-Arthabaska, the advocates of the autonomist views took their inspiration from the St. Eustache resolutions; resolutions full of feelings of the noblest loyalty towards His Majesty George V. towards the British crown and the British flag; resolutions pregnant also with feelings of respect for the rights of the people. Such are the noble resolutions which have been adopted, not in the course of tumultuous assemblies, but at meetings wherein the people realized the greatness of their rights and responsibilities.
For the benefit of those who believe, or who pretend to believe, that we scored a victory on November 3, by means of appeals to race feelings, I may read the following from ' La Presse,' of Montreal. 'The opposition which is asserting itself on the part of a considerable portion of the province of Quebec to the establishment of a war navy, may be more or less warranted, but it is a mistake to say that it is based cn race feeling. We find in our province, and in the other provinces as well, a number of Canadians of British ori-. gin who show still greater hostility to that same proposal.'
These words taken from a newspaper which has just been the recipient of special communications from the right hon. gentleman, are absolutely true.
Before taking up another matter, I may be allowed to quote the following extract from the 'Weekly Sun,' of Toronto, at the date of November 9, 1910. It will be seen that the advocates of the autonomist view cannot be accused of isolating Quebec; it will be seen that the obloquy aimed at us by the advocates of the fleet is not warranted:	*
There can be no mistaking the meaning of the vote so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. What Drummond and Arthabaska' did on Thursday the whole province of Quebec would do to-morrow if opportunity offered. Nor is Quebec isolating itself from the other provinces in so doing. A few weeks ago, E. M. Thompson, formerly chief editorial writer of the ' Globe,' made a personal canvas of the feeling among farmers in a typical section of rural Ontario and his report on his return confirmed to the full what the ' Sun has said from the beginning-that agricultural Ontario is overwhelmingly against the
Naval Bill and the whole military movement. With the Naval Bill as the one question submitted the result in Drummond and Arthabaska could be repeated in any rural riding in Ontario. This is not, as the ' Globe ' and the government appear to believe, because of lack of understanding on the part of electors -because the situation has not been explained to them. It is because the electors do understand, because they are utterly and unalterably opposed to the introduction here of the burdens and hates which are cursing the old world that the masses of the Canadian people feel as they do.
It is not with a view to vindicating myself that I take the floor: I am not guilty.
I would consider myself so, had I voted in favour of an Act which will cost enormous sums to Canada, without knowing beforehand what was the opinion of my constituents.
I blamed and I blame once more the advocates of a war navy for having stated that the cost of such a fleet would be 15 millions when they are very well aware that such an amount would be barely sufficient to build 11 warships. They are well aware that there is never any stop in the expenditure for building or repairing warships; they know that the life of any of these ships, like our own, is very short, and liable to suffer in many emergencies; they know that our naval expenditure will be (calculated not upon our numbers, our riches or our trade, but in such a way as to meet the needs of the empire. They are well aware of the persistent increasing rate of military and naval expenditures.
Were the liberals sincere in 1896 when they took exception to an expenditure of $2,i36,000 on militia? What have they been doing? Have they not themselves in the course of last session asked for a vote of $6,898,000 towards the militia? We have just learned from a British officer that it is to be re-organized. How much shall we spend in the future for militia purposes? I have spoken the language of sincerity and truth when I stated to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska that our naval expenditure would increase in the same way and in the same proportion.' I have taken lessons from history. The British naval expenditure in 1870, amounted to $48,000,000, while in 1910 it aggregates $200,000,000. The naval expenditure of the United States in 1900, amounted to $55,000,000, while in 1909, it reached $121,000,000, and in 1910, $133,000,000.
All great countries have carried to completion their works of public utility before engaging into these military and naval expenditures which are ruinous to them. Was it disloyal to repeat to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska the following wo~rds uttered by the distinguished representative of the Yukon, on March 29, 1909:

If we start at present into any vast naval or military outlay, we shall so impede our growth that in the course of a very short time we will be of much less assistance to the empire than if we permitted our country to advance and prosper as she is doing now.
We are a young country; we have immense resources to develop. Is it fair to adopt a policy which will hold us responsible towards foreign nations for any pledges given by Great Britain? Was it a crime to recall to the electors of Drummond-Artha-baska the following words of Sir Charles Tupper:
I for one think that no contribution towards the maintenance of the British navy and army forthcoming from Canada will accomplish more for the defence of the empire than the way in which public funds have been applied with that object in view in Canada.
I have blamed the government in the course of the electoral campaign for setting aside our constitution when disposing without the consent of the people of our earnings, of our ships, of our seamen, in connection with the wars of the empire. Under the constitution of 1867, we have the right to establish a naval service for the defence of Canada. The British North America Act is the sacred arch of our liberties, our rights and our responsibilities. It was granted by the imperial parliament, sanctioned by Her Majesty Queen Victoria. As long as the pages of the constitution are left entire I remain loyal to His Majesty Geoige V., I remain loyal to the British crown, while defending Canada, while conserving it for Great Britain as my forerunners have done at the cost of their life; but, at the same time I remain loyal to the constitution and to the British flag when refusing to mix up Canada with Great Britain's foreign policy without the people having consented to it.
I stated to the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska that it would be deceiving oneself to believe that we shall be free to keep aloof from Great Britain's wars at large. Let us bear in mind the words of Mr. McKenna, first lord of the British Admiralty: ' It has been recognized by the colonial government that in time of war the local naval forces should be under the general control of thj Admiralty.'
I pray my good friends on the other side of the House, who have been skirmishing with me in the course of the recent election whether they actually stated to the electors of Drummond that our fleet would inevitably be part of the Imperial navy in times of war, according to the very words of Mr. Fielding. Have they contradicted the utterances of the minister?


Mr.   BOY@Dorchester: (Translation.) We read the terms of the statute


Eugène Paquet: 


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) Have you contradicted the utterances of the minister of Finance?


Mr. ROY.: (Translation.) We did not stop at that, wre had the statute in hand.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) I appeal to my hon. colleagues on the other side who have loyally fought in Drummond and Arthabaska, who like myself have placed their courage, and moreover their eloquence, to forward their cause, and I challenge them to say that they found fault with the utterances of the Minister of Finance.


Cyrias Roy: (Translation.) Does the hon. member wish for an answer? We have given out not only extracts of the speeches of the minister but the whole of his speech, and that is the justification of the stand which we took.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) I expected that answer from my hon. friend the member for Dorchester.


Mr. TALBOT. (Bellechasse).: (Translation.) Less blarney, if you please.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) I pray my
hon. friend from Bellechasse to repeat what he has just said.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: (Translation.) I said: Less blarney, if you please.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) I expected from the member for Dorchester the answer he had just given. I admit it, the hon. Minister of Finance may very likely have stated in this House that our fleet would be Canadian; but he did not forget to say that it would be Canadian in times of peace and imperial in times of war. Neither did he omit saying that we should participate in Great Britain's wars abroad, whether just or unjust. He did not forget mentioning that, and nobody will deny it.
Have the advocates of the Canadian fleet been courageous enough to declare in accordance with Mr. Fielding's utterances: in wars whether just or unjust? I for one have encountered, not the lions of the north, but the lion from Beauce, and on no occasion did he attempt to question the statement of the Minister of Finance, knowing full well that his word is respected throughout the House and the country.


Mr. BELAND (Beauce).: (Translation.) Will my hon. friend allow me to make a remark? I do not wish to interrupt him, but since he refers to the part we took in that election, and particularly to myself,
I may say there is a passage of the speech of the hon. Mr. Fielding, which may be summed as follows: I admit that the Canadian government has the power to decide whether or not the navy shall participate in a war of Great Britain. That is the conclusion of the remarks of the hon.

Mr. Fielding. He asserts the thorough control of the Canadian government over the navy's participation in a British war. If the hon. member for l'lslet will quote Mr. Fielding's speech from beginning to end, he will meet with these expressions. Besides, whatever the Minister of Finance may state, the statute is there and it vests the government with the full power to say what the fleet will do in times of war.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) The hon. Minister of Finance uttered the words which I shall now quote. I well remember the circumstance and the Prime Minister was by his side. Had the Minister of Finance spoken incorrectly, I trust the hon. Prime Minister would have been anxious of safe-guarding Canada's good name to contradict him right there. Here are his very words, which are to be found at page 7553 of ' Hansard ' for 1910:
The naval service, then, is to be a service primarily for the defence of Canada, but not only for the defence of Canada. Under the measure we are proposing wre shall have a naval service which is Canadian in time of peace, but which by the very machinery we have provided will unmistakably become imperial whenever the help of Canada is needed for the defence of the empire. I accept the view that when the empire is at war Canada is at war; Canada will never need defence except when the empire needs defence; and so I say the Canadian navy, while supplied primarily for the defence of our shores, is after all but a branch to the Royal navy in time of peace, and will become an integral part of the Royal navy whenever tKe war alarm is sounded. I
I do not blame Mr. Fielding for what he said; but I blame my hon. friends for not having told the people of Drummond and Arthabaska that the Finance Minister had declared that our navy would inevitably be imperial in time of war; that it would be engaged in the wars of England, without regard as to their being just or unjust, and that our navy was, in fact, a branch of the English navy.
I frankly declared to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska that the naval service was not an obligation as a result of the legislation passed during the last session. But we can and must take advantage of the teachings offered in history. Those who stand for the Canada-Imperial navy have also forgotten to repeat the words of M. Roper, an English officer: ' England is in greater want of men than of money,' says this distinguished gentleman.
The men who are in favour of the navy spoke very little about the movement taking place in England, in order to make naval service compulsory. Lately, Lord Milner was giving a conference in England with the object of proving the urgence of compulsory service.
Australia, a self-governing English colony, established a naval service.
The 17th of August, 1910, the federal parliament of that confederation amended the Bill making naval service compulsory. The only men who are not subject to this compulsory service are sick, the judges, the members of parliament, the jailers and the hospital doctors.
I did my duty in imparting these facts to the electors, in giving them the opportunity to declare themselves in favour of what the Canadians desire.	.
In the course of the campaign carried in Drummond-Arthabaska, I stood loyally by Canadian traditions.
When I refused my assent regarding the naval law, and to agree, without consulting the people to the principle of participation in the wars of the empire, when I refused to entangle Canada in the world-wide English policy, I worked in accordance with the traditions of the fathers of confederation, in accordance with the Conservative and Liberal traditions.	.
I acted in accordance with the traditions of the great English Liberal school whose teachings during the last century was the consolidation of the empire by means of liberty, independence and self-government granted to its colonies.
In the Drummond-Arthabaska campaign, I accused the government of trampling on the rights of the people who shai 1 have to pay the enormous sums needed to carry our naval policy.
The deputys being entrusted by the people with sacred interests must have the same views.
The deputys should, we might say, have in them a spark of the soul and intelligence of their electors in order to understand thoroughly their wishes and aims.
My friend of the Quebec county (Mr. Tur-cotte) was saying last night that the representatives of the people had given the government an imperative command. But, I state that this Nfivy Bill has been passed by a parliament who had not the due authority to accept the principle of contribution to the naval defence of the empire. In our young democracy, the government and the parliament have no right to impose on the people an important change in their constitutional and social rule without their consent. The English laws axe founded on the principle which tends to make sure what the voice of the people is before taking new steps in the ruling of the country.
It is the great English principle that I proudly defended in the electoral campaign of Drummond-Arthabaska. It is the great English principle that was victorious in the electoral campaign of Drummond-ATtha-baska; the respect due to the rights of the people.	.
I stated there and do likewise in this House: the right of putting a question he-

fore the people is one of the privileges contested in English law. As was saying one of our greatest Canadians, Mr. Henri Bou-rassa, ' The self-governing victory means that the people want to be called to give their opinion before being engaged in a new policy of imperial militarism.'
When I protested against the violation of the most sacred privileges of electorship, I was acting in concert with the working classes who, bv means of their representations, on September 23, 1909, expressed the wish of being consulted by the government before being made responsible for militarism.
Was it unloyal to ask the Drummond-Arthabaska electors to join with the large English agricultural associations? Was it unloyal to ask our farmers to join the Ontario farmers and those of the western provinces in their protestations against war navy? In closing I repeat it. We are no cowards, as hinted the hon. Minister of Marine!
We are ready to shed our blood in order to keep Canada to England. I say more. We are ready to go to war for the defence of the empire if the bulk of the Canadian people is willing to do so.
In the county of Drummond-Arthabaska 1 loyally fought the promoters of the war navy, the British Crown and the empire. I further add, supposing the accusations made against the persons who stand for the self-governing policy were true, is it wise for the hon. Minister of Marine to wilfully accuse his countrymen of raising race animosity? The hon. minister knows it, in many circumstances, I proved my sympathy towards him. But Tuesday night last I felt most sorry to see his English colleagues proudly giving him cheers when he was slandering his fellow countrymen of Quebec.
I understand this differently. If I had the honour to occupy as high a position as the hon. Minister of Marine, I would forgive my opponents in the silence of the cabinet, and I would not indulge, even should it cost me my position, in slandering my fellow countrymen in the presence of a House of English majority. I would exalt my country folks, show their honour, ability and would try to make them share my views by pursuing for Canada a policy in accordance with the Canadian people's views. An<l if I could speak to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, guardian of the honour, of the grandeur and influence of my people, I would tell him: ' Our fellow-countrymen and especially your good friends of Drummond-Arthabaska gave you all their confidence ever since 1887. They have given you a glorious reign and held you in honour. They are numerous, the electors of the county of Drummond-Arthabaska who abandoned a policy that they were fond of, which had made you Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. PAQTJET.
it being such an eminent position. In this pretty county of Arthabaska, in the pretty parish of Stanfold, I saw some old men shedding tears because they felt it their duty, for once since twenty-five years, to vote for your opponent, Mr. Gilbert. Why not forgive them willingly that act of heroism? Why, by your side let somebody say that these fellow countrymen, these friends of your youth, these noble old men, so kind, so generous for you, have obeyed to race animosity, did not understand the Navy Bill; when these electors were discussing it calmly and intelligently as would do great citizens formed at the school of patriotism, of duty and of loyalty to the English institutions?


Mr. L. A. RIVET (Hochelaga).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to discuss some questions which have been referred to in the speech from the Throne, and, if I do so in the English language, I hope that to-morrow, in my native province, I shall not be charged with neglecting my mother tongue; and, on the other hand, I trust that I shall be spared some of the sneers indulged in by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), when my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) stood up and made his speech in English and in good English. I have listened with a good deal of attention to the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet), and at times I could not help being moved by the very touching declarations made by him as to his fealty and loyalty to the British Crown. But, I could not help thinking that loyalty, though' a very good thing when expressed in such nice terms as those used by the hon. member, is a far better thing when it is expressed in good deeds. I wish, Sir, in the first place, to allude very briefly to some of the paragraphs contained in the speech from the Throne, one of which mentions that this session has been opened under the shadow of a cloud, and that since last session the empire has had to lament the death of its illustrious King. Edward VII was, indeed, a noble king, and when the grave closed upon him his subjects were able to glory in the fact that while his reign might not be associated with victories won on the battlefield, the triumphs which he had achieved in peace well entitled him to the name ' Edward the Peacemaker.' Sir, the members of this House have also welcomed with joy and gratitude the announcement in the speech from the Throne that His Excellency the Governor General is to preside over the destinies of this country for another year. His Excellency Earl Grey has been in all Tespects a good and popular Governor General. He has travelled extensively and thus evidenced his strong desire to become acquainted with our country and to identify himself with the material, the intellectual and the social welfare of Can-

ada. I trust that the address in reply to which this House will vote will express the gratitude of the Canadian people, so that we may efface from his memory the campaign of abuse, of calumny, and of vituperation to which he has been subjected in certain quarters by certain people, whose names will pass on in history as ' little Canadians.' Sir, the different paragraphs in the speech from the Throne may be divided into two classes: one class referring to past achievements and the other to legislation to come in the future. The past achievements of this government have been marked by those principles of liberty and progress which have guided the Liberal administration for the last 15 years, and I trust that the legislation which this government may initiate during the course of this session shall be discussed in the same spirit that has guided our deliberations in the past, namely, with a desire to legislate in the best interests of our country.
For the last two days we have devoted our time to the consideration of the naval service, and upon this subject we have been considering the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), which readg:-
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
Now, Sir, the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) has expressed his intention to support this amendment by his vote. I am not surprised at the attitude he takes; I am not surprised either at the attitude taken bv the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in moving this amendment, but at the same time, I say that when they come before this House and say that in propounding such a policy they are guided by the traditions of the Conservative party, it is our right and duty to recall what were on similar questions the traditions, the ideas, and the principles which governed this party. I shall cite certain declarations which were made by one of the greatest statesmen Canada has produced, a man whom the Conservatives claim as one of their most illustrious leaders of the past: Sir George Etienne Cartier. I shall refer to the stand he took on the Militia Bill introduced in 1862 by the then Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Everybody remembers probably that the government of the day was defeated on that Bill, and that one of the reasons why the Bill was defeated was because }t provided for conscription, and proposed to organize a militia force which was certainly too large for the needs of the time. However, after the defeat of the government and when "the ministerial explanations were given in the House of
Commons, Sir George Etienne Cartier pronounced these words
When, Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by the opposition, J. was saying that I feared the vote given on the Militia Bill might hereafter be invoked as an instance of the hostility to the institutions of the lower Canadians, and particularly of the French Canadians. But I hope that the noble conduct of our clergy and of our worthy bishop, and the manifestation of the population of Lower Canada, last fall, will mitigate any aspersion which unprincipled men may be disposed to cast upon us. With regard to ourselves, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in our fall there were other interests involved besides our own. We must consider the importance of the question which was then at stake. The vote was recorded, as we know, against a measure which was to provide in a better and more efficient manner for the defence of the country. We feel, therefore, that we fell in defence of a measure, the passing of which we considered necessary to secure to us the full enjoyment of our free political institutions, under the protection of the glorious flag of old England.
Such were then the principles of the Conservative party led by Sir George Etienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald. In 1864, prior to confederation, Sir George E. Cartier had occasion to visit Halifax and St. John and in his speech delivered in Halifax on the 12th September, 1864, he said
One of the principal reasons for the# establishment of confederation is the necessity for organizing the army and navy so as to allow the maritime provinces to defend themselves and to help England to defend herself.
Speaking at St. John, N.B., on the 14th September, 1864, two days later, he used these words; he said:-
He was in favour of confederation because he wanted to organize the military and naval forces adequately, for the mutual protection of Canada and England.
Such were the declarations of Sir George E. Cartier, and in the face of these declarations the member for Jacques Cartier and the member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) have no right to claim that they are to-day applying to their party the principles of these illustrious leaders. Sir John A. Macdonald said in the elections of 1891, and he made it the battle-cry of that election: A British subject I was born, a British subject I have lived, a British subject I will die. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, if in the recent election in Drummond-Arthabaska, such were the ideas expressed and such the principles advocated on the hustings by the so-called autonomists, the Nationalist-Conservative party of Canada, who were supporting the candidature of Mr. Gilbert.
Sir, one of the reasons given in support of that amount is that since the last session a new condition of affairs has arisen by the

fact of the election of Mr. Gilbert, an opponent of the government, and that on account of that fact this House is bound to reconsider the attitude taken during the last session and to submit the whole question of the establishment of a naval service to the Canadian people. Now, Sir, we always claimed during the debate that occurred upon that question, that we were opposed to the submitting of that question to the people, because it would give an opportunity to our opponents in the province of Quebec to carry on a campaign based on racial appeals and on prejudices. I say, Sir, that time has fully borne out the position we took last year on that question and that what we then predicted has taken place in that election. This cannot be denied by our opponents since the statements we charged them with have been published in their own paper in Montreal and were yesterday quoted by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). To such an extent have these utterances gone that every one of the members of this House who took part in that election on behalf of our opponents, who has addressed the House, felt himself obliged to repudiate from the first to the last every one of these unpatriotic and disloyal statements made during the course of that campaign.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) the other day said that we of the Liberal party wanted to stifle the opportunity of discussion in this country, that we did not want the Canadian people to hear the free and complete discussion of that important question of the establishment of a naval service. Well, Sir, we, the Liberal party stand and have always stood for free and complete discussion of all questions referring to public interests and the administration of public affairs, and if there is a party to-day, if there is a party in past history which has made sacrifices in order to have free and open discussion prevail, whether in England, in France, or in this country, it is assuredly the Liberal party. What the Liberal party disclaim and repudiate and try to efface from public affairs, is the discussion of public questions not according to the principles and the ideas applicable to all citizens, but the discussion of public questions along the line of appeals such as those made in the course of the last campaign. I think the Canadian people have everything to gain by hearing the discussion of every question enunciated by this government, but what I claim is that the facts, all the facts, must be laid before the people, that the truth, the whole truth must be explained to them. I contend that during the course of the last election everything was done, every attempt was resorted to, in order to hide the true situation of affairs from the eyes of the electors in Drummond and Arthabaska, that the whole condition of affairs has been misrepresented Mr. RIVET.
and that tactics were resorted to of which the member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet) and the member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) are ashamed. I say that every attempt has been made by their followers and even by themselves to present the situation in a false light in order to get a verdict not according to true principles, not according to the true_ situation. I need not refer to some declarations which have been made by our opponents in the course of that election campaign. It is admitted to-day that very regrettable appeals have been made, that our French Canadian compatriots have been invited to vote against the naval law because it provided for conscription, because, it involved direct taxation, because it provided for the establishment of a navy which was to be used only in imperial wars. We answered all these declarations by explaining the whole situation in reference to the navy, and it is indisputable that the only charge that has been made against the Liberal party in the way of making regrettable statements was the declaration made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that one of the followers of the Liberal party, Mr. Begin, a notary, had declared that that navy was to be built in case difficulty should arise between the mother country and Canada. This declaration has been contradicted through Mr. Tobin on the floor of the House, and this is the only accusation, the only charge that has been made by our opponents against us. But, Sir, the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet) has disclaimed any statement during the course of that campaign of which he has any reason to be ashamed. I had no opportunity myself to hear the speeches delivered by the hon. member for L'lslet and I am not in a position to say whether he made any declarations whose character might be impugned in this House, but I know that-Some of his friends made appeals along racial lines that are all very regrettable. But this discussion, Mr. Speaker, will have at least one good effect in evincing from the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) a declaration which expresses the real motive of the opposition made to the naval service, by our opponents in Quebec. The hon. member for Terrebonne has said in so many words that the opposition against the government was based upon the desire to defeat Sir Wilfrid Laurier who has been in power too long and whom they have sought in vain for the last fourteen years to defeat. No matter what the reason, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to be defeated. Why? Is it because the Prime Minister of this" country has for the last fifteen years given to Canada the best and.most progressive administration that we ever had? Is it because, for the last fifteen years he has imbued the people with the noble idea of establishing between all sections and races in this country religious and national

peace? Is it because with measures inspired by the love of his country he has been able to establish progress and prosperity in a country in which, previous to 1896, complete stagnation of affairs prevailed in all branches of human activity? Is it because the Prime Minister of this country has shed lustre upon his nation, upon his province, and upon his race? What crime has he committed? No matter, Mr. Speaker, Laurier has got to be put down from the pedestal which the confidence, love and admiration of his own country have made for him-no matter, crucify him [DOT]-this is the repetition of that word, which was pronounced 2,000 years ago on a solemn occasion.
Let him be destroyed. This was the declaration made by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), and this was the only reason for the opposition made during the election in Drummond andt Arthabaska against the naval policy ofl the government. During that campaign every kind of appeal was made to becloud the real issue. We, who took part in that campaign, hoped that our opponents would be courageous enough to continue the same campaign and keep the same attitude they did then. But what have we seen? A few days after that election there1 was a meeting in Montreal. At that meeting the hon. member for Jacques Cartierf (Mr. Monk) and Mr. Bourassa-the would be leader of the new party-made speeches and resolutions were adopted, and in those' resolutions the principle of contributing to maintain the supremacy of the British Empire was laid down and endorsed. A few days later another leader of that party, Mr. Armand Lavergne, went to Toronto and gave an address before the Toronto university, in ithe course of which he declared that he was a loyal subject1 of the empire and ready to make every sacrifice for the glory of the British flag. I have here, in the Toronto ' Telegram ') a report of the speech made by him. What does that report say :-
Captain Lavergne emphasized the claim of his party that nationalism stands for British connection. The first and main object of nationalism is to bring together in a political way the two great races which divide our country between them.
Just fancy, Mr. Speaker, the object of nationalism is to bring together the two races! What effrontery was required to make such an assertion in face of the ap-* peals to racial prejudice made in the province of Quebec by these men, in face of their appeal that we had nothing to dq with the English people of the other prof vinces, that their' desires should not be taken into consideration, but that this country should be governed according to
the wishes and dictates of the province of Quebec and the French race. Let me read' further:-
The first main object of nationalism is to bring together in a political way the two great races which divide our country between them. Our campaign is not to get power or to take office, but to build up the country.
We should equip and fortify our own ports, and before building cruisers we should have a fleet of submarines and torpedo boats, a defence of submarine mines and other naval defences.
You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that no such language was uttered by these gentlemen in Drummond and Arthabaska. Our opponents were there careful to avoid any kind of declaration which might lead the people to believe that they! were in favour of contributing to the defence of Canada or the British Empire.
These men, not content with attacking, all the leaders, of the Liberal party, not1 content with doing everything to becloud the issue submitted to the people, not content with making all kinds of appeals to racial prejudices, went so far as to show want of respect for the dead. Yesterday on the floor of this House one of them referred to a Canadian statesman, who is now in the grave, in words of which I am sure every true Canadian will be ashamed. Speaking of the alliance which took place previous to 1896 between the leader of the Liberal party and the man who became afterwards one of his devoted colleagues and held a cabinet portfolio during six years, he referred to him in these words :-


Mr.   I.@: Tarte of sinister memory.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who said that ?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), whom I am now glad to see in his seat. That hon. gentleman referred to the late Mr. Tarte as a man of sinister memory. Well, there is one thing which we in this country, whether we belong to the Liberal or the Con-i servative party are accustomed to respect. However we may differ in our ideas in, public matters, we agree to respect the memory of those who have joined the great majority. For six years the hon. Mr. Tarte was a member of the Canadian government, and I think it my duty to pay to his memory a deserved tribute for the work he did for the good of his country. Great men, as well as ordinary men, have their weaknesses and their imperfections, and Mr. Tarte was, not, more than any other man, absolutely perfect. Faults he may have committed, errors he may have fallen into, but he has gone from us; and if he did make mistakes, he also accomplished for his country work

which will live as long as. the country remembers what has been done for it by its public men. For the term of six years, Mr. Tarte presided over one of the most, if not the most important at the time, departments of the administration. For six years he was Minister of Public Works, and every one knows, that in that capacity he initiated a policy and accomplished things which will leave their permanent mark upon the progress and prosperity of our country. On behalf of my colleagues', on behalf of every Canadan worthy of the1 name, I deem it my duty to raise my voice in this parliament and protest most emphatically and energetically against the words pronounced by the hon. member for Terrebonne. Why did the hon. gentle-1 man find it necessary to refer to the late Mr. Tarte in such miserable terms-. The only reason I can find is that in 1896 Mr. Tarte felt compelled by his duty to thei public to abandon the ranks of the Conservative party and, with many other patriotic citizens, many other patriotic Conservatives., join the -ranks of the Liberal party. You may rest assured, Sir, that if he had not done so, the words which have fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Terrebonne would never have been uttered. But what was the reason given by Mr. Tarte for joining the Liberals. It was that at the time the Conservative party was rotten to the core, it was that in almost every department of the administration, particularly in the Department of Public Works, there existed a condition of affairs disgraceful to our public life. He went before his electors in the county of ITslet and he said to them : If you will give me -a mandate, if you will elect me as your representative, I will go to Ottawa and ask the government to hold an investigation into the administration of the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Tarte made his word good. The government was bound to yield to the clamour of public opinion and give that investigation. And the result of which was to send to jail one of the principal contractors of the. government of that time and to compel one of the leaders of the Conservative party to retire from public life so that he ended his life in the most complete onlivion. Is there anything dishonourable in one joining the Liberal party for such reasons as this? But consider, by comparison, the alliance between the Conservative party of the province of Quebec and the Nationalists. There is no such reason for refusing to support this government as there was for refusing to support the other. An attempt was made yesterday to show that Mr. Bourassa had left the Liberal party because of corruption existing in the administration of public affairs. Mr. Speaker, Mr. RIVET.
no such reason exists. I challenge any one to show that Mr. Bourassa has ever declared that such was his reason for leaving the Liberal party. On the contrary he has declared that on the school question of the Northwest and on the question of the French language Sir Wilfrid Laurier betrayed his compatriots of the province of Quebec. These are the only reasons given by Mr. Bourassa for leaving his party to join the remnants of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) made some statements to which I wish briefly to reply. He said that in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska we had never quoted to the electors the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the naval service, that we had carefully refrained from quoting that hon. gentleman's declaration -according to which he is supposed to have said that the Canadian navy would be Canadian m time of peace and imperial in time of war. Sir, many times this quotation was made by our opponents in that election. But they were careful to quote only a portion of the statement made by the Minister of Finance. If they had read the whole declaration, if they had -quoted all the words of the Minister of Finance on the Naval Bill, they would have shown more accurately that hon. gentleman's position on the subject. Let me read the words of the Minister of Finance spoken in this House when the Bill was in committee:
Now, as to the question of whether a war is just or unjust, I have already said that while I think we should insist upon the right of the people of Canada who pay the money-and I hope my hon. friend from British Columbia will not find fault if I refer to money, a Minister of Finance must think of such things-I say the people of Canada who have to pay the money are the proper persons to decide, through their competent authority, the Governor General in Council and later through parliament, through the voices of the people, whether their ships should engage in that war.
That means, as we always declared before the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska, that the Canadian navy would be imperial in time of war, but it was only to be when this government and parliament should decide to put the Canadian fleet at the disposal of the British government.
Our opponents have also complained of the cost of the fleet. Well, I do not believe that the hon. member for L'Islet, any more than any of our opponents in that last election, has the right to raise this objection of expense. Both the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and Mr. Bourassa have accepted the principle of a Canadian navy, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask every hon. member on either side of the House whether it can be pre-

tended that the fact of the navy being Canadian or being imperial makes any difference in the cost.
Another cry was used extensively in the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. Attempts were made to raise the prejudices of the electorate against our candidate because he happened to belong to a professional class instead of being a farmer. I heard these appeals being made by many of our opponents, that it was better for a farmer of Drummond and Arthabaska to vote for Mr. Gilbert, a farmer, than to vote for a lawyer like Mr. Perreault.
Therefore, I conclude that the verdict given by Drummond and Arthabaska is not one that would justify the government in submitting the question of the creation of a navy to the electors, for the appeals made in that county would be. renewed with greater activity and aggressiveness in all the counties, and if these appeals were listened to, the result would be, beyond doubt, to segregate our province from the rest of the Dominion. Against that policy of segregation the Liberal party has always stood and stands to-day.
The question naturally arises, how will hon. members on the other side vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)? Will the leader of the opposition, (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the opposition as a whole support the amendment? I do not believe they will. If they do, it will be a most conclusive evidence of the alliance that is alleged to have been entered into_ between the Conservatives of other provinces and of the province of Quebec, under which alliance it would be agreed to oppose the Laurier government by arguments absolutely contradictory in their nature. If the Conservatives generally do not vote for this amendment, if the hon. mover, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), is supported only by the handful of French speaking Conservative members from the province of Quebec, we shall have another evidence of the state of disunion which exists in the ranks of His Majesty's loyal opposition in this House.
Mr. Speaker, to-day as yesterday, we on this side stand united on the policy of the establishment of a Canadian navy. We stand for a navy which is Canadian, a navy which is not compulsory, a navy which will not involve, as it cannot involve under the constitution direct taxation, a navy which will be under the direct control of the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament. And I repeat the hope expressed yesterday in more eloquent words than mine that this policy, when it becomes better understood by the people, when it has been more fully explained to the electors of the province of Quebec, will be supported by a huge majority of the people in all the provinces of Canada.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. [DOT] Speaker, I have already addressed the House on the debate on the address to His Excellency, and I would not have trespassed upon the attention of the House again, but for the reason that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has offered an amendment to the address as proposed. I shall have something to say about that in a moment or two; but in the meantime, if I may be permitted,. I would like to make one or two observations regarding certain remarks of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who made a very interesting speech, as he always does, and who spoke in a very eloquent and lucid manner. I am not at this moment undertaking to make any particular reply to that hon. gentleman except to point out to him that I think that, in two or three respects which are not unimportant, he has fallen into very serious error.
My hon. friend, in referring to the advantages of the fiscal policy carried out by the present administration, speaking of the days before 1896, said :
We imported $11,000,000 of goods from Great Britain in those days, but to-day without (hi t duty which was proposed by the Conservative party, Great Britain sells us $270,000,000 worth of goods more than five times what she sold us in 1892.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: That was a mistake, which I have corrected. I meant to say $217,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I so understood my hon. friend at the time, but I would like to point out that he is very much in error, even when he says $217,000,000. The figures for the last three years, as I take them from the reports published by the government, are as follows:	,
1910	$ 95,350,300
1909	 70,682,941
1908		 94,959,171

My hon. friend was in error to the extent of about $120,000,000. Even if we add the last two years together we only have $166,000,000, or about 30 per cent less than the *figures my hon. friend quotes as the imports from Great Britain for one year. My hon. friend must have taken the wrong column, I think. The annual imports from the United States are of about the amount he has .mentioned, and I imagine that in going over the blue-books-of course, I acquit my hon. friend of any intention to mislead the House-he must have taken the imports from the United States instead of the imports from Great Britain. As a matter of fact, instead of $217,000,000, upon which my hon. friend descanted with eloquence, the amount of imports from Great Britain amounted to only $95,000,000 in the


Robert Laird Borden: tion as it passed was in these words-I will read only the particular paragraph to which my hon. friend called attention:-
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
My hon. friend will at once see the absolute distinction between the paragraph of the resolution as read by him twice in the course of his remarks and the terms of the resolution as they were actually passed by this House in 1909, and he will see that in view of the resolution as actually passed the argument which he sought with great force to make to this House absolutely disappears and has no weight whatever.
As I am in this work of correcting errors, I might as well get through with that particular department while I am about it, and I call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) to some observations of his with which I take issue and to which I take exception. At page 171 of the unrevised 'Hansard' he made this statement in regard to the two naval stations of Halifax and Esquimalt:-
Now, hon. gentlemen opposite say, No, let us send warships to Great Britain, but let us not provide for the maintenance and equipment of those two naval stations. I
I disclaim any such statement either by myself, or, as far as I am aware, by any other hon. gentleman on this side of the House. It was only last session that I called the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and of my hon. friend the minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to the fact that these stations, according to the report of a very distinguished naval authority who had visited one of them, and who had heard some report of the other, were in an absolutely unsatisfactory condition. I then urged that these naval stations should be placed in efficient condition. My hon. friend will see that for the statement which he made in the terms to which I have lust now quoted he had absolutely no warrant.
I do not know that I can congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the first part of his speech at least. It was not exactly what we. could have expected from a minister of the Crown dealing with a very serious question of this kind, the question as to whether or not the naval policy of the government ought to be submitted to the people for their consideration and approval. Mv hon. friend devoted a very large part of his speech, indeed, a very considerable part of his speech, to reading extracts from the press with respect to the character of the recent election campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska, mnd he did this in a rather jocular way .without apparently having very much regard for the exceeding importance of the question which had been proposed to the House by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monkl.
Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as well used very strong language with regard to that campaign. I find no fault with that. They are entitled to make their observations in regard to that campaign and in regard to any arguments or appeals that were made to the electorate. They have a perfect right to do it. But, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as well have appealed to the columns of ' Le Devoir,' a newspaper published in the interest of the Nationalist party in the city of Montreal. Now, I am bound to say that I have seen in the columns of that journal, and on the front page of it, the statement that there was a very strong appeal made on behalf of the government in that campaign to the electorate that this navy, after all, was a very decided step towards the independence of this country. So, I do not know that you will find that the appeals on the government side were of a very high order. My hon. friend cannot say that no such appeal was made. We know that this argument was put forward in this House in the last session of parliament by an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. I will not weary the House by reading the hon. gentleman's words. All who are curious in such matters will find them recorded at page 4628 of the 'Hansard' of last year. There is only just one line that I might, perhaps, read, and it is this:-
The establishment of a war navy will in my humble opinion, be the last step towards independence.
There is a good deal more of it, but I am not going to follow the example of the Minister of Marine and of the Prime Minister by wearying tire House with long extracts and quotations of that kind. The Minister of Marine was very warm and very insistent on this subject. Let us look for one moment at what he said, because I want to lead up to one particular incident which I think is of some little moment. My hon. friend, at page 141 of the unrevised ' Hansard,' referring to those who were associated in the campaign against the government candidate in Drummond and Arthabaska, said this:-
Not only have they been trying to raise prejudice against our policy, but they have started a most dangerous movement.
And then, at page 152, he went on, after numerous quotations, to give us the cul-

mination of this most dangerous movement. He said this'-
Then there were cartoons distributed throughout the county by these Nationalists. One of them I hold in my hand. Of course, to them the British flag was nothing, if it should be trampled upon. This little cartoon, however, shows what kind of spirit there is in this Conservative party of the province of Quebec. It represents Baptiste smoking his pipe quietly and holding the Union Jack with both hands. Behind him is the Britisher, John Bull. Baptiste has taken off his coat and hung it on a tree, and the Britisher says to him: ' Hold the flag Baptiste, and while you are doing that I will take care of your coat' and while he is doing that the Britisher is represented as picking his pockets. This is the kind of cartoon these Nationalists or Conservatives are distributing in the province of Quebec.
Then he went on:-
My bon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not there. He takes also responsibility for such tactics. It is an absolute shame for those people to publish such cartoons.
First of all, they try to show that England is robbing Canada for the benefit of England. I say that to do so is criminal. I say that the members of a party who resort to such means to carry an election do not deserve respect.
My hon. friend the Prime Minister was equally insistent as to the evil character of the campaign in Drummond-Arthabaska and he said on page 57 ' Hansard ':-
Well, Sir, at this moment I have only to say that history teaches us that defeats there are which are more honourable than victories.
And at page 58 ' Hansard ' he said:-
The election was won by appeals so desperate that when the smoke of battle had cleared the public conscience was aroused with shame and indignation.
Does the House realize, does the Minis* ter of Marine and Fisheries deny that that very cartoon was first published in his, own organ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say to my hon. friend that that cartoon is taken from the ' Nationaliste ' and the * Nationaliste ' is the organ of the Nationalists and of the Conservatives in Quebec. I have never seen it published in any other paper.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I will tell the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that that very cartoon, substantially in every respect the same, was published in * Le Canada,' the minister's own organ on the 26th of September, 1904. And in the face of that fact this is the hon. gentleman who accuses the Nationalist party of starting a campaign of this kind. The Dundonald question was up in this country in 1903 and 1904 and it was in connec-i tion with that matter that the cartoon was Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
published in ' Le Canada ' and the words which accompanied the cartoon in ' Ee Canada ' are the very same words which have been denounced beyond measure by the Minister of Marine when they were used by the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. Here are the words accompanying the original cartoon in ' Le Canada ':-
As Dundonald has said to you: Hold it with both hands Baptiste, have no fear, I will take good care of your coat.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a different thing altogether. In this campaign the Nationalists had been stating all the time that we were robbing Baptiste of his money.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: So you were.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: And that we were robbing him for the purpose of supporting the naval supremacy -of Great Britain, and that cartoon was published to sustain that contention.


Robert Laird Borden: And in 1904
it was all very well for the organ of the Minister of Marine to publish that cartoon and to hold up members of the Conservative party and particularly the leader of the Conservative party as robbing the people of the province of Quebec in1 the interests of England. It was all right then because it was working for the benefit of the Liberal party. But when the Nationalists use the very same cartoon they are to be denounced by the Minister of Marine and his friends as being guilty of conduct dangerous and criminal. We know perfectly well the sort of campaign which was carried on in the province of Quebec in 1906, the Minister of Marine began it in this House and his words are on record in ' Hansard.' The other evening the hon. member for Jacques Cartier read some of the appeals which were made by a newspaper with which the Minister of Marine is said to have beeii, very closely connected.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: He wrote the articles.


Robert Laird Borden: It is said in fact that more than once during that campaign he contributed articles to that newspaper. I challenge the Minister of Marine, I challenge the Prime Minister as well to point out one word said in the' recent campaign in Drummond-Arthabaska that was more discreditable than the appeals which weTe made in the newspaper to which I have just called attention. Now, I have the file of ' Le Canada ' before me and I exhibit to the House the cartoon published in ' Le Canada ', There is the Imperialist with his hand in the pockets of Baptiste, theTe is Baptiste with both hands on the Union Jack and

looking around with some suspicion at the Imperialist; there is exactly the same cartoon as that which the Minister of Marine denounces when it is used against him, but which he was perfectly willing to endorse when it was used in his favour. And' further than that, the very cartoon which the Minister of Marine had in his hand! the other night showed that it was. copied from ' Le Canada,' because it declared' that very fact on its face. The Minister of Marine did not happen to mention that to the House. I do not accuse him of attempting to mislead the House, but as a matter of fact he did not mention it to the House. The cartoon on its face declared that it was published in ' Le Canada ' in 1908, but as a matter of fact it, was published in ' Le Canada ' in 3904,, which was a very much more effective period for the publication of such a thing, because then an election campaign was in progress, because then the question of Dun-donald and Imperialism was to the front and it was expected by the Minister of Marine and his friends that capital could be made against the Conservative party and its leader by just such appeals as the Minister of Marine and the Prime Minister denounce to-day when it is feared they will not suit their purpose. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made a very fervent appeal to me the other day and I now appeal as fervently to him that he and other members of hi^ party shall put a stop to such appeals being made in the province of Quebec.
These appeals are reprehensible I admit but when the Minister of Marine comes to this House and poses as one who has always denounced_ such appeals, I point him to the record in ' Le Canada ' of 26th Sept. 1904. I might also mention that ' Lo Canada ' is the recognized official organ of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec and has been so for many years.' It is not so long since any man entering the precincts of the grounds of parliament could see posted up on the very gate of parliament these words ' Lisez le Canada, L'Organe de Sir Wilfrid Laurier.' (read ' Le Canada ' the organ of Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
Now Mr. Speaker we on this side of the House have been rather peculiarly situated in one way. It has pleased the Nationalists in the province of Quebec, as has already been pointed out in the course of this debate, to declare that the Conservative narty in Canada is in alliance with-Sir Wilfrid Laurier on this naval question. 1 _ do not think that the Prime Minister himself was of that mind during the last session; I do not believe that he has changed his opinion since.
I have had the good or bad fortune, according to the point of view that may pre-8
sent itself to any one, to be denounced beyond measure by Nationalist speakers on every platform where they have spoken in the province of Quebec. I do not complain of that; I have taken my stand on this question, and as a public man I am open to criticism and open to denunciation at the instance of any man who does not happen to agree with me. I share the honour of being so denounced with about 80 Conservative members of parliament, and also with a number of gentlemen on the 0+her side of the House.
It has also pleased Liberal speakers and the Liberal press of this country to declare that the Conservative party is in alliance with the Nationalists, and if you work that out to its logical conclusion then there cannot be any difference of opinion whatever on this naval question in Canada, because we are in alliance with the government party on it and we are also in alliance with the Nationalist party, and there is absolutely no difference of opinion. Well, we are not in alliance with the government on this question. Our policy differs from theirs, but if any proposals which the government bring down to parliament are in accordance with the policy which we have announced and for which we stand this year as last year, then we will support those proposals. We are not in alliance with the Nationalists, and we have been denounced by them even more strongly than we have oeen denounced bv hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. We will retract no part of our policy because Nationalist or Liberal agrees or disagrees with it. We will stand by it- as we laid it down last year, and we will not be swerved from it by any taunt, whether of Nationalist or Liberal, that we are in alliance with some other party.
I come now tor a moment to the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). That motion was in these woTds:-
That the said motion be amended, by adding to the proposed Address to His Excellency the Governor General the following paragraph at the end thereof:-
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
I have already explained, in speaking upon this subject this session, the nature of our proposals when the government's measure was brought down last year. We then proposed a resolution which I read in this House only the day before yesterday, and need not read again. We declared by that resolution that the proposals of the government were dangerous, useless and expensive; we declared that before any permanent policy of this character involving large and unknowm future expenditures was entered upon, it should be more carefully
REVISE!? EDITION.

considered and thought out, and should be submitted to the people of Canada for their mandate. We also said that in the meantime and under the conditions which in our apprehension at that time confronted this empire, we ought to bring immediate and effective aid to the mother country and to the empire as a whole. That, in brief, was our position of last year. So far as the motion of my hon. friend is concerned, it deals with one aspect of that case. It does not, it is true, deal with every aspect of the case. Perhaps I should say a word or two on the subject of naval control which has been spoken of during this debate. While I respect the opinions of able and earnest men who disagree with me, I cannot see that it is possible to maintain the naval supremacy of this empire by a series of disunited navies, not under one central control. We may be of different minds as to whether Canada should contribute to the defence of the empire outside of her own territory, but if we once make up our minds that Canada is so to contribute, then it seems to me absolutely sure, certain and beyond argument that the naval supremacy of the empire can only be upheld by one great naval force under one great central control. That is my conviction, that is one great reason why it seems to me the naval proposals of the government are useless and could not be carried out effectually.
It may be fairly asked what we would do if we were in power to-day with regard to a great question of this kind. It seems to me that our plain course and duty would be this: The government of this country are able to ascertain and to know, if they take the proper action for that purpose, whether the conditions which face the empire at this time in respect of naval defence are grave. If we were in ptfwer we would endeavour to find that out, to get a plain, unvarnished answer to that question, and if the answer to that question, based upon the assurance of the government of the mother country and the report of the naval experts of the admiralty were such-and I think it would be such-as to demand instant and effective action by this country, then I would appeal to parliament for immediate and effective aid, and if parliament did not give immediate and effective aid I would appeal from parliament to the people of this country.
Then, Sir, as to the permanent policy, I think the people have a right to be consulted. I do not know whether I have made my position clear but I have done so according to my humble capacity. I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in imperial defence involves very large and wide considerations. If Canada and the other Dominions of the empire are to take their part as nations of this empire in the defence of the empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole empire, shall Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
have absolutely, as citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the councils of the empire touching the issues of peace or war throughout the empire? I do not think that such would be a tolerable condition, I do not believe the people of Canada -would for one moment submit to surfr a condition. Shall members of this House, representative men, representing 221 constituencies of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, shall no one of them have th^ same voice with regard to those vast imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British Isles has at this moment. It does not seem to me that such a condition would make for the integrity of the empire, for the closer co-operation of the empire regard must be had to these far reaching considerations, a permanent policy would have to be worked out, and when that permanent policy had been worked out and explained to the people of Canada, to every citizen in this country, then it would be the duty of any government to go to the people of Canada to receive their mandate and accept and act upon their approval of or disapproval of that policy.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has moved this motion. I am not particularly satisfied with its phrasing. With the object which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has in view I am absolutely in sympathy because I think the mandate of the peopie should be taken on so great a question. I have considered the words of my hon. friend's amendment with some care and I think that the object that he has in view might be expressed, according to my humble appreciation at least, in words of more satisfactory import.
I am speaking entirely of course from my own standpoint, and I acknowledge that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has the same right to his opinion as I have to mine, I beg, therefore, to move:
That all the words after the word ' thereof ' in the proposed motion in amendment be omitted and the following substituted therefor :-
We beg to assure Tour Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire. We desire, however, to express our regret that Your Excellency's gracious speech gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Tour Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, before the debate is resumed, and by your leave, I would ask

your permission to have a correction made in the first line of page 94 of ' Hansard where the figures $270,000,000 appear. I did not use the words two hundred and seventy millions. My recollection is that I did say $217,000,000. But, as pointed out by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the correct figures are $95,000,000. I used the larger numbers $217,000,000 inadvertently, and desire that a correction should he made. I cannot correct it at this stage otherwise than by this statement.


Mr. FOSTER.: While the hon. gentleman is in a correcting mood, I will call his attention to page 96 where he is reported as having said :
Contrary to the statutes, as I maintain, he

That is, myself.
-did not that year provide a sinking fund to meet the national debt, saving hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of dollars there.
If my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) will look that up he will find that he is quite mistaken.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no correction to make there.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Willing to let the statement go uncorrected.


Hugh Guthrie: So far as my knowledge goes, the statement is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) does not follow the other side in refusing to correct even wrong statements. .


Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to reply shortly to the address to which we listened this afternoon from the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). In beginning his speech that hon. gentleman said he desired to correct two or three unimportant inaccuracies in the very excellent address which we heard a day or two ago from the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). The first of these is that which has been referred to in the explanation made to-day by the hon. member, in the figures he gave relating to the trade with Great Britain as compared with trade with the United States. It seems to me that, as the leader of the opposition suggested, this is a matter of little importance upon which no argument or theory can properly be based. The British Islands produce not nearly enough foodstuffs for the sustenance of their people. They buy largely from us, and largely from practically every other food-exporting country on the globe, foodstuffs of various kinds. The United States, on the other hand, at present produces all the foodstuffs it requires. We 8t
import largely from the United States raw material that it is impossible for us to obtain or procure in Great Britain. In view of the character of the trade, I think that the figures do not really greatly affect the argument.
The next question referred to by the leader of the opposition was the matter of public lands of the west. In the first place, he referred to a legal phase of the question. Not having a knowledge of the law, I will not endeavour to deal with this legal matter of differences between these two gentlemen. However, the hon. leader of the opposition does seem to say-and it is not the first time he has so indicated- that the people of Alberta, and Saskatchewan ought to have been given the control of their lands-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. MILLER-and I hear many hon. members on the other side say : ' Hear, hear.' Now, these hon. gentlemen including the leader of the opposition, have usually been willing to accept as their model the late right hon. Sir John Macdonald. Let me refer to a discussion which took place in this House in 1870, when that hon. gentleman was introducing a Bill creating and admitting the province of Manitoba. During that debate, he said:
With respect to the lands that are included in the province, the next clause provides that such of them that do not belong to individuals shall belong to the Dominion of Canada, the same being within boundaries already described.
Then, he goes on to say that certain reserves shall be set aside Co satisfy the title of the Indians to the territory. That appears to have been accepted on both sides at that time, for, so far as I have been able to find, nobody made further allusion to the matter during the debate. If we turn to the statutes of Canada for 1870, we find that chapter 3 section 30 provides as follows :
All ungranted or waste lands in the province shall he, from and after the date of the said transfer, vested in the Crown, and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion, subject to, and except and so far as the same may he affected hy the conditions and stipulations contained in the agreement for the surrender of Rupert's Land hy the Hudson Bay Company to Her Majesty.
That, I should think, forms an excellent precedent. Those hon. members opposite who have good memories will recall that, at one time, there was a contest between Sir John Macdonald,_then Prime Minister of the Dominion, and Hon. Oliver Mowat, then premier of the province of Ontario. There was litigation and a reference to the Privy Council as to the title and claim

either of the Dominion or the province to what was then known as the disputed territory. And we remember that when he was foiled in his attempt to claim title in the Dominion for these lands, Sir John Macdonald said that although the courts had given to Ontario the fee in the lands, they would not give, if he could help it, ' one stick of timber or one ounce of mineral.' We have the further precedent of the United States. We remember that the thirteen original states of the Dominion possessed, as did the older provinces of Canada, when they entered confederation, their lands. But the title to the lands of all those states that from that time to this have entered the union, have been held by, and the lands have been administered by, the federal government at Washington. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) referring to the speech of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that if the hon. member for South Wellington was right in stating that these lands were of no value and could not be of value to the provinces, and if these lands are a burden to the Dominion and all the Dominion has in them is the expense of administering them, how is it that a portion of the lands are set aside, or the revenue derived for them, set aside, for the building of the Hudson JBay railway? I would call the hon. member's attention and the attention of the House to the fact that the Hudson Bay railway, if constructed, will be largely within the province in which these lands lie. But the leader of the opposition says fur

ther: If the lands were of no value why does the hon. member for South Wellington say that a large grant of money in additional subsidies was given to the provinces in lieu of the land-why give the provinces anything in substitution for lands that were of no value? Sir, that is sleight of hand work, it seems to me, and not very clever juggling at that. Two new provinces were being admitted to the Dominion. Their representatives said: We- cannot carry on "the affairs of our provinces without a revenue from some source; if we have no rev-enue_ from our public lands, as the older provinces have, whence shall our revenue come? And the Dominion government answered:	True, you have no lands, but we
"will give you grants of money that will enable you to carry on the business of your respective provinces. Sir, it is an old saying that one cannot have one's cake and eat one's cake. The people of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were represented; a bargain was made to which they agreed under which additional money subsidies were given and the Dominion was to retain the lands. They have been satisfied ever since, except in so far as hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to arouse Mr. MILLER.
feeling on the subject, and have since sustained at the polls the men who made that bargain on their behalf.
They deemed it better for them to receive a cash subsidy than the lands. Had they been given the lands, as my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) pointed out, they would have had to care for them, to dispose of them, and to get a revenue out of them, they would have had to place these lands upon the market. Consequently we would not have had that splendid immigration into the new provinces that has taken place under the Dominion government administration. It is natural that men will be slower to take up and cultivate lands for which they have to pay, than they will to settle upon and cultivate lands that are given to them free. Then it is better that the immigration policy of the whole western country should be administered from one place, and should be identical for all those provinces, instead of being framed by each province on different lines. It is better for the people of the west that they should allow the lands to remain in the Dominion government, and that the Dominion government should carry on the splendid immigration policy that they have so successfully carried on for a number of years. The people that that immigration policy has brought into the country are constructing roads, establishing school systems and churches, and doing all the things that settlers in a new country are accustomed to do to develop that country. I supose, Sir, that every trapper must have his 'bait. We see the attempted work of the trapper, but the bait is not well concealed. In Alberta and Saskatchewan the bait is the public lands, or it is a trifling or toying with the matter of the duty on agricultural implements. In British Columbia it is an increased cash subsidy; in Quebec it is a referendum on the naval question. Next we are told that we have not well provided for naval bases, somebody says that we have not properly equipped our defences at Esquimalt and Halifax. Well, it would be strange if there were no one criticising. We know there never was a time but that some one is criticising the naval preparations of Great Britain.
Another serious matter that was treated in a serious way by the hon. leader of the opposition, was the cartoon that appeared in ' Le Canada ' in 1904, and reappeared in the 1 Nationalist' and ' Le Devoir.' I will not apologize for that cartoon, it probably was a cartoon that ought never to have been used. But I point this out to the House, that while the cartoon in ' Le Canada ' was expressing an antagonism, it was not an antagonism to Britain, or to the British people, but to one man, Lord Dundonald. That-criticism may have been just or unjust, so far as Lord Dundonald was con-

cerned, but it was not levelled at England or Great Britain. I say, Sir, that it is very unfair indeed that the leader of the opposition, with all his cleverness and ability, should seriously seek to place the responsibility for that cartoon upon the Liberal party, or upon any Liberal. I would like to ask the leader of the opposition if he would hold a political party responsible for every cartoon that may appear in any organ of that party?


Mr. NORTHRUP.: You appear to.


Henry Horton Miller: I do not know that I do, I do not think I do.


William Barton Northrup: What was the minister talking about, then?


Henry Horton Miller: I make the point that the cartoon that appeared in ' Le Devoir ' appeared in a newspaper the editor of which is Mr. Bourassa, the leader of the party with which our friends opposite are allying themselves to-day, aud Mr. Bourassa must therefore be held responsible for that cartoon. You cannot, however, fasten responsibility for a cartoon in ' Le Canada ' upon the Liberal party, because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries happens some time to write an article for that paper, not at all. And you cannot fasten the responsibility for a cartoon upon a man who says he never saw the cartoon, and never knew anything about it until it was referred to in this House yesterday. But the leader of the opposition says that a placard with a certain inscription ' The organ of Sir Wilfrid Laurier ' was painted upon the walls of ' Le Canada 1 at any rate, wherever posted, it was relating to ' Le Canada, ' and described it as the organ of Laurier. Sir, I have seen a label upon a bottle of mixed pickles, it may be, making a trade appeal and claiming the manufacturers to be purveyors to Her Majesty the Queen, or His Majesty the King, and I suppose that * Le Canada,' foT similar trade purposes, claimed to be the organ of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Now, talking of cartoons, 1 fancy that hon. gentlemen opposite have heard of the Toronto ' Telegram.' I would not be surprised to learn that some hon. gentleman opposite had contributed letters and articles to the Toronto ' Telegram,' I would not be surprised to learn that the hon. leader of the opposition himself had written letters at times, or articles for the Toronto ' Telegram.'


Robert Laird Borden: I never had that honour.


Henry Horton Miller: Then perhaps that honour is still in store for the hon. gentleman. But surely it would not have been a crime for him to do so. The editor and proprietor of the Toronto ' Telegram ' is a good
Conservative. He formerly occupied a seat in this House as a Conservative representing a constituency in the city of Toronto. The publisher and owner of the Toronto * Telegram ', I understand is a very wealthy man, a very philanthropic man, a man who is in the habit from time to time of helping substantially people in need. That being so, I would not be surprised if he had from time to time contributed to the campaign funds of our friends opposite who for some years have been needy indeed. But allow me to describe to you, and to invite your attention to a cartoon that appeared in the Toronto ' Telegram.' I would not have used this, though I think it is now quite fair to do so, had not the leader of the opposition displayed that cartoon in ' Le Canada ' in the most dramatic manner he did this afternoon. Under the circumstances I do not ask the leader of the opposition to excuse me for making use of this cartoon in the way that he made use of that in * Le Canada.' I do not go back to the files of the Toronto ' Telegram ' for 1904. but only to the day before yesterday. There is a cartoon, let me describe it to you if I can. In the back ground I see Mr. Henri Bourassa driving a fractious horse labelled Quebec. In the very foreground I see my hon. and very loyal friend, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). He is beating with all his might a drum, and upon the drum are these inscriptions: ' Eucharistic Congress. Question. Question, Question. Between the fractious horse and the fractious member of parliament there is hastily running, with an alarmed expression, and with the unkind winds taking away his hat, the leader of the opposition. He is endeavouring to overtake the hon. member for East Grey, and to prevent him from beating that drum and from asking those questions. The inscription I think is not exactly correct. I have heard my hon. friend from East Grey use a very slight Irish accent. Now I think an Irish accent is no disgrace to any man, but this inscription does make his accent rather more pronounced and emphatic than that which the hon. member uses. The inscription is as follows:
Dr. Sproule, M.P. Oh. T must stop the music, must I, for fear the drum bavtin would skeer the horse, yer friend, Bourassa's trviu-to drive 9
Sir, I do not mean to tuv- hao'- +-the Toronto ' Telegram ' of 1904 to find this other cartoon that I would like to describe to you, for it appeared on the 18th of November present. This time it. is a naval scene, described as upon the deck a vessel, nossiblv the * Rainbow ' or the * Niobe.' Sir Wilfrid Laurier is represented in the cartoon as dressed in a naval uniform, and he is hoisting a flag to the
2.35

mast of the vessel upon which are these words: ' Laurier expects Borden this day to do his duty.' In front of the mast., with his right hand raised, in an attitude of servitude with a big broom in his hand, *and with unclad feet, the leader of the opposition is engaged in sweeping the deck, and the inscription is as follows:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Come, come me man, this is a critical session, remember, and we want no insubordination on board this craft.


Mr. LALOR.: Where is the joke?


Henry Horton Miller: Why. there is no joke ; it is rather a serious matter, because it is an implied denial of the statement of the leader of the opposition that there exists no alliance between himself and the government.


Mr. LENNOX.: Do you say there is?


Henry Horton Miller: No, by no means. For the credit of our party I would not say that. I say decidedly, ' no


William Barton Northrup: Again, then where is the point?


Henry Horton Miller: No alliance. I have said that the cartoon would represent that there was an alliance between Mr. Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He says there is not. I quite believe there is not. I am not so ready to believe that there is no alliance *between the leader of the opposition and the Nationalists. I am not prepared at all not to take the word of the hon. leader of the opposition ; I take his word readily and at once 'but there are different ways of forming an alliance. I am quite ready to admit that there may have been no written contract under the hand and seal of either party, but there are other ways of making alliances. You tell me that there is no alliance. What are the evidences? I think one of the evidences is that when the election came on in Drummond and Arthabaska there was not the slightest attempt by the leader of the opposition to put a Conservative candidate in the field to lessen the chance of the Nationalist candidate. Furthermore, when the leader of the opposition was asked how he would advise the people of the constituency to vote, he did not wire them back and say : Vote as loyal British subjects ought to vote ; he did not say : Consider your loyalty to Britain when you vote, but he *practically said : It is no concern to me ; vote just as you like.


An hon. MEMBER.: No, no.


William Barton Northrup: Read the telegram.


Henry Horton Miller: I say that practically that is what it means.


William Barton Northrup: No, no.


Henry Horton Miller: 


Henry Horton Miller: No alliance? What about the mischievous telegram from the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster)? Could any better evidence of an alliance exist than that? What about the telegram from the hon. member from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) of congratulation upon the hard-won honours of one of the leaders, the third man in the team of the Nationalist party?


George Taylor: Read the telegram.


Henry Horton Miller: With very much pleasure ; it is well worth reading.
Accept heartiest congratulations on your great fight and success.
No alliance indeed ! If further evidences were required we have them in the resolution of the lieutenant of the Nationalists and the resolution proposed by the leader of the opposition.
Now, the leader of the opposition has spoken, in regard to the navy question, of the apprehensions which were his in 1909. I would like to know whether, his apprehensions at that date are still entertained by him. Turning to ' Hansard ' of last session, page 1757, the leader of the opposition said :
In other words Germany, the dominant military power upon land beyond all challenge does not propose to rest satisfied until she can successfully challenge the control of the seas by Great Britain.
The hon. member for Halifax had a right, of course, to his own opinion at that time. He had a right to believe at that time if he chose that there was danger of Germany attacking Great Britain. I would like to know if he thinks that danger exists to-day. He thought at that time that there was that danger. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister said that he did not think there was any danger of Germany attacking Great Britain. Whatever the world may have thought at that time, I think the world thinks to-day that the Prime Minister was right and not the leader of the opposition. A few days ago, before I came to Ottawa for the opening of the session, I was talking to a German Canadian, who had just returned from a tour of several weeks in Germany. He was a German Canadian, able to speak the German language, having friends in Germany, and in a position to get at the innermost thoughts of the German people. When he came back I was talking to him, and I said: Are the German people getting ready to attack us? He said: They are ready. I said: Is there any thought of or desire to attack Great Britain, and he said: Not at all. But, he said, Great Britain has been talking in her newspapers about a war with Germany, and the German people simply say: We are ready. I said: Is there any ill-feeling as far *as you were able to discover it on the part

of the German public against Great Britain, and he said: Not at all; there is a very friendly feeling. If British politicians, for political purposes, stir up a wax scare and talk about a war with Germany, can we blame Germany and can we wonder that Germany places herself in readiness for war? I say that public men in Britain and public men in Canada do a great injury to their own countries and to the world at large when they talk over much of the probability of war, because nothing creates war sooner or more effectually than to talk of war.
The hon, leader of the opposition thought that there should be central control of the naval force, and not a disconnected force.
I do not know why that should be so in regard to the navy any more than in regard to the militia. But, again, the leader of the opposition says: Shall we build a navy, shall we equip a navy and shall we send that navy to fight in Britain's wars without having any voice in the matter, and shall the humblest taxpayer in Great Britain have a greater voice even than any of the 220 members of the Canadian parliament?
I turn again to the words of the hon member spoken during last session, and I find them on page 1742 of 'Hansard.' The hon. gentleman, himself, upon that occasion, raised the question of having no voice, and then he proceeded to talk, I think more reasonably upon it than he has done this evening. On the 12th January, 1910, the hon. gentleman said:-
I know that it has been urged, and with some force, that we in Canada cannot properly take a permanent part in the naval defence of the whole empire unless we are to have some voice as to the wars in which Great Britain may engage. Let me say in the first place, that I do not believe Great Britain will in the future engage in any great war-except indeed it may be a war forced upon her without a moment's notice-before consulting the great dominions of the empire. I have some warrant for that statement when I recollect that before Great Britain engaged in the South African war, which was in the end forced upon her, she came to the great dominions of the empire, she came to Canada and she sought advice and counsel. And, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, standing in his place in this House moved a resolution in 1899 expressing the sympathy of this House with the efforts which Great Britain was then making to bring about better conditions for her subjects in the Transvaal republic.
Now, Sir, to-day the hon. gentleman contends that we ought to have a voice in imperial affairs and that it ought to be provided in our legislation that we shall have a voice if we are to insist on maintaining a navy. A little less than a year ago he said I think we will have a voice. He was not alarmed at that time. He said: I do not think that Great Britain, unless
war be forced upon her without notice, will go to war until she consult with us. If the hon. gentleman was right last session I would like to know where is the cause of his alarm on the present occasion?
The hon. gentleman vouchsafed, as he does not very often, to tell us what he would do were he in power. He said: I would obtain knowledge as to the exact situation and as to the imminence of whatever peril Britain might be in; I would get that information from the British government, from the authorities at home. But, Sir, if there is as much confusion as we are led to believe and as much difference of opinion in Great Britain as to what is the imminency of the peril and the danger, the hon. gentleman would have very hard work in obtaining the knowledge from Britain for which he would seek. But, he says: We ought to have a voice. Sir, if we have to go to Britain for information as to what is the danger, then if Britain has the information and if Britain is the only source from which we can get that information, let Britain have the voice. The hon. member said last session ('Hansard,' page 1746) that he was opposed to annual cash contributions to the navy, and he gave very strong reasons for his position in that respect. He said:-
It has been said 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, I would be inclined to agree with the view of the admiralty that this would be the best way for the great self-governing dominions of the empire to make their contributions. But, Sir, from a constitutional and political standpoint, I am opposed to it, for many reaeons. In the first place, I do not believe that it would endure. In the second place it would be a source of friction. It would become a bone of partisan contention. It would be subject to criticism as to the character and the amount of the contribution in both parliaments. It would not be permanent or continuous. It would conduce, i.f anything could conduce to severing the present connection between Canada and the empire.
Now, Sir, if the hon. member is opposed to a cash contribution; if he is as loyal as he claims to be, and as I believe he is, I wonder what he would advise. And, speaking of his loyalty, is there anybody in any part of Canada who has any lack of confidence in the loyalty of the leader of the opposition. If there be any one who has such a notion let me dispel it by quoting what the hon. gentleman said in this House on the 12th of January, 1910:-
I am the descendant of those who have never lived under any other than the British flag since it first streamed to the free winds of Heaven. I am as profoundly and unalterably attached to British institutions, and connection, and as ready to work, and if necessary to fight for them as any man in Canada. But if my country, one of the richest in the world

in proportion to its population, should accept the humiliating, the degrading, the pauperizing position of receiving future protection and safety at the hands and cost of the British taxpayer without contributing one dollar in aid of assistance, I would say that the sooner the empire was rid of her the better for all.
Does it require any lessening of that loyalty to effect an alliance with the Nationalists, or is that loyalty as live and as keen to-day as it was in January last? What is the position in this respect of Mr. Bourassa? What is the position in this respect of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier? They each of them say: We are quite willing that the relations of Canada to the British Empire shall continue as they are. The Montreal ' Witness ' puts that very well when it says: Of what value is such loyalty and fealty; of what value is the willingness of a young man to remain at home who grows up in his home, who has been supported by father and mother until he arrives at his maiority and the days of his strength, and who then says in the time of their need: I am willing to remain a member of the household, I am willing that the household shall provide for me and shelter me, but upon the express condition that I shall not contribute a stiver towards the household expenses.
I have spoken, Sir, of the amendments proposed to the main motion before the House, as being evidence of an alliance, and let me read them. The amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier says:-
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
That resolution was submitted to the House a few days ago ; it was moulting at that time and since then it has grown a feather or two. The amendment as proposed by the leader of the opposition is as follows :
We beg to assure Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire

That is an expression of loyalty that will be of more or less value, but I would rather be inclined to think that it is of no particular practical value. Here is the meat in the amendment of the leader of the opposition:
We desire, however, to express our regret that_ Your Excellency's gracious speech gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada.
These two amendments in effect and substance are as like as two peas. Why then Mr. MILLER.
should there he an amendment and an amendment to the amendment. I have here a clipping from a newspaper, and the whips and the ex-whips of the Conservative party will tell me whether or not it is a true account of what took place in the recent Conservative caucus, or, possibly they will not tell me.
Ottawa, Nov. 22.-Mr. Borden's followers in caucus this morning found that they were on the horns of a dilemma in regard to Mr. Monk's amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. This amendment says: ' The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever as to the intention of the government to consult the people on the naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.'
The amendment is in effect what the opposition voted for last session in the final attempt to obtain a united opposition line-up. But the wording has not the proper imperialistic flavour. An effort was made yesterday to get Mr. Monk to change the wording of his amendment a little, so as to provide a little flag-waving accompaniment, but he declined. Moreover, there is a general disinclination in the Conservative ranks to effect any visible alliance with the Nationalists. To vote cordially for the Nationalist amendment would look like endorsing the Nationalist campaign in Drummond-'Arthabaska.
After talking the situation over for over an hour the caucus adjourned without any definite decision being reached. It is probable that a second amendment to the Address will be moved, in the hope of reaching a nicety of wording that will be acceptable to both wings of the opposition.


An hon. MEMBER.: What paper is that from?


Henry Horton Miller: That is from the best paper probably in the Dominion ; a paper upon which we all rely ; the Toronto ' Globe '.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Henry Horton Miller: Now, they speak of two wings of the opposition ; one of them is the really loyal wing, and there are really loyal men upon the other side of the House, men who are as loyal as the men upon this side of the House. But, then there are with them men of different ilk ; there are the loyal men and there are the Monks, and the Blondins, the Fosters and the Taylors.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: And the Brodeurs.


Henry Horton Miller: Sir, there is loyalty expressed in that resolution, but I like better the substantial loyalty professed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier last session when he said :
When Britain is at war Canada is at war; there is no distinction.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Jacques Cartier present in the House, and

I would like to give him an opportunity to offer some explanation as to the matter of conscription. I trust the hon. member will not leave the Chamber for a moment. The House will remember that when the Prime Minister was speaking he said he did not think that the speakers in the Nationalist campaign told the people that there would he no conscription but the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) said that he told the people there would be no conscription and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier said : So did I, I told the people that there would be no conscription.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What we told the people was that there was absolutely no conscription in the law, no forced service in the law.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But that I for my part said everywhere that we could not go far without having conscription.


Henry Horton Miller: Now the hon. gentleman puts himself right and I was glad to give him that opportunity of doing so. Speaking in the House on November 22, the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) said:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier stands for that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He approves of that, I understand. Does my hon. friend stand by those declarations ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I think we did at every meeting state that conscription must necessarily follow.
It makes little difference whether people were told that the conscription was in the law or that it must immediately follow.
But Mr. Bourassa writes a letter to the press in reply to a letter from the Prime Minister and he does not deny that there was a threat of conscription, that the people were threatened with conscription at every meeting, but he endeavoured to justify himself by saying that there was forced enrolment of sailors scarce a century ago in Britain, that some British statesmen talk of it being reintroduced.
As far as the election in Drummond and Arthabaska is concerned, whatever alliances may be formed, whatever speeches may be made, the opinion of the people of Canada will be as is veTy well expressed in an editorial in the last number of the ' Guardian,' the official organ of the Methodist church in Canada. The editorial reads:
Opposed to Imperialism.
_ The recent victory of the Quebec Nationalists in the Drummond and Arthabaska election does not create general rejoicing throughout Canada. The Liberals naturally are not jubilant over their defeat, but the Conservatives, while inclined to rejoice in anything
which would impair Sir Wilfrid Laurier's prestige as Liberal leader, are not prepared either to endorse the tactics, or to echo the sentiments of Messrs Bourassa and Monk. While making all allowance for the fact that in the heat of a political campaign men sometimes say things which in cooler moments they regret, yet we cannot ignore the fact that the victory in this case has an antiBritish flavour, which is most regrettable. Canada is part of the British Empire. The flag which floats over Quebec is the flag of Great Britain. We believe in Canadian rights, but we believe, also, in the wider imperial unity which the empire signifies, and the election just referred to has struck a jarring note which will not tend b>
make either for Canadian or imperial unity. We are sorry that such a note of dissonance has been struck, and we hope that it will find no echo elsewhere upon Canadian soil. We can afiord to fight our political battles with a good deal of vigour, and we can afford to give and take hard knocks, but we. cannot afford to be disloyal to the flag under which we enjoy our liberties, and whose protection has helped to make us great. Canada is loyal to the empire, and cannot afford to be even suspected of disloyalty. The wild vapourings of irresponsible politicians must not be taken as the utterances of either one or the other of our great political parties. Whatever differences may divide these parties, they stand united in steadfast loyalty to the empire.
In conclusion may I refer to certain statements that have been made out of the House by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and in the House by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). Of all the unwarranted statements I have ever heard in connection with political discussions these statements were the most unwarranted, the statement made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier and hon. Mr. Brodeur were in opposition they would use the same arguments as were used by the Nationalists in Quebec, and the statement in this House by the hon. leader of the opposition during this debate that the practices employed by the Nationalists in Drummond and Arthabaska, were the same as those employed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier previous to the election of 1896.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Horton Miller: And same one is brazen enough to say to that, hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Horton Miller: A number of others; I would like to see these men put their names on record, to see these valiant men rise and endorse as they do the words of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the unworthy words of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). In order to refute such statements I shall turn to an authority that I am sure ought to be accepted and I

trust will be accepted by every member of the opposition, that is Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier's biography as written by the ardent, zealous editor of- the Toronto ' News '.


George Taylor: The Toronto ' Globe ' at the time. [DOT]


Henry Horton Miller: ' The Toronto Globe at the time.' That shows the idea of the hon.
member for Leeds as to what is the measure of a man, that a man engaged upon one paper shall not be able to tell the truth, but engaged upon another paper in later years shall be truthful and reliable. Surely that is not so.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Why did the hon. gentleman say he was editor of the Toronto ' News ' when he was not?


Henry Horton Miller: Is not Mr. Willison editor of the Toronto ' News '?


William Sora Middlebro: Not at that time.


Henry Horton Miller: I did not say he was at that time, if the hon. member understood me to say that, he was mistaken. I said the gentleman who is now the editor of the Toronto ' News ' and I say that, he being one of the most zealous members to-day of the Conservative party, surely his testimony and evidence will be accepted by every member of the opposition.


George Taylor: That is ancient history.


Henry Horton Miller: I know no one fonder of ancient history than the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor); he is better versed in ancient than in modern history, and this is not such very ancient history. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) referred to what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier before the election of 1896, surely he was referring to ancient history and I would like now to refer to ancient history of just about the same period. In the first paragraph of chapter 28 of Mr. Willison's work entitled ' The. Man and His Methods.' Mr. Willison says:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's public career is remarkable for consistent and unchanging devotion to three great objects; the assertion and maintenance of the principle of federalism, ardent and unflinching championship of civil and religious freedom, patient and courageous resistance to the denationalizing tendencies of racialism, sectarianism, and . provincialism.
That was the opinion of Mr. Willison. I turn now to page 363 of the same work. Mr. Willison here refers to two splendid speeches delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He says:
It seems to be Sir Wilfrid Laurier's habit to reveal himself at Quebec. There were spoken perhaps the two greatest speeches he has ever delivered outside of parliament.


Henry Horton Miller: You will observe that it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier's habit to reveal himself as a true Briton as well as a true Canadian-not in some particularly English part of Canada but in the great old French city of Quebec.
I ask the hon. gentleman for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and I ask the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) to notice the date:
The speech of 1894, like that of 1877, is a plea for moderation, for union, for civil and religious freedom, for a good understanding between the French and English races, for the subordination of all sectional aims and ambitions to the great work of unity and consolidation.
Sir, it may be said that Mr. Willison became too enthusiastic in his praise of the subject of his biography. I am glad however that in this book, Mr. Willison has given us the very text of that speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1894, for which every Canadian must be very grateful. Let me read to you from the speech itself:
He was happy, he said, to proclaim in the old French city of Quebec, that the basis and aim of the ideas and hopes of Liberals was to create a Canadian nationality. Their great object was the development of the work of confederation, to draw closer, to bind and cement together the different elements scattered over the face of British North America, and to weld them into one nation. This was the role of the Liberal party in the confederation, and so long as he had a part in the shaping of its destinies, this was the idea towards which it should gravitate. He did not forget that the Liberals of Lower Canada feared confederation. He did not forget that Dorion and the French Canadian Liberals were afraid .that confederation would prove the grave of the things which they should always regard as a sacred inheritance. But although he was a disciple of Dorion and a pupil of the Dorion school, he was bound to confess that on this point his ideas were those of Cartier's rather than those of Dorion's. There was no conflict between their interest and their duty. They belonged to different races, not to war upon each other, but to labour together for their common good.
Let me quote further from that same speech.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier went on to say:
What this country needs above all is peace, concord and union between all the elements composing its population.
It had been far better if, instead of sending his meaningless telegram, as the leader of the opposition did, if instead of sending the mischievous telegram which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did, if instead of sending his congratulations as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) did, these gentlemen had gone to the province of Quebec and made there speeches similar to that made by Sir Wil-

frid Laurier in 1894, and similar to those which the right hon. gentleman has always made, whether speaking in Quebec or Toronto, whether addressing audiences of French, English, Irish or Scotch.
It is because the Prime Minister has always preached the same doctrine and stood by the same principles in every part of Canada on every occasion-it is for this reason that he has behind him, not a mere alliance of heterogeneous iragments but the solid backing of all those who sit behind him. And it is because of this that not only has he the loyalty of the House but the support of the Canadian people. Nothing more is required than this ill-assorted union between the Nationalists and the Tory party to add to the lustre of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's name in Canada and to his reputation as a Canadian and British statesman. It is just the absence of that strong adherence to principle and political steadfastness and stability which has handicapped the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and placed him where he is. It is the lack of those qualities which has caused the failure as a public man of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The other day that hon. gentleman, in a bantering tone, if you will, but with a touch of malice all the same and a little grain of political hope, referred to the age of the right hon. gentleman as being 69 years. Well, the right hon. the Prime Minister may be 69 years old, but he is as stalwart to-day as any man in this House, and his usefulness and his strength in the country were never greater. I see a great oak standing in a forest, stronger and more vigorous than it was ten years ago. Its roots have taken a greater hold in the soil, its branches stretch out on every hand and furnish generous shelter and protection to friend and foe. But just across the line there is another forest in which my attention was attracted to another tree, of an altogether different appearance. I asked the old forester the history of that tree. Ah, he said, that is a tree which we planted down in New Brunswick in 1847. I took every care of that old tree. I first planted it in one part of New Brunswick but it did not seem to thrive, I then transplanted it from place to place in that province, but still it seemed to wither, I then removed it from that province to the wilds of Ontario, into the northern part of the county of Ontario, but immediately it began again to wither and would * not take any root. So I took it up and planted it in North Toronto. I said to myself if there be any soil in the world where that tree can possibly take root and grow, it will be there. Yet' notwithstanding all my care you see there is no .sap in it, there is no substance
or strength in its trunk, its roots poison every atom of soil, evey well and spring they permeate, its branches afford no shelter, there is no healing in its leaves and nothing left of the old tree but its bark. Sir, the old oak to which I first referred is Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who today is Prime Minister and who will be spared, I trust, to be Prime Minister of this great Dominion for another fifteen years. The other tree is another man.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM (East Huron).: That is a very interesting story which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) who has just taken his seat has told us about the two trees. It was a very pretty little tale for children, and possibly will have some influence on hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, but I might point out that there is one thing which he failed to note and that is that the tree he described as not being very flourishing has at any rate no graft about it. As I cast my eyes to the other side this afternoon at the close of the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and saw the downcast looks and the thoroughly disorganized appearance of hon. gentlemen opposite, I could not help thinking that they must find themselves in a very perilous, discouraged condition indeed, and I wondered if it was possible by any means to revive their spirts. They have, however, put up this evening one of their ablest men. Perhaps the speech of the hon. egntleman who has just sat down is about the best tonic they could have had under the circumstances; and that hon. gentleman, after his very able effort, surely deserves to be rewarded by a portfolio at a very early day.
Referring to the beginning of this debate, I may say that I listened very attentively to the speeches made. I was very much pleased with the effort of the hon. gentleman who moved the address (Mr. McGi-verin). And I may add that I was as well pleased as any one on this side could be expected to be with the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman who seconded the motion (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. gentleman struck, I think, a very good and a very tender note. His reference to our departed King Edward VII. and the loyal way in which he expressed himself in connection with our present sovereign, King George V., were particularly gratifying to me.
I was pleased that this should come at this particular time, especially from him because I think it would be well if we should let the world outside understand that Canadians are not just quite so bad as some people on both sides would try to make others believe they are. I think the loyal part of the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska deserves thanks even from this side of the House.

And why should not the hon. gentleman speak in this way? He is a French Canadian ; why should not he be loyal to King George V.? When that Sovereign is the direct descendant of William the French Norman king who came over in 1066 and took possession of the English Crown, and the descendants of William have reigned there ever since. William and his nobles carried the French language with them, and it was practised not only in the King's own court but in other courts of England for hundreds and hundreds of years. If it had not been for the foolishness of King John, Normandy and Britain would still be under the same sovereign You must remember that the Norman French and the other French people are not the same race at all. The Normans are descendants from the North men and have m their veins the daring blood of the sea kings. For many centuries they fought shoulder to shoulder with the English speaking people who lived in Great Britain against their common enemy, the French. And when Jacques Cartier left St. Malo on the 20th of April, 1534, he left Normandy, and at that time the whole of Normandy had not been conquered by the French ; the city of Calais was still under control of the English. And we have even to-day.the Channel Islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and 'Sark, a remnant of Norman territory, where the people speak French, and there are no more loval subjects of our beloved King George V Those who left Normandy and came to the banks of the St. Lawrence and. took up their habitation there found themselves, in a short time, once more under a British King. But that British King was their legitimate and hereditary sovereign. I am not going to allow myself to -believe that the French 'Canadians of this country are not more loyal than would be indicated by what is being said of them in some parts of this Dominion.
Now, I had intended to say something, on the navy question but we have had so much talk about that question that it would toe as well, perhaps, if I said nothing about it. But I desire to say a word about one little point that was brought up to-day. A reference was made to the boundaries of Canada by the hon. member *for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who said :
The reason simply is because the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario or Quebec.
,, I a.m 1101 a lawyer. I can understand that it would be right to say that a man did not own a horse if he had sold it, but I do not see how he could possibly be justified in saying that he had never owned it. It seems to me that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthriel made this statement either he was splitting fine legal Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
hairs or was altogether in error. Under the Quebec Act of 1774, the northern boundaries of Canada were defined by the British parliament. The boundary was stated at that time to be the watershed between the rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence system and those flowing into Hudson bay. Now, 'when King Charles II. made the grant to Prince Kupert and other gentlemen adventurers of the territory of Hudson bay, he stated they were to have that territory that was watered by the rivers that entered into Hudson bay. Therefore the whole northern watershed of Ontario and Quebec belonged to the Hudson Bay Company. We know that in 1869 the Canadian government purchased the Northwest territories from the Hudson Bay Company. Did not this include the northern watershed that now belongs to Ontario and Quebec? Why, I find in the year -book for 1904, issued by the government, this statement :
July 6. Order in Council enlarging the boundaries of the province of Quebec to the shores of Hudson bay, and adding 118,450 square miles of territory to the province.
How could the hon. member for South Wellington state that the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario and Quebec? This territory added to the province of Quebec was larger, much larger, than the whole province of Manitoba. Now, the people of the Northwest have a right to complain. They say that at this time Quebec and Ontario have their public lands. Take the case of Quebec, for, while one will do as well as the other, some confusion might arise if Ontario were taken as the exemple because of the dispute as to the boundary. Quebec is given a large territory including minerals, timber, and everything and given it out of territory that was purchased by the Dominion government from the Hudson Bay Company. They can manage it, receive the revenue from it, have all the benefits of it. And at the same time the people of the northwest provinces are not allowed to have their lands. There are lands in the province of Saskatchewan aggregating about a million acres not yet alienated by the Crown. That land is very valuable. We see by reports that have come in from government surveys and others recently that a great deal of that land can be cultivated, even to the very northern part of the jprovince, and what can not be cultivated is exceedingly valuable, either as mineral lands, timber lands, or, particularly, pasture lands. And the waters of that country are full of fish ; I suppose there is no country in the world whose waters have a greater stock of fish than those of that territory.
Now then we have another complaint from the Northwest. Not only have they not received their lands, but they complain

that 'the pivotal province of the Dominion, the province that regulates the unit of representation, has been increased by 118,000 square miles and that under that arrangement, in a short time the unit of representation may so increase that the smaller provinces down by the sea will be deprived of their representatives in parliament ,and they are complaining of it now. The same effect will be felt in the western provinces, who are likely to find their representation less than it should be in consequence of the addition of this immense territory to the province of Quebec.
Another question that is mentioned in the speech from the Throne is that of reciprocity. Now reciprocity with the United States is a thing that I think we should consider very carefully. Personally, I would favour reciprocity if I thought we could get a fair deal. The-very word ' reciprocity ' implies fair dealing, even-handed justice, with no selfish or dishonourable advantage taken by either party. In fact, reciprocity has been defined as a condition of things in which equal rights and mutual benefits are given and received. . Now according to that definition, the very first step towards reciprocity between Canada and the United States should consist in an equalization of the present tariff rates between the two countries, if the United States will only do this, and thus put themselves in a position to begin negotiations on a proper basis, I feel satisfied that Canadians, irrespective of party, will support any just and reasonable tariff arrangements which this government may make. But unless a perfectly fair and equitable preliminary arrangement is made, it appears to me that the present Dominion government should either stop short in their negotiations, or at least proceed very guardedly. They should remember what Canada has suffered in the past from the unfairness and greed of their sharp and selfish southern neighbours. For example, in a very recent fiscal year Canada allowed $104,000,000 worth of United States goods to come into this country absolutely free of duty, while our big uncle across the way reciprocated by allowing less than one-half that amount of goods to enter his country free. Again, Canada purchased $164,000,000 worth of dutiable goods from the United States, this was reciprocated by the purchase of only $75,000,000 worth of dutiable Canadian goods by the United States during the same time. Then, Canada charged only a fraction over 24 per cent as an average duty on the portion of the United States goods that were not allowed to come into * this country free. This was reciprocated by President Taft and his friends by not only charging an average duty twice as high as the Canadian duty, namely, 48 per cent, but also by actually standing with a big club in the shaDe of the Payne-Aldrich tariff, threatening that they would put 25 per cent more on top of the 48 per cent if Canada did not still further reduce her already comparatively low duties on goods coming from the United States. This was a double injustice, in so far as it was partly directed against Canada's tariff preference for the mother country. To say the least, it was a very mean and ungrateful way to return Great Britain's kindness for allowing the free entry of hundreds and millions of dollars worth of United States goods into Britain's markets. One would have thought that a strong Canadian government would have resented this brutal and tyrannical conduct on the part of our neighbours. I may remark, however, that the present Canadian government is not noted either for strength or wisdom especially when they deal with the United States.
Now, how can we expect to have good results from negotiations that are to be conducted, in the near future, by the same parties who made the last treaty? Talk about Canada being a nation. Why, Sir, Canada's government dare not say their souls are their own. We made lately a little trade treaty with France, and the United States found fault at once, and demanded similar privileges. I presume the present Canadian government were taught a lesson at that time that they are not allowed to manage their own affairs without consulting their big neighour to the south. I think they would be careful not to do anything like that again without consulting our neighbours. Why, Sir, even our Canadian Railway Commission appears to be under the influence of the United States, for not only is Canadian farm produce sidetracked on Canadian railways after we have given them hundreds of millions of dollars in the way of bonuses and grants, but similar products coming from a foreign country over Canadian railways are allowed to have the right of way and to get a freight rate of less than one-half. Surely Canadian 'farm products should be allowed to come over subsidized Canadian rails without paying a freight rate which is twice as high as similar products coming from a foreign country over Canadian railways are allowed that charged on agricultural products coming from the United States. Again, a Canadian has to pay three cents a mile to ride over our subsidized railways in the Northwest, while an American citizen can sit in the same seat with him-I have seen it myself-and pay only one cent a mile. I say that our Railway Commission, or our government, should interfere to prevent such bare-faced discrimination against Canadians in their own country. It may be thought that I am speaking rather harshly. But it is1 well to Temember that the present is not the only Canadian government that has been over-reached bv the cool chicanery of Yankee diplomats. In 1871 Canadian fish

were to be given free entry into the United States markets in return for certain concessions granted to American fishermen in Canadian waters. The United States showed their ideas of decency and honour on that occasion by first monopolizing and alm'ost ruining our fisheries, and then evading their share of their treaty obligations by putting such an extremely heavy tax on the boxes or packages containing Canadian fish, that the free entry of the contents were of no advantage. By the same treaty it was arranged that the United States should give Canada the use of her canals in return for their use of ours. They, however, succeeded in wording the treaty in such a peculiar manner that although they had the full use of all our canals, when we came to pass our barges through their canals they were not allowed to carry any cargoes. Again, we were to have the privilege of conveying wheat in bond from Collingwood and Owen Sound to Ogdensburg, but just as soon as the United States found that we were exercising that right they gave notice and cancelled that part of the treaty. At the present time Canadian fish oil is supposed to go free into the United States, but the duty is so high on the barrels that our fishermen have no advantage under that provision. The packages and boxes containing other commodities are so heavily taxed that there is very little advantage under any concessions that are made. Both countries are supposed to give free access for anthracite coal. Canada does, but the United States does not. Canada's standard for anthracite is the usual one, but the United States will allow no anthracite to come into their country free of duty that does not come up to a certain standard of fixed carbon, and they have deliberately placed that standard so high that it is said that no anthracite in the world can meet it.
Then, take the question of copyright. Canadian publishers going to the United States have to set up the type, print and bind their books in the United States. American publishers do not require to do these things to get the same privileges in Canada and I would compliment our Minister of Agriculture upon the fact that he is about to put that right. I know he has taken this question in hand, I am pleased to see that he has done so and he deserves the thanks of the Canadian authors and publishers for it. I hope the result will be satisfactory.
However, I may say that the United States has never used Canada fairly. The first thing they did after they gained their independence was, under the treaty of Verseilles, to take advantage of the' fact that Lord Ashburton and other Britsh representatives were not so well acquainted with the wilds of America or the geography of the country as the people who lived in it, and by availing themselves of That cir-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
cumstance they succeeded in juggling us out of the northern half of the State of Maine and out of our natural winter outlet to the ocean. We were deprived of the immense territory lying north of the Ohio and west of the Mississipi to the Great Lakes. That territory belonged to the French before it was ceded to Great Britain, and that same territory was granted to Canada by the Quebec Act in 1774, but Canada was deprived of this also. Immediately after the revolutionary war was over what do we find? It was natural that there were people in the American colonies who, when the rebellion broke out, were not willing to go out and fight against their king and country, and shoot down their neighbours. They were the best people who were in that country. But when the war was over, how were they treated? Their homes were taken from them, their property was confiscated, their children were ostracised, theiT lives were made unbearable, and the poor things were driven naked and homeless with their aged parents, wives and little children away into the unbroken Canadian wilderness, and I suppose that their neighbours thought that they would die of hardship and 'hunger. But, the British government came to the Tescue of these poor, destitute people, and the British people went down into their pockets and gave them a grant of as many millions of dollars as it would take to build two Dreadnoughts at the present time. Thus was averted what might otherwise have been one of the great tragedies of modern history. When the revolutionary war was over how do you find things going? The United Empire Loyalists with the aid they had received in the shape of food, clothing, implements, cattle and seed from the British government, soon had flourishing homes and waving cornfields in Canada. What do we find then? The greedy eyes of those who had driven them out from their homes in the United States began, to look across and to envy them. The peo-' pie of the United States found Great Britain engaged in a life and death struggle with the great Napoleon and when Britain had withdrawn her troops from Canada and from other parts of the empire in order to maintain her supremacy in the very centre of the empire then and not till then did eight millions of Americans attacked 300,000 almost unarmed and defenceless Canadians. They were the loyal French Canadians and the United Empire Loyalists, 300,000 strong, against 8,000.000 They knew what would happen them if they were conquered. They knew that once more they would lose their homes and property and be driven back to the wilderness to die. Therefore, these men fought with the courage of desnair and we know what the result was at Chateauguay and Queens-

ton Heights. Not one inch of Canadian territory was left in the hands or under the authority of the United States troops at the end of three years of warfare. What have we heard ever since? The histories and school books of the United States have been filled with fictitious stories of how the brave American heroes overcame the cowardly Canadians. The average American girl or boy has not the first idea that Montgomery failed in his attack upon Quebec, nor does he or she know that at the battle of Chateauguay a handful of Canadians defeated a whole army of Americans. Nor does he know anything of Queenston Heights, or Laura Secord, or Beaver Dams..
Tn 1817, what do we find? Under the Rush-Bagot treaty it was agreed that neither country should maintain any arm-[DOT] ed vessels on the Great Lakes. I find a correspondent writing from Alpena, Michigan, telling us that on the Great Lakes the Americans have the ' Nashville ' and the 'Don Juan d'Austria ' which they took from Spain in 1898. They also keep other vessels there. They have the ' Yantic,' which was formerly an American war vessel, the ' Dorothea,' the ' Hawk ' and the ' Gopher,' these vessels carry a thousand armed men, and this correspondent says that these vessels are armed with cannon that have a range of six miles, with Morris tubes and all the other modern appliances. Yet, the United States agreed that there should be no armed vessels on the Great Lakes. What are we to expect from a people that claimed that Behring sea was a closed sea and belonged to''the United States, that it was territorial water of the United States, when, at the same time, they claimed that Hudson bay did not belong either to Canada or Great Britain? They claimed that Chesapeake bay, which, at the mouth, is probably fifty miles wide, was American territory, but that the Baie des Chaleurs was not Canadian territory.
Now, I would say to the government to be careful how they deal with these gentlemen. I think that with all our experience we ought to be a little careful. We have a Waterways Commission, and I do not know whether in ten or fifteen years everything that is placed under the control of that commission will not be claimed by the United States as their territory. We gave them the privilege of using our Atlantic coast fisheries in common with our own fishermen and they subsequently claimed that this entitled them to exercise sovereignty in our territorial waters. We gave them the privilege of entering our harbours far wood, shelter, water, and repairs and they claimed that this gave them the right to enter these harbours for any other purpose. I suppose that" they will be claiming our waterways in fifteen years
from now. Again, we are going to have a joint Railway Commission. The United States will no doubt interpret this to mean in a few years that we intended to hand over to them the control of our railways too.
Some people have been talking about a century of peace. Certainly, it has been a century of peace ; not a century of p-e-a-c-e but a century of p-i-e-c-e and the United States have received all the pieces.
Now, if it is just possible that the United States, or the Republican party which, 1 suppose, represent the United States in the meantime, are about to make a dying confession. I think they are on their death bed and perhaps they have repented, and although the government may think that these Republicans and these representatives of the United States have experienced a change of heart and that they may go to a good place, still the government ought to be careful how they deal with those gentlemen, because I have generally found that these death bed repentances are not to be depended upon. I would say to the government: Be very careful; do not buy any wooden nutmegs or basswood hams from Yankees, because I believe a cargo of that kind was once sent over to Canadians. I have now warned the government not to deal in that kind of goods. I hope they will be careful, and if they bring in a proper Reciprocity Bill, r am a kind of an independent man and I might vote for them.


Mr. F. L. FOWKE (South Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, I cannot attempt to follow the the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) in all the phases of the address he delivered this evening and I shall not attempt it, primarily because the beginning of his speech was absolutely answered in advance iby the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller). There was one remark however which the hon. gentleman made that affords one a sort of text, if it may be taken as the real expression of his mind in relation to Canadians. If it expresses the hon. gentleman's own sentiments in relation to the Canadian people I should be sorry to hold the entire Conservative party responsible far his attitude on the question. Speaking of Canadians he said : They are a people who dare not say that their souls are their own. Now Sir, if there is one feature .that is regrettable more than another in connection with much of the discussion that has taken place during the past week it is this : That some men are too ready to minimize the importance of Canadian citizenship and Canadian nationhood. I should like to suggest that a Canadian on Canadian soil is no less a Britisher than the Eng-

lishman on the soil of the British Isles. And I wish to lay it down here to-night at the very inception of my remarks, that the King of England is no less the King of Canada than he is King of England. And, as King of this Dominion he is King of all sections in this Dominion, and the spirit of loyalty when absent in the breast of any section of the Canadian people should determine at once as to what the attitude of the rest of the Canadian people should be towards that particular section of the community. Now Sir, in the discussion, we have had developed what I will suggest is fittingly described in the expression ' Nationalism'. We have had two Nationalisms spoken of :	A Nationalism which has
asserted itself in a particular way in the county of Drummond-Arthabaska, and a Nationalism which does obtain over the greater portion of the Dominion of Canada. What is it, I would like to ask that gives piquancy and importance to the election recently held in Drummond-Arthabaska? Is it simply that the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in that election lost a supporter? It would not be the first time that a strong government had lost a supporter, and a government with a majority of 50 in a House of 220 does not greatly miss a supporter from a particular constituency. Is the significance to be attached to the fact that an opponent of the naval policy of the government has been sent to this House by that constituency? I say Sir, that that incident is but the flapping of the sail and not a rent made by the gale. The vote in that election was very close, and the people are supposed to have spoken only upon one particular feature of the policy of the government. Now Sir, we have to look for the importance attaching to that election elsewhere, and it grows entirely out of the fact that the quality of the campaign carried on in that constituency was such as merits the condemnation of the Liberals in this House and of the people of Canada generally. We had an able exposure of the methods which obtained in the constituency given to the House yesterday by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and it is to be regretted indeed that such a campaign was carried on under the name of Nationalism. Now Sir, there is a nationalism in this country wnich stands for the greatness of Canada as a nation per se and which stands for the greatness of Canada as a nation of the British Empire. That Nationalism has been represented before the people of Canada by the right hon. the leader of the government.. The other nationalism which needs a qualifying word and which I shall speak of as a ' bastard ' nationalism is that represented by Mr. Bourassa and vouched for by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), Mr. FOWKE.
by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and by the member for Halifax who leads the opposition in this House.
Now Sir, the Nationalism of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party stands in the first instance for a united Canada for a strong Canada, for a constantly growing Canada. There are incidents that may happen in the history of any nation which may retard or increase the growth or development of that nation, but that which evinces the spirit of the people determines as to what the destiny of that nation shall be. And I say Sir, that the spirit of the Canadian people as a whole, is the spirit which makes for unity from end to end of this country and from the frozen north to the international boundary on the south. That is the nationalism for which the Liberal party is distinguished in the thought of the Canadian people and the British public as well. And now Sir, what is one of the very first duties and responsibilities of a national party in a national parliament Is it not this very one thing: that they should provide for the defence of their country. And yet, that is the one thing which the Bourassa party are opposed to; it is the one thing which the party led by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. R. L. Borden) is opposed to. Our memories are not so short that we cannot remember the naval discussion a few months ago. What then was the attitude of the two great parties in this country and this House? Why Sir, do I not correctly represent the situation when I say that the party to the left of Mr. Speaker may fittingly be denominated, remembering what their attitude at that time was, as the emergency party of Canada. They based their whole plea for assisting the empire in relation to navy affairs upon the emergency which they believed existed, their belief being founded as I told them at that time and as I tell them now, upon the utterances of the yellow press of Great Britain. Now Sir, the leader of the government on a memorable occasion when he was sought to be stampeded into a particular course which would have brought this country into serious trouble, said that for himself he did not wish to adopt any policy in a panic. The proposal of the leader of the opposition was to take $25,000,000 from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada and float it over to be expended in Great Britain on labour and material there; while the policy of the Dominion government-not undertaken in panic but in fulfilment of principles established by those who attended the imperial conference of 1902-was to establish better defences for the coast of our own country. And I stand here to-night as the representative of an Ontario constituency to say, that I believe we acted correctly then in supporting that policy; a policy

which stands for the creation of a navy within the Dominion of Canada, to be built as nearly as possible out of Canadian materials, by Canadian labour, and Canadian capital, and for the purpose of the defence of the Canadian nation, in unison with the other defences which we already possess. In the riding which I have the honour to represent distinguished Canadians at various times uttered their sentiments and became parliamentary candidates, some of them, all of them in fact, though not all from South Ontario, were at one time or another members of this House of Commons. One of these was the Honourable George Brown, another the Honourable T. N. Gibbs, Sir Oliver Mowatt, Honourable Mr. Speaker Edgar and Honourable Mr. Malcolm Cameron. Sir, if I called up the shades of these men to-night I am convinced that they would answer me in the line of my own tnoughts and say that I correctly represent the Canadian sentiment and the sentiment of South Ontario, which is a representative constituency of the great province of Ontario when I stand for the principle that this parliament should provide for the defence of our own country.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. Hear, hear.


Frederick Luther Fowke: And that in thus providing for the defence of our own country we place ourselves in a position to say to any who would assail the mother country at home or abroad that in attempting a descent upon the mother country they must reckon with the lion's whelps as well, that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the great selfgoverning dominions of the British Empire in case of any emergency when this parliament shall approve of our entering into the consideration of the hour of danger and of difficulty. The one thing that is regrettable in connection with the conduct of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska is that a spirit of fear was generated in the minds of the women and of the men of that constituency and rank disloyalty too was preached where it was thought that that sort of preaching would carry weight. I say heTe to-night that the people of that constituency, that the people of Quebec who may follow Mr. Bourassa and the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in the disloyal attitude which they have assumed, will have occasion to rise up and curse the very soil on which these men tread. I believe, Sir, that in speaking thus I speak of what will develop into a very small section of the province of Quebec, for the great mass of the people there have in days past proven their loyalty to the British Crown as well as to the constitution of Canada. In my belief the French province of Quebec is just as loyal at heart as is the province of Ontario, and when the final appeal on this 9
great question shall come in connection with the general policy of the government of the Dominion, we shall find that the statesmanship of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which stands for a united Canada as a member of the great confederacy of states which form the British Empire, will be a statesmanship which will be approved in the province of Quebec as in all the provinces of the Dominion.
The gentleman who preceded me referred also to the trade question on which I would like to say a word. He is very fearful of a treaty of reciprocity with the United States and is very much afraid lest the tariff policy of this government should inure to the disadvantage of the people of Canada. I have no such fears. The tariff question is a large question, yet there are but few people who do not think they know all about it and can tell the government what they ought to do in relation thereto. The question of a tariff is a very ancient question and one that in essence is rather disagreeable to consider at any time. The origin of the word is not very difficult in itself. It comes from an incident in connection with a victory obtained by the Moors in the 8th century when they built a castle at the entrance to the gateway of the Mediterranean and called the place ' Tarifa.' They were robbers, they pillaged everybody who came within their reach and compelled every merchantman to deliver up about one-half of its cargo before they would allow it to go on its way. The origin of the word is rather significant, and when a tariff is applied in a very definite and large sense to create monopolies and combinations in trade as it has notably in the republic to the south of us, in Germany and in France, the old word ' robbery ' is not misapplied. In so far as the tariff of this country permits the creation of monopolies, that not very euphonious word is applicable. I do not know whether or not the word can be made to apply to any industry in Canada. If in any particular instances the tariff is ministering to the creation of monopolies in restraint of trade then the time will come when it will have to be dealt with and dealt with vigorously. I am glad that the Prime Minister has promised that he will appoint a commission to deal with the tariff question. There are two or three points in relation to the tariff which it seems to me, without knowing too much about the subject myself, ought to have a determining influence. Some manufacturers in this country seem to think that the tariff exists for their particular benefit and advantage, and that it ought not to inure to the advantage of any one else.
There are three principles which are operative in connection with the creation of a tariff, and I should like these to apply in this country. First, there is to be considered the spirit of enterprise on the part of the



people, the wage earner and capital and I place these in their relations in the ordeal mentioned. I place the wage earners first, and after them the capitalists. Having a tariff in this country for revenue purposes, with incidental protection, my contention is that the people above all others who deserve whatever protection can be afforded by the tariff are the wage earners Of Canada. I hope that this will be borne in mind by any commission which may be called on to deal with the tariff.
I know that the right hon. the Prime Minister is sometimes spoken of as a freetrader, and I am glad to think that my leader is at any rate a free trader in principle, that he holds up free trade as an ideal, even if that ideal cannot be reached just now. We all understand that while free trade may be an excellent thing for an island in the midst of the sea like England, our system of taxation is altogether different, aiid under that system of taxation I am glad to believe that the Canadian people are the most lightly taxed of any people in the world. I wish to say, however, that free trade ideals are those on which any tariff we may enact should be founded. What are those ideals? They are stated by the free trade council itself as being, first, free trade, and next, peace and good will among nations. Those are principles that ought to make their way among the peoples of the world, and no man is to be condemned because he sets them up as an ideal to be worked for, even though not possible of attainment at present. As the hour is late, I would move that the debate do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10 p.m.



HOUSE 0E COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 25, 1910.