1910-03-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 150) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company, and to change its name to * The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.'-Mr. Reid (Restigouche). [DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 151) to provide for the adjudication of small claims arising in respect of the operation of the government railways. He said: The provisions of this Bill are, in short, to create of the Board of Railway Management a body that can be sued for small claims for damages, as they could be sued if they were a company, and that no fiat or petition shall be necessary before making such claims. There is a provision that under certain circumstances a ease may be removed to the Exchequer Court.
Mr. E. L. BORDEN.: What is the limit of the claim?


Mr. GRAHAM.: 


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Does it include actions for negligence, as well as undei contract?


George Perry Graham: Damages for negligence, but not under contract.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he expects to make any announcement before the end of the session with regard to the Waterways treaty?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: All I can say is that I hope to be able to do so.



NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the Naval Service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are face to face with a question which will have a greater bearing on the future prosperity, comfort, health, and wealth of the people of Canada than any other question that has been before this House, I was going to say, since confederation, but during the last decade. And, Sir, it is very gratifying to me, and it must be gratifying to every one, to know that both parties in this House are of one mind in regard to the great principle embodied in the Bill which is now before the House. As an evidence of that, I may cite the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, when he said that in case the supremacy of Great Britain on the high seas was endangered, it would be the duty of all the daughter nations to form a rampart around the motherland and protect her from attack; and in winding up his remarks, he said that the life of Canada depended on the safety of Great Britain, or words to that effect. And, Sir, those words were endorsed with stronger language by my own leader, the leader of the opposition.
What more significant event could there be than that which took place when, in one of the daughter nations, 3,000 miles removed from the motherland, 200 men, themselves descended from other lands, English, French, Irish, Scotch, German, and no doubt othersi, but citizens of the daugh-Mr. GRAHAM.
ter nation, elected as the representatives of the people in parliament, rose, not by concerted action, but as one unanimous whole, and sang together that national anthem of the motherland in honour of him who is every inch a king and every inch a man. But, Sir, how absurd it must have seemed to some of the neighbouring nations when they saw afterwards that some of the rabid partisans of both sides and some of the newspapers, probably looking for news, were crawling over each other in the effort to establish the claim that the national anthem belonged to them, that they were the only true, loyal party, that they were the only party that belonged to the motherland. This country is downtrodden, or will be, if we keep on in the way we are going. And the people will be over-ridden and depressed by combines and trusts, and I call upon the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) at this juncture to add to the Bill which he has laid before the House this session a provision that there shall be no combine or trust in reference to the national anthem, the national flag or the loyalty of this country. That pernicious, avaricious, unpatriotic idea should be stamped out. Why cannot we all be of one mind with respect to that matter? In reference to the question of loyalty, my grandfather, when a young man, in 1776, left the state of Connecticut-and came to Canada to follow the flag. In 1812 he was one of the yeoman guards of the St. Lawrence river, repelling the American invasion, anl I take second place to no man with reference to my loyalty to the flag. Probably I know more than any one, excepting two hon. gentlemen in this House, when I say that there are no more loyal people than the sturdy yeomanry and mechanics of the riding from which I come. Who were more distressed, felt bluer or looked more so on the black days during the South African trouble than the men of Huron? Sir, it is easy enough in the large cities for young men to get together and enthuse and froth at the mouth in reference to loyalty, but when the scattered yeoman of the county from which I come came together and enthused in a patriotic way, as they did after the relief of Ladysmith and upon other notable occasions during the South African war, no one can require better evidence of their loyalty, and no overt act is needed. Outside the relatives of the men of the 42nd regiment, which was cut to pieces in South Africa, I do not believe there was a man in England who felt that event as keenly as did the people whose representative I am. I have been elected by the voters of West Huron to represent them in this parliament. This country is run by the larger of two parties, and it is impossible for all men of the different parties to think alike individual-
44.05

lv. Some have to give way to the others. It has been stated repeatedly in the Liberal press that the loyal opposition was divided on this question. I speak with knowledge when I say that there is no more division in the ranks of the opposition than there is in the ranks of the government. There are men on this side who will vote against their ideas and there are men on the other side who will vote against their ideas. There are Liberals who have been elected to follow the Liberal policy and to follow the Liberal party, and while they do not see eye to eye they will vote for their leader as we will vote for our leader. They would not ho doing their duty if they did not do so. I wish to note that I have been told by hon. members on both sides of the House, personal friends of mine, that if I publicly took the stand which I have taken privately I will not return to this House the next general election. If so I shall be sorry, but I trust my people will believe I acted in their interest as I believe I do.


Mr. CONMEE.: Tell us what it is.


Edward Norman Lewis: The hon. gentleman is asking me for information. There are two bad habits becoming prevalent in this parliament which tend to warp the dignity of parliament and interefere with the continuity of debate. One is asking questions which generally, like boomerangs, recoil on the persons who ask them. I have been very soTry at times to hear questions from this side of the House, because I felt that the person who asked them sometimes got the worst of it and vice versa. I am only going to speak for ten minutes, and if any person wants information I will be glad to give it to him, if I can, when I get through, but until then I do not want to be interrupted. One of the important features of the question before the House is what is the great pressing danger threatening the British empire. There is no doubt that the supremacy and life of the mother country rest entirely upon the $400,000,000 of toll which she receives for the carrying of the commerce of the world, and without which she could not stand for a moment. The main question is: How can we, as we have all agreed to do, help the mother country if she is in trouble? I do not think, from the documents which I have read and some of which I will hand into the House, that there is any pressing danger as far as Germany is concerned. Lord Beresford and Lord Roberts come out here and say there is. They have earned the right to say what they like, but they are men of war and they come out here and talk of war. The great canal man would come here and talk of canals, the great medical man would come and talk about tuberculosis or similar matters, but it rests 1401
with us to give consideration to all these views and help the country in the best way we can. I believe, Sir, that what Germany is preparing for is intervention by the United States in South America.
In support of this contention I give not my own opinion, but that of Captain Mahan, the greatest living naval expert who has declared that the German fleet is not unlikely to be used to establish a new state of things in Brazil or to dispute the control of the Panama canal. I also cite as an authority the Ottawa ' Citizen,' in which it was stated that the Germans are looking for a large tract of country in the Argentine republic, and Professor Schmoil-ler, a German, has declared that he looks forward to the day when there will be a second Germany of 30,000,000 people in southern Brazil. And, Sir, in this connection I would point out that the emigration to Brazil and to South America is of an entirely different class from that which comes to the shores of the northern part of this hemisphere. The German who comes to the land of the beaver or the land of the screaming eagle is rapidly assimilated into the population and becomes a supporter of the established institutions of these countries, but the German immigrant to South America is German, first, last, and always. But, Sir, notwithstanding the fact that there are experts who assure us there is no danger to England from the German menace, it is nevertheless the part of prudence to be prepared for war. As a recent editorial in the Toronto ' Telegram ' pointed out the unity of the British nations during the South African war prevented the terrible consequences of intervention by other nations, and the strength of the British fleet during the Spanish American war prevented intervention by Germany. The maxim is as true to-day as ever it was, that in time of peace we should prepare for war, and, Sir, the life blood of the British nation depends on the British fleet. The question then remains:	How can we as Canadians discharge our duty to the motherland. I say, Sir, that the solution is not to be found in the creation of a Canadian navy. Canada as a country is not ready for militarism, and God forbid that militarism should ever thrive in this peaceful land. I stand here taking my political ife in my hands to say, that I am unqualifiedly, unreservedly, and unconditionally opposed to regular militarism in Canada whether it is to be found in an army or in a navy. Of course, I do not include in that our militia system, but, I should be horrified to think that there would be imported into this country that militarism . which is the curse of some European countries and which can only end in officialism, red tape, circumlocution, poverty, and socialism. We have the evi-

dence at hand that our young Canadians will not join voluntarily-and they cannot be forced to join under our present happy conditions-the regular military service whether in the navy or in the army. I might point to the regular regiment at Halifax, which I believe is now only three-quarter strength, and I am told that 90 per cent of the men are British army pensioners. In a prosperous and growing country like Canada the young citizens of the country cannot be induced to give up their prospects and to tie themselves down to a life of idleness in the barrack room. For my part, I do not want to see in this country one-half the people working, slaving like the people in the old lands, keeping their noses to the grindstone, in order to support the other half in idleness preparing for a war which may never come. Then, I may be asked how do you expect to help the motherland? In a work entitled ' The A B C of the British navy,' prepared by Admiral Henderson and Mr. Bussell, it is pointed out that the great need of the British fleet is men. Lord Beresford has intimated to the British House of Commons that four-fifths of the British fleet is undermanned, that one-half of it had only the nucleus of crews, that one-fifth of the fleet only had its full compliment, and in a document which I shall lay on the table of the House for publication in ' Hansard.'


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman must read anything which he wishes to appear in ' Hansard.' The custom of the House is that anything that is to be published in' Hansard ' must be spoken or read.


Edward Norman Lewis: Then, Sir, I will have to take up more time than I intended, and I regret having to do so, but I am in hopes that these citations may have some bearing on the question before the House. The literary digest, as quoted in the London ' Standard,' and the Hamburgher ' Nach-richten,' referring to the report of a German naval expert on the British navy says:
England's Half-manned Ships.
England at present, to judge from her parliamentary reports, is in a terrible condition of alarm over Germany's naval expansion. Each party blamed the other because ships with less than half crews had been ordered to sea. ' We have the ships, we have the men, we have the money too,' rang the old music-hall song. It is now admitted that England has the money, and can make as many shi,. . as she chooses, but the men are wanting. The present state of things we thus summarize from the London ' Standard ':-
The grave position of the home fleet is made plain in the details of its units as it assembles to-day off the mouth of the Thames for a cruise. Although it is composed of four squadrons, consisting in all of eleven battleships and fourteen cruisers, the startling fact Mr. LEWIS.
is disclosed that of these twenty-five vessels, fourteen are dangerously undermanned.
Of the undermanned vessels, six battleships have only half-crews; two of the cruisers have half-crews, while the remaining cruisers have only two-fifths crews.
Fourteen of the twenty-five ships, therefore, can not manoeuvre with the remaining eleven, can not fight, and can not run away. It is officially announced that this British war fleet is to exercise in the North Sea-where it will be subject to the keenest foreign criticism.
Commenting editorially on this avowal, the ' Standard ' observes:-
Such is the fleet which Mr. McKenna has sent to manoeuvre in the North Sea in winter. The useless hardship unnecessarily inflicted upon officers and men, the gratuitous waste of money, need no comment. But there are wider aspects of this incredible action to be considered. These are two. The first may be briefly indicated. At a time of somewhat critical international relations, the first lord sends to sea a fleet of t^venty-five ships whien an efficient squadron of half its size could sink or destroy, and the pitiable state of disorganization and weakness to which the^ British fleet has been reduced is advertised in the face of the whole world.
Of the keen foreign criticism which this London organ anticipates we may perhaps find a sample in the following remarks of the * Hamburger Nachrichten ':-
' It is not the ships but the men that do the fighting,' still remains the truest of dictums. And yet one often hears the question of a navy's strength or weakness decided merely by the number of its vessels-cruisers, battleships, torpedo boats, and submarines. As to the question of the number of her sailors, the recently formed reserve fleet is both undermanned and undertrained, but probably this will not be recognized until the moment of mobilization, which will result in its incorporation in the regular fleet. But what is very apparent is that in case of war Great Britain will suffer most from the insufficient manning of her own vessels.-Translation made for the ' Literary Digest,' March 27, 1909.
I cite the following from the Ottawa 'Citizen':
Men wanted in Navy-Ships are wasted for lack of Hands-Some have two-fifths of the Complement-Where will Crews be found for New Ships?
London, Oct. 25.-It has been stated officially that the battleships of the Albion class, which are to be stationed at the Nore as a reserve for the home fleet, are to be manned with reduced nucleus crews-that is to say, with about two-fifths of their full complements.	_
The ships of the Albion class-the Albion, Canopus, Glory, Goliath, Ocean, and Vengeance-though not large vessels, are very useful. They are of 12,950 tons, and carry-four 12-inch and twelve 6-inch guns, and are still capable of making eighteen knots when pushed. They have all been completed since 1900.
The Albions will join a number of ships

which are already laid up in reserve, manned with a fraction of their nominal complements.
The obstacle in the way of sending them to sea, however, is shortage of men.
Among the battleships which are laid up at the home ports in the third and fourth divisions of the home fleet are eight ships of the Majestic class-ships of 14,900 tons, armed with four 12-incli and twelve 6-inch guns and completed in 1895-8. These ships have- or are supposed to have- about three-fifths of their full complement on board, a large proportion of the short service men, who spend their years in the navy, principally in the ships, and are then passed into the reserve without any adequate training in the work of a sea-going fleet.
The ' Prince George,' of this class, is kept ' in dockyard hands,' for no other reason, apparently, than to save the cost of a crew.
Now, Sir, we have been told by the First Lord of the Admiralty in England that the preponderance of Great Britain in ships is so great that he absolutely refuses-I quote his own words to take over Bhips which are being built in England for foreign countries:
No Cause for Alarm-Britain is quite Safe-
First Lord of the Admiralty says the present supply of Dreadnoughts is Ample.
London, March 25, 1909.-Reginald McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, stated in the House of Commons that he declined to consider the advisability of purchasing one or other of the three Brazilian battleships now under construction in this country. He added:-
If we require more ships I think it would be better to build them ourselves, but we don't require any more ships at present. As regards the future, we will have ample time to build them.
I have some short citations here which 1 would like to have published in 'Hansard' without taking up the time of the House to read them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I regret that I cannot grant permission to the hon. gentleman because it has led to abuses in the past. The 'Hansard' must be a report of what is said or read in the House.


Edward Norman Lewis: Then, Sir, I trust that when the Prime Minister is revising the rules of the House he will make provision under which such citations as these may be printed without being read. Were such a rule in force it would in my opinion lead to a great saving of time. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that England is not wanting in ships at the present time. England is building a $40,000,000 navy for Spain, she is building three battleships for Brazil, she is building two for Chili, two ships for Italy, and other ships for other foreign countries, and under agreement with the builder the British government has the Tight to take these ships
at any time they are needed. We have, aff I have read, the refusal of the First Lord of the Admiralty to take these ships because he says they are not needed, and this would seem to establish good ground for my saying that England is not in need of ships. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the naval policy! of the government- (and in this I am speaking for mysel alone) with regard to building dry docks which are needed in this country, I absolutely disagree with them as to the building of a Canadian navy. As was said to me by a gentleman from the west, a man who knows the feeling of the people in the west as well as any other man in the House: Canada needs a navy just about as much as a man needs a fur overcoat in that land to which a good many of us are going hereafter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


Edward Norman Lewis: Now, Sir, a word with regard to battle shins. If we looked at the history of the three last wars, the Chinese-Japanese war, the Russo-Japanese war, and the Spanish-American war, it will be seen that the naval strength of a nation depends on her battleships. In the A. B. C. of the British navy by Admiral Henderson and Mr. Russell, the dictum is laid down that the great final issue will be decided by the battleships alone; it was so at Trafalgar in days of hemp and wood; it is still so in the day of steam and steel. Therefore, Sir, if ships we are to have, it would seem that the best thing to provide are battleships, and together on the firing line. I cite that great family paper the Montreal ' Star ' :
The mobilization of a great British fleet of three hundred and fifty warships is a magnificent object lesson of the naval power of the empire. No such object lesson would appear if we were told that six British fleets were being mobilized-one in the home waters, another off Halifax, a third off Vancouver, a fourth near Australia, a fifth near New Zealand, and, possibly, a sixth under Table Mountain. Yet this division of the fleet and wide scattering of its power would be the logical outcome of the proposal to establish colonial navies.
The ' Free Press ' of Ottawa, on March 24, 1909, in an editorial headed ' Has Canada gone Batty also?' said:
We believe that the great body of public opinion in this country is against the idea of Canada being drawn into the vortex of European militarism.
The Huron ' Expositor,' Seaforth, Friday October 15, 1909:
The announcement is officially made that the imperial government of Germany will ask for a loan of $125,000,000, this enormous amount being required to cover deficits. This is one of the first fruits of intense militarism.

The common people are being ground to death to maintain an army and navy to gratify the vanity of the ruling elements and to provide positions for the sons of the aristocracy where they can have an affluent living at the expense of the toiling masses.
Now, Sir, how can we help the mother country? There is one way in which we can help her, and if the English experts knew it, they would at once grasp the idea. We have in this country 84,323 fishermen, the finest men that sail the waters, in the maritime provinces and on the great lakes, the descendants of those men who sailed the cutters of England and the luggers of France; and we have 11,490 sailors on the great lakes. I am sorry that we have not more sailors on the ocean, because we have hardly an ocean-going steamship or vessel under the Canadian flag. These men are busy in their vocation for six months in the year; and if you came with vessels of the type of the ' Charybdis,' and asked them to volunteer for a navy, you could not get one of them to leave his big pay and his prospects. But after their return on the first of December, and after they had their holiday of one month at home, this government on the second of January of each year could get 40,000 or
50.000	of these men-and I guarantee that I could get 5,000 from the shores of my own lake and 200 from my own town-sailors, stokers and engineers, to volunteer to go to Halifax or Vancouver and take three *months' training at the big guns; and I would suggest that this government do not buy any expensive warships, which will be scrap in a few years, but make an arrangement with the motherland under which she will send out a dozen or more men-o-f-war on which these young men can he trained. Canada to pay them. I will guarantee that after three years' training
40.000	young Canadians would be likely to give as good an accoant of themselves as the several thousand Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders who went to South Africa during the Boer war and there gave evidence of their loyalty. Why, Sir, the people of my county were tumbling over each other to get to the recruiting office in their desire to be taken to South Africa. We could have sent 10,000 from western Ontario in case the motherland got into trouble, to say nothing of the two or three hundred we did send. I also quote the words of the Earl of Clan William, in an interview with the Toronto ' News ' last July:
Canada would do a great service to the empire if it built up a reserve of seamen, who would be invaluable in case of war breaking out.
If the Admiralty were asked if they would prefer forty thousand sailors trained to big guns they would say yes. I Mr. LEWIS
say it advisedly, from investigations made by myself and by members on both sides of the House who have spoken to me on the matter, that I believe that four out of every five men in Ontario-and I have heard the same from other provinces-do not believe in a navy for Canada, and I believe there are more who are against a contribution to the motherland. Some people go wild on the subject of imperialism; but, Sir, there are threads of love and affection and friendship and sentiment uniting us to the motherland which, though fine as silk, are stronger than steel. But, Sir, if you are going to try to put handcuffs oi iron on the hands of the free Canadian citizen, and try to put him in an iron cage, those handcuffs will snap like thread. There is no overt act of loyalty required from a Canadian. We are always ready when the time comes. There is a definition of ingenuity which applies to the Canadian people-to do the right thing at the right time without being asked to do it. But, Sir, when you ask us to repay those bonds of love and friendship and kinship with money or with paid help, you are making a mistake. There is nothing like personal service in matters of this kind. In reference to the British men of war and the Canadian seaman, I cite the case of a present editor of the Toronto ' Globe,' Mr. Ewan, who was sent by his paper in 1899 down to the island of Newfoundland, to go round that island with the British fleet, which was trying the expedient of ascertaining what Newfoundland sailors were made of. They went from port to port and called the fishermen and sailors together and spoke to them. At first the men were averse to any questioning. Finally a large number, probably 2,000 or 3,000, volunteered for a voyage to the West Indies and back. They went and returned, and the British admiral was very much pleased with them, and they were pleased with their experience in handling the big guns. What was the result? The British admiralty sent out the ' Charybdis ' and tried to get men to volunteer for the whole year, but they found that it was an absolute impossibility. We are not ready for regular militarism in this country. Now, Sir, as to war: It is not a question of ships altogether- and I probably know more about it than most other members of this House, from my youthful training on vessels, though I have never been on a man-of-war-it is not a question of ships or of the number of men, but it is a question of the quality of the men. It is the man behind the gun. Drake's ships would not have roared so loudly or so strongly had they been manned by others than the seamen who did man them. Why cannot these two parties meet together on thi3 great question and do what is best under the circumstances? Both parties are asking Canada, which knows all about rail-

ways, to build battleships. We do not know anything about battleships, but we doJcnow that we have the best class of men to man them that can be found anywhere, and they are all from the same common stock Frenchmen and Englishmen, they all come from the same stock. I have it on the authority of a high personage in this House that when the Welsh sailors and fishermen, from which stock I am descended, and the French mariners from St. Malo, and other ports in the province of Normandy and Britany^St. Malo, famous as the point from which Jacques Cartier came originally-when these two nationalities meet in the channel on their fishing voyages, they speak to each other in the one mother tongue although parted for centuries. That shows conclusively that we are all descended from the one stock, and there should not be any division among us in this matter as regards loyalty. We ought all to be one in that sentiment.
I repeat that I am absolutely opposed to spending $25,000,000 for a Canadian navy or $25,000,000 for two Dreadnoughts. There are one million people who pay the taxes of this country, and that means a tax of $25 on every man of them. There is not one of them who will stand for it. It is not a question of going to the country. There are enough people in the country who would vote for men and not for measures, but if a plebiscite were taken, both the policy of the government, and the opposition would be defeated by an overwhelming majority.
Hi9 Majesty, King Edward, our sovereign, has by his wisdom, policy, and tact, earned the title of Edward the Peacemaker, yet still his battleships are being launched with increasing rapidity, each new one stronger than its predecessor in every thing that goes to making a fighting machine. And that supremacy pn the high seas, which England gained 300 years ago from Spain, has continued until this day, and has ever been the greatest safeguard to the peace of the world. I look to see the day when England and Celtic peoples shall be bound together in one harmonious whole-Gael and Gaul alike-for the peace of the world.


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN (South Huron).: Under ordinary circumstances, I should feel almost like apologizing to the House for taking part in a discussion which has been so prolonged. But since I have the honour of a seat in this House, and while I have been endeavouring to attend to the discharge of the duties pertaining to that position to the best of my ability, I do not think I have trespassed upon the time of the House by over much, or over long speaking; and I might be permitted to say, without desiring to give offence to any one, that if some hon. gentlemen were to follow
my example in this respect, there would not be such necessity for revising the rules of the House. In this matter, however, I feel that I would not be doing justice to myself or those I represent were I to give a silent vote. The question we are discussing is probably the most imnortant that has come before parliament since confederation. It involves an entirely new departure. It means the inauguration of an entirely new policy, rendered necessary by the increased prosperity and influence of this country, and its increased attachment to the empire.
I have no very great objection to many of the remarks which have been made by my hon. friend and good neighbour from West Huron (Mr. Lewis) who has just spoken, and consequently I do not intend attempting to make any particular answer to any particular point he has raised; but there are some things on which he has dwelt to which perhaps I shall refer as I proceed. But at the outset, let me say that I do not intend to treat this question from a technical, scientific, or even constitutional standpoint. Technically I know very little about it, but I shall endeavour to deal with it from a plain, practical, common sense point of view. In my opinion, having regard to the very great importance of this subject, it is necessary that the people in every constituency should be seized of all the conditions, and the only way which they can get that information is through the discussion in this parliament. Consequently I feel that any discussion on this matter is not by any means time wasted. As I have said I intend to deal with it from a plain, practical, common sense standpoint, and the question before the House, stripped of all superfluity, may be reduced to a very plain, practical, easily understood proposition. In the first place, the opposition propose that a large sum of money be donated to Great Britain for the purpose of enabling her to improve and extend her navy, Great Britain to continue the expense and the responsibility of the naval protection of Canada, and the money which we give to Great Britain to' be expended in that country for the benefit of British ship builders and artisans. On the other hand the proposition of the government is that a lesser amount of money be devoted towards the establishment or erection of the nucleus of a Canadian navy for the protection of our own shores, thus relieving Great Britain of the expense and responsibility of the naval protection of this country, and this money to be expended in our own country for the benefit of Canadian ship builders and artisans and also for the purpose of building up a larger shipbuilding industry in Canada which will give

employment to thousands of our working people and enlarge the home market for our farmers and manufacturers. It is quite proper that I should say that our love for and devotion to the mother country is only right and proper. Filial affection, I am sure, is one of the noblest traits of human nature; but filial affection divorced from self-preservation does not amount to a very great deal. It is the boy, the young man, which makes the best use_ of his opportunities and the gifts with which he has been endowed, and who shows a disposition to carve out his own future and to paddle hi3 own canoe who is always dearest to the mother's heart. And, Sir, if Canada shows a disposition to take advantage of the great privileges which have been placed in her way, of the great natural advantages with which she has been endowed, and if she shows a disposition to take care of herself and do what is right and necessary in her own interest, she will, I contend, do that which is most likely to win the esteem and confidence and trust of the people of Great Britain and of every other country.
Sir, I was sorry to notice, whether consciously or unconsciously, running through nearly every speech of hon. gentlemen opposite, a vein deprecatory of Canada and of Canadians.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Murdo Young McLean: Yes; we had it stated here, over and over again, that Canadians have not the ability nor the skill to construct their own ships. We have had Australians held up to us as a bright and shining example because she has sent her money to- Great Britain and looks to Great Britain to construct her ships. We have heard, in almost every speech from the opposite side of the House, attempts made to detract from the honour and credit which is due to the right hon. the leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Attempts have been made, time and time again, to show that he is disloyal to his country, that he has betrayed the trust which was reposed in him by the people, and that he is not acting in good faith with the people,and soon and so on; and, lastly, that he is introducing a policy which is simply the thin end of the wedge of disruption of the empire. One hon. member-I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan)-spoke for two mortal hours here the other night, and at least one-third of his speech was devoted to that sort of thing. Sir, the name and memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier will remain bright and green in the minds and hearts and affections of the people of Canada long after the hon. member (Mr. Cowan) and I are forgotten. We have also had a brilliant word-picture placed before us showing Great Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.
Britain at war with Germany; her immense fleets were assembled upon the high seas; the word went forth to Australia and she came forward courageously and promptly with her fleet unit: the word went forth to little New Zealand and she came forth, with equal promptitude, with her Dreadnoughts: the word went forth to Canada, and she came up at the heel of the hunt with her ' tin pot navy.' And when the great British admiral cast his eye over his assembled fleet as they rode the sea ready for action, he looked upon Australia and beamed upon her with pleasure and pride; he looked upon New Zealand and she equally met with his approval; he looked upon Canada, he frowned upon Canada, and ordered her to the rear and instructed her to sail for her own shores as fast as her ships could carry her: and poor Canada had neither part nor lot in the bloodless conflict of that picture. When I heard all this, it seemed to me that the author of it should have been a novelist instead of a politician. I ask: When has Canada undertaken any great national enterprise and has not carried it out successfully? Have not Canada's sons, in almost every department of life and in every country of the world, signalized their ability and proven their integrity and uprightness and every characteristic which goes to make a good, a worthy, a proper man? Wherever the sons of Canada have come into competition with the people of other countries, have they not almost invariably come to the front? If there is one thing more than another for which I am truly thankful it is that I am a Canadian. I am proud of Canada, and proud of Canada's sons; and I have not the least hesitation in saying that, should Canada undertake to construct a navy, she will have a navy that will be a credit to her at home and abroad. And should this country, unfortunately, be dragged into a war either at home or abroad, I for one do not doubt that Canada's sons will acquit themselves with the same prowess, the same bravery that has distinguished them and given them a name in every country of the world. In view of the facts, I say that it is not fair, it is not manly, for hon. members opposite to endeavour to cover their veiled insinuations against Canada by loud protestations of loyalty to the mother country.
But there is something else that should be said. I believe it is the duty of every true Canadian to preach, and, in so far as he can, to practise the doctrine of peace and not the doctrine of war. For the future of this great and growing and grand country depends upon the farm and the factory and not upon the sword or the battleship.
I notice that in nearly every speech hon. gentlemen opposite profess disappointment with the provisions of the Bill now before the House on the ground that it is not

comprehensive enough, that it does not go far enough. I, too, am disappointed, but I am agreeably disappointed; for,
I am free to confess, I did have a lingering fear, if I might so express it, that the government would ask this House to commit the country to an elaborate scheme requiring an immediate expenditure of millions of money which, I think, could be more profitably devoted to developing the latent resources of the country. I therefore say that it is a fortunate thing for Canada that we have in power at this time a government, and more particularly a prime minister, with the stamina and courage to resist this wave of jingoism which seems to be passing over the country, and to refuse to do unwise and foolish things which afterwards the people might regret for many years to come. No person dreads war, or is more opposed to militarism, than I am. And I think it does not say much for the Christian civilization of the twentieth century when the civilized nations of the world cannot come together and agree on some more rational and sensible means of settling their disputes than in wasting their money in armaments and their efforts in killing one another. But we must take conditions as we find them. And we find that the nations of the world have not yet reached what we might call the ideal point, when they can settle their disputes upon a rational and sensible basis and in a manner which would be a credit to the integrity and character and intelligence of the country. Until such is the case, we must meet conditions as we find them. And I am free to confess that, in my judgment, the time has come in the history of Canada when it is necessary that we should make some fitting preparation to meet the requirements of the country in this direction.
Such a time does come I think in the history of almost every country and every nation, and it comes to a lesser extent even to municipalities. For example, for a village or a town one policeman is ample for the purpose of maintaining peace and order within that municipality; but when that town grows to become a large, populous and influential city, a whole regiment of policemen are required. So it is with Canada. If I may be allowed to use the expression, Canada has emerged from the town stage to the large, prosperous and influential city stage, and consequently it is necessary that some provision should be made such as is now proposed. I would not have been disappointed, in fact possibly I would have been rather pleased, if the government had seen fit to adopt a smaller plan than that which is proposed. But there is not sufficient difference between them to justify a difference of opinion, as both are practically the same in principle. But I believe in making this provision, we should commence on a modest scale such as the government proposes, and that we should allow the enterprise to grow in strength as the country grows in strength, power, wealth and influence. Also, I think that what we do should be done under the direction of Canada, and should remain entirely under the control of Canada. And we should take very great care indeed not to allow this country to become in any way entangled or mixed up with old world troubles or difficulties. What I mean is that we should keep Canada in this position, that if even Great Britain should engage in a war of which we did not approve, the justice and righteousness of which we were not convinced of, this country should stand aloof, as we have done on other occasions, and act the part of a looker-on. But if, on the other hand, Great Britain became engaged in a war of self defence, or for any interest of humanity, or for purposes which appealed to our sympathies and our sense of right, then we should join in and help Great Britain even to the extent of our last dollar and our last man.
I also believe that whatever we do should be done entirely in the interest and for the benefit of Canada, and not in payment of any supposed debt which we owe the mother country. Now the idea has pervaded the speeches of many hon. members opposite, and especially the speech of the hon.- member for North Toronto, that Canada is in some way materially and morally indebted, even immensely indebted, to Great Britain, and that this proposed donation is in payment of that supposed debt. Now, Sir, I am not in the habit of proclaiming my loyalty from the house-tops, but I take no second place to any man in my loyalty to Great Britain, the birth-place and home of my forefathers. But, Sir, I am a Canadian, I am loyal to Canada first, last and all the time; and I think that at the present time perhaps a little plain speaking on this subject might not do any harm. I say this claim of our hon. friends opposite that we are greatly indebted to Great Britain is a fallacy which cannot be supported by fact. As a Canadian, I wish to say that in a material sense we are not indebted to Great Britain for anything, and in no' sense is Canada indebted to her for more than good will and filial affection. If I desired to establish that point, I think I could do so by a few words which fell from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in the concluding part of his address in this House. I understand that that hon. gentleman is the leader of the Conservative party of the great province of Quebec; I know he is a deputy leader of hon. gentlemen oppo-

site. So long as he is their leader, they are responsible for his utterances until they repudiate his leadership. I have not heard that they have endeavoured in any sense so far to repudiate his leadership, and I think they dare nor do it; consequently they are responsible for his expressions in this House and elsewhere as their political leader.
Now, Sir, I would like to 'bring the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite down from the realm of pure sentiment in which some of them so much delight to dwell, to plain facts, every day facts. If I can do this, they will find that Canada has never received one dollar from Great Britain for which sjje has not given a good big dollar's worth in return. It may be said, and it has been said in this House, that Great Britain furnishes us our best market for our surplus products. That is quite true, but it is equally true that this is a mutual obligation, because Great Britain requires our products just as much as we require her market. And she has never given us the fraction of a cent more for our products, for our apples, our cheese, our butter, our bacon, our bullocks, our cereals, than she could get them for elsewhere, or because they were Canadian. On the contrary, she has persistently, for years, _ maintained against this country a barrier to our live stock going into her markets. Now remember I do not blame her for this. If she considers such a policy in the interest of her own people she has a perfect right to pursue that policy, and we have no right to complain. But what I want to point out is this, that Great Britain adopts the policy which she considers in the interest of her own people, irrespective of the results which it may have upon Canada; and so I say in that respect as well as in other respects we should follow her example. It has always been said in this House and throughout the press of this country that most of our great national enterprises are carried on by means of British capital. That is quite true, but it is equally true that we have never borrowed one dollar from Great Britain for which we have not given her the highest current rate of interest and the very best security. It is equally true that she has never loaned us a dollar upon better or more favourable terms than she has loaned to other countries.
But, Sir, the most silly contention I think I have ever heard made in this House is that she has protected our shores from invasion by foreign foes. Now I ask when, in the memory of living man, have our shores been even threatened by a foreign foe? The only occasion I remember is what was known as the Fenian Kaid, and that was not inspired by any Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.
dislike for Canada but by a dislike for Great Britain, because she denied to a certain portion of her subjects the rights and privileges which they thought, and which I think, they were justly entitled to. The last contention along that line that I shall refer to is that she has protected^ our commerce on the high seas. That is also quite true, but it is equally true that any protection she has afforded to Canada in that way has been purely incidental. She has protected her own breadstuffs and she has afforded to Canada in that respect the same protection that slm has afforded to other countries and nations from which she has drawn these breadstuffs. I do not give these illustrations in the way of complaining that we have not received just and proper treatment from Great Britain. On the contrary, I give them to show, in the interest and in defence of Canada, that Canada has done her whole duty to the mother country, that she has not played the part of a sponge 'absorbing everything and giving out nothing.
Let me refer for a moment or two to the amendment which has been placed before this House by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I think we can divide it into three parts very properly and justly. In the first place, it is proposed that Canada should bestow on the mother country a gift of from $22,000,000 to $25,000,000; secondly, that a real emergency exists by reason of the' danger of war between Great Britain and Germany, and thirdly, that Canada should provide a navy of her own, but that before she does so she should take a plebiscite of the people. Now let me consider each one of these proposals, made by our friends opposite, separately. The first is that Canada should bestow on the mother country a gift of from $22,000,000 to $25,000,000. Why, in all that is sensible, should Canada give to the mother country any such sum? If the mother country were in need of this money, if she were in stress, then I say that it would be quite right and proper for Canada to give her that money, and it would be the duty of "Canada to do so. But, is the mother country in need of money? No, as the boys say,, she has money to bum. From the money standpoint she could buy out Canada twenty times over and that being the case why should we in this House vote the hard earned money of the labourer, the artisan, the farmer, the merchant and the manufacturer of this country to fill the already over-flowing coffers of Great Britain? I do not think we would be justified in doing anything of the kind, because there is no necessity for it._ Now, let us come to the second proposition that an emergency exists. In order to prove their case hon. gen-

tlemen opposite must, of necessity, prove that an emergency does exist, and if they fail to do so, in my humble judgment, their whole case falls to the ground. How have they gone about proving an emergency exists? They have quoted from the speeches delivered by British statesmen over a year ago, speeches that were delivered for an election and for political purposes and also for the purpose of bringing the British people to a realization that they had not been keeping up their navy ro the standard which it formerly had been kept up to, and that it was necessary to provide funds for that purpose. That, Sir, was the object, and in these respects it has been realized. The emergency has passed over, the scare is no more, and now only exists in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, Mr. Speaker, who is it that they have sought to show that Great Britain has really to be afraid of? Afraid of Germany. Why should she be afraid of Germany? Are not the ties of kinship as well as of commerce, against any such proposition? Is not Great Britain one of Germany's very best customers? Is not Germany one of Great Britain's very best customers? Why then should Germany desire to destroy her best customer? It is said that Germany is rapidly increasing her navy. That is quite true, but it is necessary that she should increase her navy just the same as it is necessary for France, or Austria, or Japan, or other surrounding countries to do so. She was obliged by that necessity to do it, and it was not for the purpose of going to war with Great Britain. Let me tell you that the Germans are not a foolish people, the Germans are not a people who are foolish enough to bite off their noses to spite their faces. They are an intelligent, hard-headed, frugal, enterprising, law-abiding people and they know too well upon which side their bread is buttered to instigate a war with Great Britain or with any other country that they are so dependent upon as they are dependent upon Great Britain at the present time. There is a word that I would like to say here if the House will pardon me for a short digression. I was very much pleased and delighted at the intimation which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) gave to the House the other day, that the little commercial war which had been in existence between Canada and Germany for a few years had been closed up and that a truce had been proclaimed. I was not pleased so much on account of the improvement in the commercial relations that that would accomplish, or the commercial advantages that might accrue to Canada from that, although I have no doubt they will be very considerable, but I think it will have a strong tendency to encourage immigration from Germany to Canada, and we cannot get a better class of immigrants from any country in the world than we can from Germany. It has been proved in this country time and time again, and any of us who have German settlers in our constituencies know how valuable these settlers are in the cities, towns, villages and communities, in which they live throughout this province without any other evidence. They are an industrious, well-doing, enterprising, law-abiding people and we cannot get Canada populated with a better class than the German people. Now let me come to the third part of the amendment, that Canada should provide a navy of her own, but before she does so should take a plebiscite of the people. I do like consistency, but I am sure there is no consistency in thB position taken by the leader of the opposition in this amendment. He is quite willing that $25,000,000 of the money of the people of this country should be given to Great Britain right off the reel, without a word, for the benefit and advancement of the people of that country. But, Sir, when it comes to devoting a smaller sum of money to the development of the manufacturing industries of this country for the purpose of constructing a navy for our own protection, for the protection of our own shores, the whole of which money will be expended in this country, then forsooth, we must go to the country and ask for the consent of the people. As far as I can judge the amendment of my hon. friend was moved simply for the purpose of gathering in the stray lambs of the flock and herding them into one fold on the division. An hon. friend remarks that there are no lambs in that flock. Perhaps they are all grown sheep. If we really desire to aid Great Britain, and if we could aid her I think it is right and proper that we should do so. I think that we could do this much more effectively by helping ourselves, by devoting every dollar that we can raise to the development of the great natural resources of this country, by extending, improving and increasing our traffic highways to the sea-board and from the sea-board across the Atlantic, so that we can lay down our products in the British markets, and her products in our markets in the least possible time, in the best possible condition, and at least possible cost. We should provide profitable investments for the immense horde of surplus capital in Great Britain, and we should provide comfortable homes for the teeming millions of her population. These are the ways in which I think we could aid Great Britain much more effectively, much more to her interests as well as to our own interest, than by presenting her with Dreadnoughts, which, by the time they are constructed, will, in ail probability, be fit for the scrap heap,

^or which there is no necessity. In this way, I think we should work and build up on this continent a great nation which will be at least the equal, if it does not surpass, the greatest of the great nations of the civilized world. A nation that will work in harmony and consonance with the old mother who will look with pride and pleasure justly upon her brightest and best sons. This, Mr. Speaker, is an ambition worthy of young Canada. This, Sir, is an ambition which is worthy of our best energy, and our best intellect, and we have the men to accomplish it. Let us set ourselves to this work, and do it to the very best of our ability, and let us place this country of ours in the position which nature has destined her to occupy. And, Sir, if we do this, if each one of us does his duty, we need not trouble ourselves very much about difficulties between Germany and Great Britain. Why, thirty-five years ago, or possibly a little more, we had a similar scare to this. We had then precisely the same arguments which are to-day being used by hon. gentlemen opposite and notwithstanding all that, no trouble and no war between Germany and Great Britain has supervened in all these years. On the contrary, these two great countries have worked hand in hand together, and in trading with each other peacefully, they both have made profit, while advancing their own interests. Under such circumstances is it not a craven and cowardly thing for hon. gentlemen opposite, to be going up and down this country whining that Great Britain is afraid of being swallowed up by Germany. This is a species of loyalty which we on this iside of the House, at all events, do not profess.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: I have listened to most of the speeches which have been delivered on the question before the House, and I cannot but feel that this parliament is now dealing with a measure of unparalleled importance in the history of Canada. There are three things which present themselves for our consideration as Canadians; the first is: the consolidation of the British empire; the second is: the maintenance of that empire, the greatest the world has known; and the third is the question as to what best we can do to bring about peace among the nations of the world. It is well, Sir, that we should consider this question free from personal or party bitterness and controversy I could- not help but think this afternoon, in listening to the speech of the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) that his language did not express, the sentiments of the people of his riding. He has talked a great deal about autonomy, as most hon. gentleman on his side have done, and in this connection I would like him to explain the relation between paragraph 4 Mr. M. Y. MCLEAN.
of this Bill and paragraph 18. It would be a great comfort to members on this side of the House if hon. gentlemen opposite would reconcile these features of the Bill, the one with the other. Section 4 of the Bill dis tinctly states, as does clause 15 of the British North America Act, that the Canadian navy shall be placed under the control of the King, but section 18 of the Bill just as distinctly states that the government of Canada shall have control of the navy and that they need not send it to war unless they wish to do so. This seems a contradiction. Then again, gentlemen opposite have been telling us that they are greatly in favour of peace throughout the world. The Minister of Labour, speaking in Harvard University hoped to see the day when the government of Canada and the government of the United States would join in building a monument on the border line to celebrate 100 years of peace. On the 8th of July last, the Prime Minister endorsed that suggestion of his Minister of Labour, and on the same day, speaking in Plattsburg, New York, the Postmaster General used this language:
Sir, is this not the fittest occasion to proclaim our determination that now on and forever the American Commonwealth and the Dominion of Canada shall always promote and advance the cause of peace, harmony and civilization on this vast continent.
There are heroes of peace as there are heroes of war, under different flags we are pressing towards a single goal-freedom, righteousness and duty.
But, where is that hero of peace to-day? Did we not find him a few weeks ago urging his compatriots to furnish the money to build a Canadian navy, which by the way I may say would be of no use to Canada for her own defence and of no service to Great Britain in time of war. I quote the words of the Postmaster General from 'Hansard ':
Why should we not have a navy as we have an army? The Canadian militia began fifty years ago; it is now a fighting force. May I not prophesy the same happy results for the Canadian navy.
Are we to understand from the Postmaster General that fifty years hence we will have a fighting force, in our navy? Well, it is quite possible that half a century in the future the Canadian navy, as proposed in this Bill, may be of some consequence. Then again, the Postmaster General says:
We must exhibit our fighting qualities and take care of ourselves against the United
States.	*
And the member for Huron (Mr. McLean) gives his hearty approval to such language. Are we to say to the people of the United States: Wait a little longer until

Canada has built a fleet, wait until we have abrogated the Rushe-Bag-ot treaty and built our cruisers on the great lakes? Is that what hon. gentlemen opposite would wish as the outcome of this navy? I can tell the Prime Minister that the United States ship builders would only be too glad to see the abrogation of the Rushe-Bagot treaty so that they might build on the great lakes war ships and naval armament. And, Sir, does the protection of our shores only mean the Atlantic and Pacific coast line, are we not to take into consideration all oi the 7,600 miles of shore line which we have in this Dominion? On the eastern coast we have 3,000 miles of shore line between the United States boundary and Hudson straits; on the west we have 1,000 miles oi coast line between the United States boundary and Alaska, and in addition we have 3,600 miles of boundary line between the United States and Canada. When you take into consideration that most of our wars have come from the United States, one can readily understand that in preparing for coast defence it is necessary also to take into consideration preparation for the de fence of the boundary line between Canada and the republic to the south. It must be remembered that were England to be engaged in a war with Germany, there are
16,000,000 Germans in the United States who would not sympathize with the Monroe doctrine being enforced on the northern half of this continent. Then, have we no1 some duty to protect our mercantile marine? When we realize that 70,000,000 tons of water-borne freight passes through the Clair river every year, and that a large portion of it is carried by Canadian merchant marine, we must also realize that that merchant marine demands protection.
When we realize that we own half of this continent, with seven millions of people scattered over its length and breadth, we must see that with our limited resources it would be perfect folly on our part to attempt to protect all our boundary line. Have not the people of Sarnia, Goderich, Sault Ste. Marie, Port Arthur and many other prominent cities on our great lakes just as good a right to expect shipyards and dockyards to be built in them as many of the cities on our eastern and western coasts? If we enter upon a career of navy building, as proposed by this government, we will have no end of competing cities on our coasts all wanting to build ships of war. If we pass this Bill we enter on a mad race for naval construction, and commit our people to an indefinite, perpetual and ever-draining policy. The Canadian people are a patriotic people, proud of their homes, their lands and their progress. They do not shrink from assisting the motherland; but I do not believe that they are anxious to undertake the expenditure which this government is proposing for the
purpose of building a navy, especially one that will not be of any definite help to Great Britain. The defence of the empire is not the defence of the British islands alone, but includes the defence of Great Britain's colonies and dependencies. The Prime Minister may well say that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, because the only hope of Canada remaining a part of the British empire depends upon Great Britain having the command of the sea. If Great Britain were defeated in a war, of what good would be all this talk about autonomy and having the rights of the people of Canada protected? I am absolutely opposed to militarism in every sense of the word; but I realize that there is only one court of appeal to which nations can go at present, and that court is war. However, I sincerely hope' and believe that the day is not far distant when the nations of the world will come together in a bond of peace and submit their differences to a court of arbitration similar to the Hague tribunal, and war will be no more. Only a few weeks ago I received a letter from a Mr. Marburg, in the city of Baltimore, at whose home a conference was held a few nights previous at which a large number of prominent citizens of the United States were present. At the conference a plan of campaign was mapped out for this continent and the different nations of Europe to educate the people up to a sense of their duty on this question of peace. The President of the United States, Senator Root and many other prominent men have given their hearty approval to the project. Within the next few months we may expect to see a propaganda started for the holding of public meetings in the United States and in Canada to urge the people to assist in bringing about a cessation of the mad rush for armaments on the part of the nations of the world. I sincerely trust that whatever can be done in the wav of assisting this movement will be done by the men of Canada. Until we are able to build a navy worthy of the name, or until international peace is consummated, it would be folly for us to undertake to build such a navy as is proposed by this^ government. The proper position for us is to stand by the British navy. On this occasion there is a distinct line of cleavage between the two great political parties of this country. The opposition say: submit the question to the people Snd give two Dreadnoughts to tide over the present emergency. If you look into the records of Great Britain, Germany or the United States you will find that it takes years to build Dreadnoughts, and if we placed at the disposal of Great Britain the money proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition in his resolution, it would probably take two years or more before I the battleships would be ready to go into service. The present government propose

time of need, wasting money in building a useless navy that can be of no service to Canada or Great Britain. England's nvay is closely associated with her greatness, with the mighty deeds which have extended her empire and made her mistress of the seas. The British fleet to-day, centred as it is around Great Britain, is within striking distance of Canada. We must remember the fact that within five days of our shores is the British fleet, practically as near to Canada as the eastern portion of Canada is to British Columbia. Wireless telegraphy and cables render the protection of our Shores by the British fleet more effective than they would be by a separate squadron. Australia and New Zealand, lying as they do at a greater distance, require an entirely different system of defence. We have no enemies excepting the enemies of Great Britain. And we must remember this fact, that our people are not only self-reliant and confident, a people full of energy and hope, but they are a people willing and ready to contribute of their means towards assisting Great Britain in time of crisis. We may make -mistakes in the legislation that comes before this parliament, mistakes which we can remedy, but, in forcing this Bill through parliament, we shall make a mistake in imperial policy which will be irretrievable. The colonies have been the cause of most of Britain's wars, and while Britain owns one-fifth of the land area of the globe, and controls a quarter of the world's population, it will be necessary for her to have a large army and a large navy.
We cannot but admire the justice with which Great Britain has governed her overseas dominions. She has displayed unflinching confidence and absolute justice in dealing with Canada, not only with the French Canadians of Canada, -but with every other nationality, since she has put them all on the same footing. She extends the same square dealing to all her colonies and dependencies; justice in administration is always the uppermost aim in England's administration. Then England is the greatest importer in the world. She imports food and raw material for her population, and she exports manufactured goods. Seven-eighths of her imports are food and raw material, and seven eighths of her exports are manufactured articles. To keep the British empire together, we must first protect her commerce, and this is done by helping her to keep command of the sea. We hear much said about the necessity of protecting our commerce on the high seas. In that connection I would like to read an extract from a report of the Royal Commission on Food Supply in Time of War. This commission was appointed in 1905, and we find that many of the most prominent men of England were on that commission. At the Mr. ARMSTRONG.
head of it was His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and among the members were the Rt. Hon. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, His Grace the Duke of Sutherland, the Rt. Hon. Lord Berkeley, the Rt. Hon. John Henry Chapman, and many others. Now let us see what this commission has to say with regard to Great Britain's food supply in time of war, and the protection of that food supply. Here is what they say in the course of their report:
The imports of wheat aDtl flour in 1904, given in millions of quarters, were as follows: United States of America, 4 -40; Russia, 5 -53; Roumania, -35 ; Argentina, 5-10 ; British India, 5-95; Canada, 2 13; Australia, 2-65; minor exporting countries, 1 -59.
So when we hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking about sending to Great Britain the whole of her food supply, they must take into consideration the fact that India sent to Great Britain in 1904 double the amount of wheat that Canada did. The report gives the various sources of Britain's food supply as follows:
The supplies from the principle sources begin to arrive as follows: January, wheat from the Pacific coast of America; February and March, Argentine wheat; April, Australian wheat; May, June and July, Calcutta and Bombay, Delhi and Karachi Indian wheats; July and August, American winter wheat ; September and October, American spring and Russian wheat; November, Canadian wheat.
This goes to show that Great Britain has practically a supply from various sources all the year round, one source or another every month, as I have just shown. On page 28 of this report we have some very important facts:
In their communications to us the admiralty admit that the policy of attacking the floating trade of a country has always played an important part in maritime warfare. But in a summary of the events of the various maritime wars of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries they point out that naval history demonstrates the truth of these two general principles.
I would ask your consideration to this, Mr. Speaker:
1.	That the command of the sea is essential for the successful attack or defence of commerce and should therefore be the primary aim.
2.	That the attack or defence of commerce is best effected by concentration of force, and that a dispersion of strength for either of those objects is the strategy of the weak, and cannot materially influence the ultimate result of the war.
And, surely, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman who leads this House would consider the statements of these men, made in 1905, when there was no general election on in Great Britain, and

would apply their suggestions to the case of the Canadian navy, he would see that the policy he is undertaking is named by them, 'the stategy of the weak', and they say that it 'cannot materially influence the ultimate result of a war'. They emphasize this further on page 30 of the report:
We were specially anxious on this point, on account of the evidence warning us that we must expect captures, and we asked the following questions:-
(1) Assuming the country to he at war with any two of the great maritime powers, are the admiralty of opinion that onr supplies of wheat and flour would arrive in practically the same volume as they come at present?
. . . Practically, the reply is yes, as the admiralty believe that there would he no material diminution in the supplies of wheat and flour reaching the United Kingdom.
The question and answer in this report proceed:
(4) Supposing popular pressure took the form of demand for more direct defence of our food supplies, and special protection of ships carrying foodstuffs to this country than the naval authorities would otherwise contemplate, and was successful, do the hoard consider the probable result would prejudice arrangements for the general conduct of our offensive operations of war against the hostile fleets?
The answer to that is as follows:
If a portion of the naval forces at the disposal of the admiralty were deflected from the main operations of the war for other purposes of whatever kind, the general conduct of these operations must of necessity suffer, and the entire course of the war might be injuriously affected.
Just the very thing the present government are doing is the thing which the British admiralty and this commission most- emphatically state should not be done. Another statement is as follows- page 32:
The number of British merchant steamers which would be taken up by the government in war time is so small compared to the total number available that it is not believed the British carrying trade could he seriously interfered with. The admiralty have already been in consultation on the subject with some of the leading shipowners.
Sir Cyprian Bridge also thought that if proper naval arrangements were made, the losses by capture, or by ships being driven on shore, of vessels bringing imports into the United Kingdom, would not exceed a very small percentage of the total, and he suggested that the proportion lost would probably amount to about 5 per cent.
So, if this government are building their navy for the purpose -of protecting our merchant marine, it is easy to see what folly it is. And what do these gentlemen say as regards torpedo craft?
It should be added that torpedo-craft (i.e., destroyers and torpedo boats) can neither 141
spare prize crews nor accommodate any one above their complement numbers. If, therefore, employed against commerce, for which they were never intended, such craft could only compel merchant ships to follow them into port under threat of being torpedoed. Moreover these crafts can only operate within a comparatively short distance of their shore bases.
I think that is sufficient at least to call your attention to the fact that, so far as the navy proposed bv this government is concerned, it is utterly inadequate and can be of no service for the protection of our merchant marine. The government talk about protecting our commerce. Let us, for a moment, take the United States as an example. Out of the port of Baltimore went 50,000,000 bushels of grain last year of which only 10,000 bushels were carried in American bottoms. Out of the port of New York last year went 1,200 ships, and of these only seven carried the American flag. If you investigate the commerce of the United States you are forced to the conclusion that they are not building their navy for the protection in particular of their own commerce. They are in an altogether better position as concerns population and consumption than we are. It seems utter nonsense, therefore, for us at the present time, with our small population and small income, to attempt to build a navy such as would adequately protect our commerce.
War is organized force. When peace is broken the nation best organized and prepared for war has the best chance of defeating its opponent. Only men make war, and it is a well-reasoned affair and conducted on business principles. Germany, when she defeated France, demanded from France a thousand million of dollars of indemnity. What would be the indemnity Germany would demand of the British empire if she defeated that empire on the high seas? Instead of a thousand millions, the indemnity demanded would be five thousand millions. And, would not we feel the burden if we had to pay our share of that into the coffers of Germany ? Then the people would say of the men now in charge of our affairs that they did not consider the best interests of the Dominion, or of the empire, or they would have sent to the motherland without delay sufficient monev to show, at least, that they were ready and willing to assist her in time of emergency.
Increased knowledge and practice, with a liberal expenditure of money, are perfecting day by day the navies of the world. Well may we say: When will this conflict cease? The nations are vieing with one another to see which will build the best boats and build them in the shortest space of time. The fighting, so far as England is concerned, will be done in the



l.EVISED EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
North Sea. If you follow up what England has been doing with her battleships during the past few months, you will see that she is gradually gathering around her shores in the North sea the best battleships she has. In addition to that, she is protecting her shores to the utmost extent and making all preparation for the war that is likely to take place.
The admiralty made a definite and distinct demand on the people who were represented at this colonial conference, that the best way to assist Great Britain was to keep her navy a unit instead of in separate squadrons as suggested by this Bill. And though the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) may think that he did a noble and a good thing in bringing in this measure, yet, if he will take into consideration the contributions of Australia, New Zealand, and other colonies which have been giving to Great Britain in large proportions to their population, and if he will compare the Dreadnoughts of New Zealand, and the fleet unit of Australia, with the navy that he proposes by this Bill to build in this country, he cannot but see that his navy is not to be compared with the splendid fighting fleet that these other governments are ready and willing to give.
There i3 no question about it, when you consider the means of protecting the British merchant marine, the only way at present, as the members of the admiralty will tell you, is to send a battleship alongside a number of merchantmen to carefully guard them and protect them. So far as our little ships are concerned, they would be no manner of use whatever. On reading the reports of these various conferences, we cannot but feel that the men who represented us were not ready or willing to do even a reasonable amount for the assistance of Great Britain in time of war. Here is the one outstanding fact; the aim in naval warfare is to attain command of the sea; the power that attains this control can attack its enemy where and when it pleases. England has had command of the sea for generations. Fifty years ago her commerce went into every port. At that time, Britain had command of the commerce of the world. To-day, France, Germany, the United States and Russia are vieing with one another to take away that commerce from Great Britain-as they have a perfect right to do. But, we must recognize this fact that it is our duty, as far as British commerce is concerned to assist and protect it to best of our ability. How is command of the sea to be won? Not with such a fleet as is proposed by the government, but simply by the possession of a navy stronger than your opponents. Courage is necessary, and a careful study of the enemy's resources, their naval methods and intentions. An opposing navy could not commit a Mr. ARMSTRONG.
more serious mistake than to detach a squadron with the object of reducing some outlying fleet. She would spoil her concentration, and you would spoil yours if you attempted to follow.
The government say that we must give money and men for the building of a Canadian navy. What have they been doing during the past few years?-spending over a million dollars per annum for the purpose of bringing people to our shores to develop our resources. Would it not be wise to continue this instead of taking money to bring men here for the purpose of assisting in building a navy. The men engaged in the development of these resources, who would otherwise be engaged in the useless defence of our country, would earn sufficient to give a large annual grant to Great Britain, if that were thought advisable. But, I do not believe in an annual grant to Great Britain, and I do not believe we will be called upon to duplicate the two battleships that have been proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in his splendid resolution. Let us leave the naval question for the present to the powers which have to keep up their navies. Great Britain has the men and we have the money to help her to increase her navy. If we have a navy we have to consider that it means an ever-increasing annual expenditure until that expenditure reaches the sum of $50,000,000 per year. Great Britain will spend on her navy in 1910 $175,000,000. That is $480,000 for every single day of the 365 days in the year. In adition to that she is maintaining her great army at a cost of $430,000 per day. There are $900,000 taken out of the treasury of Great Britain and spent every day for keeping up her army and navy in order that she may protect herself, her colonies and dependencies to which Canada is not contributing one dollar. In addition to that she 3pends $3,000,000 per annum for her consular service to which we do not contribute a dollar. The South African war cost England $1,000,000,000. That, at interest, represents a payment by the British people of $30,000,000 per annum. It is true that Germany, ten years ago, brought in a measure' whereby she set aside $1,000,000,000 for the purpose of building her navy. Since that time she has appropriated $500,000,000 for the same purpose. During this present year she has set aside $105,000,000 for the purpose of building ships, and if you will investigate the German reports, and the German books which tell you of the position of Germany at the present time you cannot but feel that as far as Great Britain is concerned she is not in the position to build these large battleships of the Dreadnought class with the rapidity with which Germany is building them at the present time.
[Stage Direction]
Germany made her plans years ago to construct her dockyards sufficiently large to hold the Dreadnoughts that she is turning out at such a rapid rate. In England's Navy League Annual you will find such facts as these: By the year 1914 Germany, at the present rate of speed will have one ship of the Dreadnought class more than Great Britain will have. You will also see the different firms in Germany which are manufacturing ships of the Dreadnought class and the rapidity with which they are manufacturing these ships. You cannot come to any other conclusion than that which I have indicated with the enormous amount of money that she is expending. Fifty years ago Germany only had $18,000,000 of a debt while to-day she has a debt of $1,000,000,000. Last year she expended $83,000,000 on her navy, and this year she is expending $105,000,000. From year to year, the expenditure has grown until on her army and navy she is expending $224,000,000 this year, or double what the expenditure was in 1900. We know it to be a fact that she has one million men in line, and that she can call upon 4,000,000 more who are fully prepared to fight upon land. We know that she has spent enormous amounts of money in addition to those I have mentioned in preparing her canals and rivers for just such large ships as those of the Dreadnought class. Not only that, but Germany's population is increasing at about the rate of
1,000,000 souls per annum, and her total population ,to-day is 65,000,000 on a land area less than that of the province of Ontario. There is no place for these people to go unless, to some of the colonies owned and controlled by other nations. I do not wish to say one word against the German people as a people. I believe they are a thrifty progressive people, and I sincerely hope that the government, may take steps to bring about better trade relations with Germany, and that they will put a sufficient amount in the estimates to provide for trade representatives who will try and increase our trade with that land. Our government have taken a step in the right direction in the late treaty arrangements, but we are not in as favourable a position in the German markets as we were in 1896. Great Britain's population, in the British Isles, only amounts to 43,000,000 people, and with her limited resources she is spending at the present time $222,000,000 on her army and navy. I have just been handed a copy of to-day's Toronto ' Globe,' in which the following statement appears:
Gathering her Soldiers-Germany ordering her scattered Sons Home-All Unnaturalized Germans in United States receiving Instructions to report for Military Physicm examination-An Order never before issued.
141J
(Special despatch to the ' Globe.')
Dallas, Texas, Feb. 28.-Whether or not she is preparing for war with Great Britain, Germany is serving notice on all her available citizens in the United States to report for military physical examination, to decide if they are still fit for military duty. In view of the fact that this order has never before been issued, and considering the loud talk of war between the countries, this development is full of significance, and shows that Germany is getting all her forces lined up in case a conflict comes. Nearly two hundred Germans of Dallas and Fort Worth who failed to serve their allotted time in the German army have been called upon to submit to physical examinations. Unnaturalized Germans in Texas have been ordered to report to the German Consul at Galveston, where transportation to the fatherland will be supplied.
That is an article which appears in the Toronto ' Globe ' and one which is worthy of consideration. It bears out to some extent the position that the opposition are . taking on this important question. If we are going to assist Great Britain in her wars, now is the time to act. Do not let us wait until we have expended tens of millions of dollars on a useless tin-pot navy, but let us place at once at the disposal of Great Britain a sum sufficient for two Dreadnoughts, and we will be doing something worthy of our country and worthy of the name of patriotic sons of England. We were told by the Minister of Militia, and by other hon. gentlemen oppo site, that a contribution of two Dreadnoughts would mean $25,000,000, but the fact is that the official returns disclose that the largest battleship built in the United States has not cost them $8,000,000 (this estimate did not include guns), and of all the Dreadnoughts turned out of the British dockyards not a single one has exceeded a cost of $8,800,000. Last year the United States spent $219,000,000 on its army and navy, and this year they have given a proof of their anxiety for international peace in reducing that expenditure by $60,000,000. Look at what the countries of the world are doing in naval construction to day, and you will find that not a single one of them is building cruisers of the type which this Bill proposes for their protection. In 1904 Great Britain put out of service 155 ships, and I have no doubt that if we continue to purchase second-hand vessels we will have among our fleet a number of those discarded from the British navy. The control and management of the British navy is under the direction of the Lords of Admiralty, and surely the sea lords should know whether it would be better that we should have a unit of the British fleet or a separate squadron. Practically the first word of the British admiralty to the gen tlemen attending the British conference
[Stage Direction]
was that they would prefer a naval unit I submit, Sir, that the proposition of the leader of the opposition now before the House renders the most effective aid to the motherland at the least cost to our people. When war is declared is not the time for the colonies to help Britain; help must come in advance to be of any use. The Prime Minister has told us that if Great Britain were at war, he would go up and down this country to arouse the people to a sense of their duty, but, Sir, when the smoke of battle is seen and death-dealing missiles are hurtling through the air and Britain calls us to her aid, are we to say Please give us time to think, we have not yet decided whether the war is just or not? Can any one imagine a more humiliating position for a nation such as Canada to be placed in? We are told by the Prime Minister that when the beacon fires are lighted on the hills, Canada would come to the aid of the empire. Yes, but when the beacon fires are lighted on the hills, the war will be on and there will be no time for tire right hon. gentleman to go up and down the country urging assistance. It is our duty to declare that we shall stand by Great Britain always for the sake of the empire, and not when the Governor in Council thinks it fitting that we should do so. The hon. member for Huron (Mr. McLean) tells us that he would investigate whether a war was just or not before sending the fleet, but I can tell him that if the British fleet is defeated on the high seas, Canada will be defeated that same hour. The first few hours of a naval battle decide who shall have command of the seas. The decisive part of the war between Japan and Russia lasted forty minutes, and the taking of Santiago harbour by the United States in the war with Spain took less time than that. Dreadnoughts, and Dreadnoughts alone, will count in the wars of the future. What inducement is there for a young man to enter the Canadian naval service, when he knows that the height of his ambition is limited to command a cruiser that dare not go to war, and which if she went to war would be of no service. It is an insult to the intelligence of our people for the gov; ernment to declare that this navy would only cost $3,000,000 a year, when every one knows that even for such a navy as they propose, it will cost at least eight or ten million dollars ner annum. Does not everything done by the government in this connection, lead us to the inquiry as to whether this is another Grand Trunk Pacific humbug, or another Public Works Department job, or an example of how this business government conducts public affairs? I have tried to place before the government what would be necessary should we attempt to build a navy in the Dominion. I have pointed out that we need a new Welland canal, a new Soo canal, a new Georgian Mr. ARMSTRONG
Bay canal, the Hudson Bay railway, the Hudson straits lighted, and numerous railways and public works in different parts of our country. Last year the government told us that they had to cut down the estimates to the extent of eight or nine million dollars for the want of money, but to-day, just a year after, they appear to have money to bum on a useless navy. Let me point out also that the English navy is a long service navy. Boys enter at Greenwich between 13 years of age and 15, the marines enter between 17 and 23 years of age, and they serve for 12 years. Where are the Canadian boys who are going to train for 12 years in the hope of some day attaining the command of such cruisers as we propose to build? It has been my privilege to have gone through the Greenwich Naval School, and while I have every confidence in the patriotism of the young men of Canada, I do not believe that they are ready to undergo such a training as the boys undergo there, when their only ambition can possibly be such promotion as this proposed navy can afford. Great Britain does not build battleships for coast defence; for that purpose she uses the ships which cannot accompany the fleet, and the pay and salaries in Great Britain are only about one-half of what they would be in Canada. Suppose, for example, such a navy as that which the government proposes were present at the demonstration in the North sea last year, or suppose our little navy should be invited to American waters, how humiliating it would be for the people of Canada to have to admit that they own them. Last year Great Britain sent to the scrap heap 155 vessels of all descriptions. Her age limit for battleships is 25 years, for cruisers 20 years, for destroyers 12 years, so you can readily see that if we build a navy we must continue to build, and pay, pay, pay. This government admits that the construction of the ships will cost us 35 per cent more in Canada than if they were built in England. If the two Dreadnoughts will cost $25,000,000, as the Minister of War says they are likely to, a saving of 35 per cent on that amount would mean $8,750,000 to the people of Canada. If the total cost of two Dreadnoughts would not exceed $20,000,000, which is the proper estimate, then we would save $7,000,000 by having them built in Great Britain^ because the 35 per cent is the difference between $20,000,000 and $27,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about giving a preference to Great Britain in our markets and about contributing to her maintenance in so doing. Why not give her a preference by having two battleships built in Great Britain, as proposed by the leader of the opposition, when they can be built there so much better and at. so much less cost? Australia and New Zealand are having their ships built in Great Britain.

Great Britain is the greatest colonizing nation the world has ever known. Germany has tried it, France has tried it, Russia has tried it, Italy has tried it, the United States has tried it, and they have made a complete failure of it. Everybody knows the constitutional principles that govern this country. The King is Commander-in-Chief, here as well as in England, and here this parliament exercises the prerogative as parliament exercises it in England. The King can dissolve this parliament; he is practically the only man who can. Canada is either a part of the British empire or it is not; but this government are driving a wedge between Canada and the motherland by proposing to build an independent navy. [DOT]
All Canadians have hoped that war was a thing of the past, and that as the years went by war would cease. We look at the militarism in force to-day in the nations of Europe, where men in uniform parade the streets and ships of war are constantly in evidence. These nations are burdened with debts and responsibilities that - should warn us against undertaking any such burdens. The nations of the world deplore the state they are in and are seeking means to get away from it. Witness the various naval conferences that have taken place and the means that have been used to maintain peace in different parts of the world. These recognize the futility and needlessness of the barbarous spirit that forces them on. We should be glad that we are privileged to live .in a land of peace, and we should welcome some universal congress of the nations to put a stop to this insane competition for armaments. Why should we, in the light of the twentieth century, when all are talking of the days when war shall be no more, deliberately and voluntarily assume that which other nations are trying to get away from? We like to believe, and there are many signs which show, that mere might is not the only way to conquer. Nations formerly carried on their wars with swords and spears. Now the weapons that are being used, and that should be used, are brains, tariffs and treaties. Building a navy is the first step in the opposite direction. The old-world powers are compelled to keep up their present armies and navies. Why should we attempt to imitate them? The only true position for ns to take is to assist in keeping one central navy, and not to build a separate and independent navy, as proposed by this government. If we follow the government's plan we will add to our expenditures without subtracting from Great Britain's expenditures. Thus far Great Britain has carried us, and in this undertaking we would not be helping her or yet be helping ourselves. It is
recognized that the central imperial navy must be maintained at adequate strength. The question therefore, is, who is going to pay for maintaining it up to the proper standard? The people of Great Britain must do it if we do not assist them. New Zealand says: 'We will give a Dread' nought, and thereby deduct $10,000,000! from the amount of money which the taxpayers of Great Britain will have to ex

pend'. Australia and the other colonies-and dependencies of Great Britain have been saying the same thing. Every dollar they give in the form of a direct grant means a dollar less from the pockets of the English taxpayers, while this government's proposition will not add to the strength of Britain's navy nor deduct a penny from the burden of the British taxpayer. The government of Canada says: 'We will build a little navy of our own. That little navy will be under the control of parliament, and we will not send it to assist Great Britain unless we choose. We will add $17,000,000 to the expenditure and debt of Canada, and place an everlasting burden of annual expenditure on the people of this country.' But the government are unable to show that this expenditure will mean a dollar less of necessary expenditure on the part of the British taxpayer to keep up the imperial navy. What one navy introduces to-day other navies strive to get. Never in the history of the world did false prophets or quacks have better opportunities than they have in this age, and this government can furnish more false prophets and quacks to the square inch, particularly in regard to this question, than any that ever existed before. We can count up an enemy's ships, and calculate the number she will put into line, but we cannot forecast -the ability of her commanders. Who expected Russia to produce a Suvoroff, or Corsica a Napoleon Bonaparte, or Austria a Teget-thoff or Japan a Togo? If we study history, we will thank God- that we have never had a navy to send to sea, and be more than glad if we never will. You may paint a tiger's face on a shield as the Chinese do, but you will need more than the craft if you propose to accomplish anything in war. We cannot mimic or deceive the nations in regard to our naval strength. The world to-day is alive to our military and naval strength, and it is impossible to disguise it. Sea-borne commerce must be defended* and Great Britain's statesmen say that the best way to defend it is by a united navy. There is the convoy method where groups of merchant ships can be escorted by a man-of war, and it is the proper method. What kind of an escort would we give with our puny cruisers and torpedo boats? The ob-
[Stage Direction]
jeet of cruisers is to observe an enemy's force and strength, and return and communicate whatever information they have obtained to the officers waiting. Fighting would be quite outside of their duties. In a cruiser high speed and fuel endurance are necessary, more necessary than ability to fight. We must remain masters of our destinies and not slaves. If we become slaves to war tactics, our energies will become divided. We need all the force and energy we have to develop our resources. Local defence of its very nature must be repeated at many points to be of any service. The enemy will choose the point of attack and the time of attack.
Before we decide on a navy for Canada, let us ask the military class and the working class, the farmer and the artisan, the capitalist and the miner, those who live inland and those who live on our coasts, whether they want for ever to pay, pay, pay. The government has no mandate from the people to force this measure through the House. The only hope for Canada if she embarks on navy building is to set her teeth, build and maintain, and pay, pay, pay. If we are to build and maintain a navy, all parts of our country and all sections of our people must cling together in a manly, patriotic spirit and stand true to our country and to our flag. Let one flag, one fleet, one throne be our motto.
Look at the humiliating spectacle that we are presenting to the world. Canada ready to assert her independence. She will not go to war without the consent of parliament. Are we not drifting towards independence at a rapid rate?
Picture, if you will, Gireat Britain, with its back to the wall, fighting the foe, sending over a request for Canada to come to tier assistance, and the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet discussing the merits of the British case and calling parliament together to hear all sides of the question before determining whether we should go to the assistance of the mother country or not.
There is no danger of European nations sending their battleships to Canada until they have defeated the British fleet at home. They would weaken their unit and serve no end. While Great Britain holds command of the sea there is no fear of a foreign foe attacking Canada. Where they would strike would be at. the heart and not at the extremities. Canada's ships, as proposed, will never be called to battle, and after the battle, should Britain's power be supreme, they will not be needed. Should, on the other hand, Britain's power be lost, they will either be sunk or captured.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In closing, let me say to this government: do to England as you would wish England to do to you. If she is in need of help to-day, and I believe she is, you are denying her that help by introducing this Bill. She has asked you for bread, you are offering a stone. You are taking money that you ought to expend to assist Great Britain in building ships to go to the fighting line, like the ships of New Zealand and Australia, and you are instead squandering that money on a useless navy which will be no protection to either Canada or the empire.
If she has displayed ignorance in making her request in the manner that she has, you must remember that had she exposed her whole wish in this matter it would be the public property of her enemies to-day. Stand bv the good old flag and answer England's call, and depend upon it you will never regret it.
An independent navy, as suggested by this government, involves years of delay. The construction and armament of which means enormous capital expenditure, added to which, it will necessarily follow, the un-keep and renewals of our fleet, in addition to the maintenance of schools and academies.
I have unbounded faith in my king and country, and undieing belief in the empire to which I belong. Let the British navy continue to be the floating bulwark of our land and her parliament out guiding star. The most effective contribution we could make, and one which may never need to be repeated, would be to give to England's navy two Dreadnoughts. Then if you must build a navy, submit the whole question to the Canadian people. I am prepared to assist in maintaining the splendid inheritance received from our forefathers. I love my country, I believe in her, I honour her, I am prepared to work for her, to live for her, and, if needs be, die for her.' In order that her territory may remain intact and her name untarnished.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. VICTOR GEOFFRION (Chambly and Vercheres).: Mr. Speaker, this already long debate of the very important question of the creation of the Canadian navy has, in my opinion, elicited two facts-the wisdom of the measure now before the Chair and the illogical position of the hon. gentlemen who oppose it. The opponents of this measure are divided into two classes- those who are in favour of giving tribute- or, perhaps, I should not use that expression, but let us say, making a contribution -to the British admiralty, and those who

444fi
are in favour of doing nothing at all. The most illogical feature of those who oppose this measure lies, of course, in the fact that, having voted and spoken in favour of the policy expressed in the resolution of the 29th of March last, they now oppose it. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), when this resolution was before the House, took a certain position; to-day, he adopts a different policy altogether. I shall have to quote some parts of the speeches of hon. members opposite, but I shall endeavour to make my quotations as brief as possible, as many of them have been used by other hon. members. Still, in order to make my own argument complete, I think I should be allowed to make a few brief quotations. Here is what the leader of the opposition said when he was addressing the House on the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as reported at page 3517 of ' Hansard ':
In so far as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to-day outlined the lines of naval defence of this country I am entirely at one with him. I am entirely of opinion, in the first place, that the proper line upon which we should proceed in that regard is the line of having a Canadian naval force of our own. 1 entirely believe in that. The other experiment has been tried as between Australia and the mother country and it has not worked satisfactorily in any respect. In Great Britain the contribution has perhaps been regarded as rather unsatisfactory.
Then, at page 3518:
So, I am at one with the Prime Minister as far as this is concerned. I am at one with him in this respect also that I think that an expenditure of money designed for that purpose ought, in the main at least, to be under the control of our own parliament and that by making an appropriation of that kind and attending to the defence of our own coasts, by co-operation and co-ordination with the imperial naval forces, we would be rendering a real service in defence of the empire and we would be doing our duty not only to Canada but to the empire as a whole.
The leader of the opposition, since that day, has seen fit to change his policy three times. The first policy was on March 29, 1909-rapid construction of a Canadian naval service according to the recommendation of the admiralty; no contribution in money. The second policy appeared on January 12, 1910: Rapid and prudent construction of a Canadian navy, plus a contribution in money to the value of one Dreadnought. Third policy, February 3, 1910:	No Canadian navy: immediate contribution in money to the value of two Dreadnoughts.
Now, Sir, what is the reason of these changes? Everybody knows that the leader of the opposition is a statesman, a very eminent lawyer, able to grasp every question which comes before him, able to analyse a question from all sides. Who can comprehend the reason why he has seen fit, within one year, to change his policy three times?-unless it be that the thumbsrew and the rack_ so much spoken of by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) have been applied to the leader of the opposition by his own followers. I cannot see any other reason for it. The leader of the opposition has seen fit to increase the tribute he wants this country to pay to the mother country in proportion to the decrease of the German scare. On the 29th of March last, when we discussed the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto, the German peril cry was launched in England and soon reached this country. Some of us who had not studied the question naturally felt obliged to pause, fearing there might be something in it. At that time, the leader of the opposition was in favour simply of a Canadian navy. But after the thing had been discussed, and when it was found out in England, during the elections, that this was simply an election cry, when the people who govern England, the Prime Minister and some other statesmen said it was simply raised for election purposes, the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) wanted to contribute immediately one Dreadnought. But after the elections were over, when the German scare was found out to amount to nothing, the leader of the opposition declared that he did not want a Canadian navy, but that he did want this country t6 contribute $25,000,000 to the treasury of the admiralty. Well, Sir, I desire to address particularly those gentlemen on the other side of the House who think that a direct contribution is the policy that should be adopted by this country. I wish to quote the admirable argument of the hon. member for North Toronto when he discussed his resolution of the 29th of March last. This quotation, like my others, will be very brief, but I am sure every hon. member of the House will enjoy it. It is couched in most admirable terms, and is a most logical argument. Everybody knows that, at that time, the hon. member for North Toronto made a most powerful speech. For my part, I was so much impressed with that argument that I think we cannot quote it too often. The hon. gentleman was discussing the different modes by which we might help England, and was dealing particularly with the mode of a direct contribution. I quote from page 3494 of last year's ' Hansard ':
While these objections have some force, though as I think not a force that is irresistible, there are some reasons which appear to me to have deeper force with reference, to that method of taking our part in defence. I do not know whether I can make myself

4447
understood to tlie members of this House on tbis point, but 1 shall briefly try to do so.
The first and greatest objection which I have to a fixed money contribution is that it bears the aspect of hiring somebody else to do what we ourselves ought to do; as though a man, the father of a family, in lusty health and strength, should pay his neighbour something per month for looking after the welfare and safety of his home instead of doing that duty himself. That seems to me, when you work it out, to be a basic objection to this form of aid. It goes still further than that. Suppose you contribute this year your sum, and next year your equal sum, and thereafter year after year. After ten, or twelve, or twenty, or thirty years, you will have paid out an immense amount of money. You will have been protected in the meantime; but in Canada itself there will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there will be no preparation of the soil, or beginning of the growth of the product of defence. Yet some time or other, no one can doubt that with resources and with a population constantly increasing, we must and will have in this country a naval force of our own for our coast and home defence.
The interest that we take in a contribution spent by another is not the interest that I desire for Canada. I want to see something grafted on the soil of Canada's nationhood, which takes root and grows and develops until it incites the spirit of defence in this country, leads to a participation in the defence, leads to that quick interest in it, its glories, its duties and its accomplished work, which is after all the one great thing that compensates a people for great expenditures either on land or on sea in the way of defence and of the maintenance of the rights of the country.
Sir, I am entirely of the opinion of the hon. member for North Toronto in that regard. I think he made a most logical argument. But now, to cover his changed base, the hon. member has invented the emergency cry; and he pretends that his policy on this question at the present time is quite consistent with the speech which he made on the resolution of the 29th of March last. I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. The emergency cry which he has invented is based, according to his own admission and the admission of his friends who take the same stand, on the assumption that Germany, who is now arming rapidly, will in a few years, probably in four or five years, have caught up with the naval power of England. Well, Sir, if this apprehension of the hon. member is correct, that emergency will be still more pressing next year, and when that fatal day apprehended by him does come, the emergency will be still more pressing than ever. Therefore the hon. gentleman, in order to be consistent with himself, must ask next year for the gift of another twenty-five millions to England, to be followed by still other gifts as the emergency increases.


Victor Geoffrion: Now we know that the hon. member for North Toronto is a very talented actor, and instead of going from town to .town, and from village to village' to preach temperance, as he did in the past, he should have adopted the profession of actor. He gave us sentiment and pathos in his speech when he spoke of the position of England. He represented the mother country, with her daughters assembled around her, and saying to them: Will you do something for me? Look at me, I am exhausted, I can stand the strain no longer. Do something for me; but if you do not, I will love you just the same. He represented the old British lion limping along exhausted, surrounded by his cubs, and saying to them:	Boys, look at me, I
cannot stand it any longer, you must help me. Sir, how flattering such a picture must be for the proud and justly proud, British nation! Just think of it! England with her glorious history, with her long series of victories, England surrounded by powerful allies, surrounded by colonies ready to rush to her help in the hour of need, England with her world-wide, famous corps of diplomats, with her enormous wealth, a nation of landlords, and of lords, half of whose wealth would be enough to meet the emergency imagined by the hon. gentleman. Think, Mr. Speaker, the effect such words would produce when read in Germany. What must the Germans think when they read of a British statesman representing the great British nation in such a deplorable condition? Sir, we would have heard a different tale from the hon. gentleman if the Prime Minister had committed the error of adopting the policy which lie and his friends now advocate. Then we would have heard the hon. gentleman telling us of the poor settlers of this country, how hard they had toiled, themselves, their fathers and their grandfathers, to settle up this country and preserve it for England; he would have pictured them to us as burdened with taxation in order to send this twenty-five million dollars to England, when she did not need it, and when she had all the money she wanted. He would have told us that the best policy for Canada to adopt was to develop this country and make Canada strong and powerful. Sir, that would have been a manly speech, and it would have been true.
Now, what about the policy of those who are opposed to the government Bill for creating a navy, those who pretend that we owe nothing to England, and that we should do nothing at all for England? That is the policy advocated by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and by some of his friends from the province of Quebec. Now, I believe that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not really responsible for this policy; I think he has been led I astray and deceived by the leader of the

nationalist group in the province oi Quebec. Sir, there is a rumour current in Montreal and in the province of Quebec that the leader of the nationalist group in Quebec took the hon. member for Jacques Cartier upon the top of Mount Koyal and showing him the great and beautiful province of Quebec, with its mountains, and lakes, and fertile plains, and vast resources, and its happy and prosperous population, and said to him: All these things will I give you if you will follow me and adopt my policy. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier answered the great tempter of the province of Quebec, that he had voted for the resolution of 29th March last. But said the great tempter:	You can always say
that you did not read it, or if you did read it, that you did not understand it. But, replied the member for Jacques Cartier: My leader has another policy, he wants to make a contribution to Great Britain. Then said the tempter: There is alway s the double game policy; you can always say that Lau-rier does not want to do anything, that he is a traitor to his province, that he is sacrificing the interests of his own province to England, while in the other provinces your own leader can say that Laurier is a traitor to England, that he wants to keep everything for the province of Quebec. Thus was the hon. member for Jacques Cartier tempted, and thus he yielded to the temptation. He started for Lachine, followed by the sardonic laugh of the great tempter to the province of Quebec. At Lachine he made that famous speech in which he said that we did not owe anything to England, that the best policy for Canada was to develop our own resources, that we owed nothing to England, but if anything, England was indebted to us.
He made a long and elaborate speech, full of arguments, but when he came back to this House there was a little different stoTy. He made another speech, but he was not so enthusiastic about his policy as he was at Lachine. He quoted parts of reports, editorials of newspapers, and he read some letters, but he could not muster courage enough to make the eloquent plea that he made in Lachine, because he saw in front of him the stern and evil eye of his master right in the press gallery here. One moment he seemed to have courage to make one of those pronouncements that Canada did not owe anything to England at all, but it was too much for him, his legs failed him, and he rolled under his desk. The great tempter left the gallery in disgust and we have not seen him since. But the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was also led astray by other influences in the province of Quebec. We have some newspapers in Quebec that contend that we should not do anything at all in the way of helping England under any circumstances. We have, for instance, a great daily newspaper called ' L'Action Sociale ' which puts as the headline of its first page ' Instaunare omnia in Christo '-Restore everything in Christ. That paper is deceiving the population of the province of Quebec, when it pretends as it does, that it is speaking in the name of the Catholic clergy of Quebec. It is impossible for it to sneak in the name of the Catholic clergy of Quebec, knowing as we Catholics do what the Catholic clergy owe to England and knowing that we have the most perfect liberty and the most complete protection under the British flag to exercise our religion and maintain our institutions. The editors of that paper deceive the people of Quebec, when they say that the clergy of Quebec are against the policy of my right hon. friend who leads the House. We know that when Sir George Etienne Cartier presented his Militia Bill which provided that a navy should be created at the same time the clergy of the province of Quebec, rightly, we hope, were in favour of Cartier to a man and approved of his policy. Then the country had a revenue of only $15,000,000 or $20^000,000 a year and to-day we have a revenue of $100,000,000. Then we had a commerce of about $150,000,000 while now we have a commerce of about $800,000,000. It is impossible that the clergy of Quebec would inspire that paper as they pretend that they are inspired. It is my privilege to have for friends some of the most eminent of the clergy of Montreal and the province of Quebec, and they have deplored the attitude of this paper when they pretend to speak for the clergy. What would happen if the policy advocated by that paper and by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) should prevail? What if England should say:	I cannot get anything from you; you absolutely refuse to do anything for me; what interest have I to keep you; what interest have I to help you? Where would the Catholics of Quebec turn for better protection? Would it be towards the United States? Sir, everybody knows that that would not be the wish of the clergy or of the Catholic people of Quebec. Would they turn their eyes to Germany? Sir, asking the question is to answer it. Would it be to France when we know that the clergy and the Catholic people of Quebec deplore the policy of the French government against certain of the Catholic institutions of France, and when we know that the members of those Catholic institutions are flocking to Canada where they are able to obtain a secure and peaceful home under the protection of the British flag. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier misunderstood the loyalty of the population of Quebec. It is strange that we, the Liberal members in this House, should have to fight for it

against those parties in the other provinces whose speeches we have heard in this House, and even against some of our own friends in Quebec. The French and the Catholic people of Quebec are loyal and their's is a true loyalty. It has been manifested so often that it looks almost absurd that we should have to defend it. Not many years ago, when the news reached us of the death of that most illustrious, kind and admirable woman, Queen Victoria, there was true sorrow manifested in the province of Quebec. To-day, it is not only loyalty that the people of Quebec feel for our great and kind King, but it is a sentiment of friendship. Not long ago, again, there was joy all over the province of Quebec when the news reached us of the establishment of the great entente cordiale between France and England, and if there came a war in which England would have to meet her enemies on the seas it would be a happy day in the province of Quebec, if, through that entente cordiale, France should launch her powerful fleet side by side with that of England.
Now, I desire to say a word about that referendum that has been proposed by different members on the other side of the House. I think it is the policy of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. How would it be possible, I would ask my hon. friends opposite, to go before the people with such a referendum. How many questions would we ask? Should we ask as many questions as there are policies in the House? There is the leader of the opposition with one policy favouring an immediate contribution, there is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier with his policy of doing nothing, there is the policy of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) favouring the giving of five or six Dreadnoughts at a time, and the policy of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). It was very hard to follow him, and find out what the policy was which he did favour, but after he had spoken three hours, in the last five minutes of his speech, he managed to say, if I understood him properly, that he would be in favour of an immediate contribution provided we would have a word to say as to the expenditure of the money.
There would be four policies and consequently there would be four questions to put to the electors, and even if we should put these questions it would still be very difficult to get at the true meaning of the electorate. For example, some enterprising newspapers in Montreal have endeavoured to ascertain the opinions of their readers all over the country as to this naval policy and the result of their replies received was an evidence of very divergent views. Thousands of answers came in; some said: I am in favour of the statu quo provided we should promise that Mr. GEOFFRION.
if England calls us we should rush to her aid; some said: We would be in favour of building a Canadian navy on the condition that we should not engage in foreign wars of the empire; and some said: We would be in favour of a fixed contribution on the condition that we should have some say in the foreign diplomacy of Britain. Now, how would you proceed, what, were you to do if the result of your referendum was anything like the result of this newspaper vote. Is it not after all more logical, that having a responsible gov-' ernment elected every four years to conduct the affairs of this country, this question which in fact is a sequence of the military policy of this government should be left to the government and the parliament of Canada to settle. I submit, Sir, that the best way to prove we are true Canadians is to follow the course I have outlined. We must not forget that the paramount reason for the building of the Canadian navy is the protection of our trade. Putting aside for the moment the sentiment of loyalty which actuates every man in every part of Canada, and looking at the question in a business way only, is it not a fact that the development of the ship-building industry would be a most important thing for this country? Is it not a fact that the ship-building industry in England has been a great source of wealth, and is it not a fact that in Canada we have all the things necessary to construct ships of war as well as merchant vessels? As was pointed out very eloquently by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) we have in Canada the iron, the steel, the coal, the timber, and we have to back it all up, an energetic and intelligent people. Every civilized country in the world to-day is making great sacrifices to open up avenues of trade within themselves, and why should Canada be lacking in this respect. Putting aside, as I have said the question of sentiment, we have the opportunity to create an industry which will probably mean millions of dollars of wealth to this country and which will give employment to thousands of our citizens. Shall we lose the opportunity? Shall we prefer to take $25,000,000 and send it to England, or shall we be content to rest on our oars when at the same time we gladly vote millions of dollars for the betterment of our canals and for the equipment of our ports, and, for our militia? Well, Sir, I think we ought to be more Canadian than that. And, Sir, if we build a Canadian navy as outlined in the Bill which we are now discussing, then, when the real crisis comes to England, in the province of Quebec as in the other provinces of this Dominion, England may rest assured that every man will do his duty.


Mr. P. E. BLONDIN (Champlain).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I shall take the liberty of congratulating the hon. member from Chambly and Verclieres (Mr. Geof-frion in his magnificent piece of oratory, but I de not deem it incumbent upon me to follow him in the more or less obscure intricacies of his reasoning. He did not even try to prove that he had authority from his supreme ruler, the people, to solve the important question which is now before the House, or that he had a mandate to that effect.
Much as I regret it, I feel that I am bound to protest loudly both against the policy of the government and against that of my own party as regards the question of creating a Canadian-imperial war fleet or of making a cash contribution.
In rising to concur in the amendment moved by the hon. member from Jacques Cartier asking that the question be submitted to the people before, the government solve this matter, I am fully confident that I am merely ruled by my regard for the people and the institutions of this country, as the hon. member himself was.
I do not intend to cast the least doubt upon the sincereness of the hon. members who preceded me nor to inquire as to what extent rhetorics stand for logics and sometimes for truth, but I may be permitted, Sir, to state that the reasoning of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier still stands untouched in spite of all these attacks more dazzling and cunning than grave and convincing.
His speech still sheds upon this discussion rather obscured all the glowing light of the principle which inspired it and as already stated it shall remain upon our parliamentary records as ' a page of true history and a monument of logics and common sense.'
Much has been said up to this date about dangers from all sources which, according to me, threatened more the far distant shores of imagination than those of our country; but very little has been said of the danger, the solq danger evident and really imminent which threatens our most cherished and sacred rights: the government of this country by the people and not by autocratic ministers, the government of this country by the people and not by one hund-dred and forty members without mandate and authorization. For it is without any mandate from the people, without their knowledge and i their consent that these hon. gentlemen propose and sanction this extraordinary measure Which, as every one agrees, exceeds in importance and in formidable consequences the most serious and perplexing problem which has ever been before this country. And I ask these gentlemen when have the people, who after all are the sole masters, the only sovereign of
this country, because in this British country the King himself is only the supreme representative of the national will, I ask these hon. gentlemen opposite when have the people given them a mandate to propound and execute such policy?
What is the use of invoking the resolution adopted on the 29th of March, 1909, a resolution which does not bind the members of this House any more than a thousand other resolutions unanimously adopted in the same way. This one has been laid away and will remain forever in the wide cemetery of the government, where it will never hear the trumpet of the resurrection? And even if this resolution could bind us, by what magical logic can it be claimed that it binds the people who have taken no part in it, who have not given consent to it nor authorized it? And is this report of the different imperial conferences, whose long publicity is pleaded a more serious and more justifiable reason than the first to refuse a plebiscite?
But even if this report, which may contain, but in a far less measure than it has been contended, a few imperceptible germs of the present policy, has been partly communicated to the electorate, to the mass of the people, it has been interpreted as containing the absolute refusal of Canada to take any part in the imperial policy, and nothin? else; that is all what the people of this country have ever understood-that is all what ' they have learned. And who can contradict me when I assert that never has this government, nor the hon. Prime Minister, nor any of his followers ever done anything up to the present in order to modify or efface this popular belief.
Nowhere have thep explained to the people the policy now before us.
Some hon. ministers came to my constituency at the last general elections and they kept a most complete silence upon this question.
And I am still within the truth and moderation when I say that on the contrary they have expounded the very opposite during the last election; and since this question was started, and I will quote just one evidence amongst a thousand others. Here is what is said in ' Le Canada ' of the 5th October, 1903, in an article entitled 'Participation Militaire:-
It would only be necessary that a few enthusiasts would pass a resolution and ask intervention to authorize England to take Canada at her word and say. ' all right, send your soldiers and your ships.' And our brave Canadians would be obliged to go and fight for the sake of Macedonia and at the greatest glory of Bachibouzouczs. While if we remain as we are, no one can ask us to go to the front. Let those who have adopted this resolution go if they like, but the Canadians won't go. Oh, yes, let us keep for a long time

to come the statu quo, where is our safe guard. Let us keep firmly into power Sir Wilfrid Laurier who has given to the Canadian people the assurance that he will not let our country run into the vortex of militarism nor^ meddle in the disputes of other nations. We are well, let us stay as we are.
But in order to avoid this reproach which is impossible, the hon. gentlemen have adopted their ordinary tactics; they keep silent in their weaknesses and their sins, and never uttered a word in defence. But in order to escape the strict consequences of this evident fact, they have undertaken to belittle before the public the immensity of the undertaking in which they will engage the country and they consider as a mere bagatelle^ the enormous sums which we will be obliged to spend.
They have been obliged, nevertheless, to admit that the first expense will amount to fifteen million dollars, and if we keep in mind this important admission of the First Minister ' that it might be the same with those estimates that it has been with the estimates of the Transcontinental, and that a great deal larger ones might follow,' if we put together the new information which comes to light every day, and which go to make the expense greater and greater, as for instance the estimate of admiral Kings-mill, which the hon. Minister of Militia seemed the other day, so afraid to communicate to the House, we must, without any great effort of imagination calculate this first cost at twenty-five millions of dollars and not fifteen millions.
And this is only part of the truth, because these hon. gentlemen take great care to keep before the public eye the veil which still hides our future obligations, this vortex of militarism upon which the hon. premier was speaking so eloquently in the days gone by, and which the experience of the old nations show in a way so clear, so precise, and so alarming. Neither have they said to their constituents that once entered in the game of armaments, a nation must increase and always increase her armies, multiply and always multiply her men of war. But the example of our own militia of which the budget has increased by the sum of $6,000,000 in a few years, is enough to make us suspicious about the silence of these gentlemen and the cautious of their optimism. But they go further than that when they try to benumb public opinion, and since the beginning of this debate, their aim has been to explain that this new unprecedented law is a natural sequence of our statutes and that it i3 only the development of our Militia Act.
Clause 69 of this Act expressly says that the Governor in Council can put our militia in active service on the frontiers or farther, only for the defence of Canada. Nothwith-standing allegations to the contrary, I claim that this clause does not justify the


Pierre Édouard Blondin: argument of these hon. gentlemen, ' that Canada is obliged to share in all the wars of the empire,' but that it means that * Canada is only obliged to take part in his own wars, and that he is at war only when being attacked.'
The people of this country have always interpreted the law in that way, and the law which is proposed to-day is one which they ignore, which is contrary to then-political ideas, and upon which they have never been consulted.
But the people, in the eyes of the hon. gentlemen opposite, have repeated it long enough, they have given it sufficiently to understand, the people, for them, is a great child in guardianship who never must be consulted on the grave questions, for fear of fanatism and juvenile passions. This belief holds so firmly in the mind of the hon. gentlemen that it overflows in all their speeches, it escapes by all the numerous breaks of their arguments. Mr. Speaker, I must sincerely admit that I cannot understand what good it would be to call parliament after our navy would "be gone, in order to express our approbation or disapprobation, when the thing is done. And I cannot see in this clause anything other than a last subterfuge to -hide unmannerly to the people the fatal blow given to his absolute right to control public expenses and take obligations for the future and without his consent as we do presently ; a last subterfuge to hide in a very feeble manner and contemptious manner the humiliating attitude which will be an everlasting blow to the conscience of the country, in imposing to a whole people a war which he will not have declared nor desired, and which he will probably disprove. After all, Mr. Speaker, the people have a right to know and to appreciate all these new facts before being bound to them for ever.
These are new considerations which amply justify the amendment of the honourable member for Jacques Cartier, and which will make this Bill, if parliament adopt it, not only an abuse of our mandate, but an infringement on the liberty and institutions of this country.
But I do not wish to take my seat before saying to this government that I am ready to suffer the extreme consequences of my convictions and in order to release my responsibility of the claim which is about to be perpetrated and if the hon. gentlemen refuse the appeal to the people which we ask and which is asked by the thousands of people who signed the petitions which we have presented, I am ready, Mr. Speaker, to put immediately my resignation into your hands, if the honourable Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) who has made himself a champion of this policy in my province, will do the same and run with me the risks

of an election in the county of Champlain, where he will find, I can assure him, a population above the spirit of fanatism and party which he and his honourable friends seem so much to fear in our people.
Mr. Speaker, I heartily join with the honourable member of S4e. Anne (Mr. Doherty) in the congratulations which he offered to the right non. Prime Minister upon his happy return to health. I was most happy about it, but I am assured that the hon. member has not spoken all his mind and omitted the best of his wishes. He would have liked to see the hon. premier younger. We would also, all of us, see him in the prime of his bright youthful years, so that he would find also his past convictions, and instead of defending this Bill in the House, he would fight it on our side.


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval).: Mr. Speaker, before the trumpets of the last judgment of our parliamentary institution, blown by the hon. member of Jacques Cartier, and echoed by the hon. member of Champlain (Mr. Blondin) have ceased to be heard


Pierre Édouard Blondin: At the resurrection.


Charles Avila Wilson: I ask permission to raise my feeble voice before the government, the Liberal party, and the whole people has entered into that eternity, happy or unhappy, of which the honourable member has spoken. I will speak in a language which is not my own, but which every one here understands.
Mr. Speaker, I will support Bill (No. 95), and I desire, in a few words to state to this House my reasons for doing so. The main reason, rather I would say the sole Teason, for it includes all the others, is because Canada occupies now the position of a nation, and as such has a status, a rank, amongst the other nations of the world, and more so amongst the dominions, colonies, possessions forming part of the British empire, an empire on which the sun never sets.
As a nation Canada has: (1) a dignity to uphold; (2) a territory to defend; (3) a trade to protect; (4) various obligations to herself, to the mother country, and to the empire; which obligations and duties I will, with your kind indulgence, the full measure of which I claim, submit to this House for consideration.
The building of a national navy is a duty of the hour which this government cannot escape without being unfaithful to the mandate entrusted to it by the people of this country, a duty which it could not ientire without impairing the most sacred rights, the welfare and the interests of the people.
The advantages of the construction of a Canadian navy from an industrial point of view, namely, the creation of a new industry, ship-building; the construction of dockyards; the construction of the ships on Canadian soil by the people of Canada; the
various trades that will benefit by it; the creation of a naval school; the defence of our sea-boards; the defence of the country in co-operation with our militia; the protection of trade on the coasts, on inland waters and on the high seas-are also questions of vital importance to the people of Canada.
I will also try to meet a few of the objections formulated against thislegislation My conclusions are to be found in the various clauses of the Bill laid the other day on the table of the House and which constitute the subject of the present debate,
But, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, is Canada a nation? Above and before all the essential an.d distinctive characteristics of a nation, the qualifications sine qua non of its existence, are: the community of the law, the body of legislation, the participation in governing power, the rights to express freely the will of the whole and to affirm it in Acts, the constitutional organs which it possesses, and in a word, the personality, public and judicial. The power in the hands of the people and the full exer-j cise of the faculty of self-government in all matters of legislative and municipal administration, are the principal attributes of nationhood. Has the Canadian people, according to the above classical and complete definition, a life organic, political, social; judicial, common and international? Does it fulfil the conditions above enumerated? It is for you, Sir, to pronounce. For my part, I will not go as far as_ to say^ that ' poser la question e'est la resoudre,' but my mind, my conscience and my patriotism are satisfied and crave no further definitions. It is true that this title of a nationhood has been denied to Canada. Some people say: 'We sometimes call ourselves a nation, but we are only a colony. Our constitution is as liberal as it possibly could be in view of the fact that Canada is a colony and therefore a dependency.' In reply, 1 much prefer the assertion _ of the learned Professor Wrong of the University of Toronto, who in presence of no less a prominent man than Hon. James Bryce, the British ambassador at) Washington, emphatically affirmed that Canada was in reality a'free country; that the British ambassador at Washington had one of the most difficult positions to fill, a more embarrassing task, to perform than had the other diplomats, because he had to serve and represent two nations instead of one, to wit: England and Canada. And he also said:
In theory the King reigns, but in reality he has no political powers, it is the Prime Minister who governs. In theory," Canada is a colony, but in reality she is an independent nation.
After all, Sir, it is not a question of mere play on words. As a learned German professor, M. Bluntschli stated:

The international law established no human tribunal to decree whether a body of men are qualified or not for nationhood; the tribunal of God alone may pronounce and its decrees are recorded in the history of the world.
Sir, I have uttered a most terrible word, the word ' independent.' I presume I will have to account for that most heinous crime to my hon. friends from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), who the other day charged the Prime Minister with being a very bad man, who, from 1866 to the present day, went and is still going up and down the country, preaching independence, belittling and deriding ' the diplomacy of the British empire, instilling insidious poisons into the minds of young and growing citizens.' And he goes on to say:
But he has done more than that. He has never given up an opportunity, during the last ten or fifteen years, of representing Canada as engaged in deadly peril, wrenching from the British government, tyrannical government, rights and privileges, and he has stretched to the very verge of a very vivio imagination the rights and privileges which we to-day enjoy by virtue of the concession of the British prerogative. And so his Minister of Marine afterwards comes back from the conference of 1909 and says: We have wrenched from Great Britain our political autonomy, we have wrenched from Great Britain our treaty-making autonomy, we have wrenched from Great Britain our fiscal autonomy, and now I come back with our naval autonomy. All these things my right hon. friend speaks; lesser men echo what he says. These are but the results of teaching.
And he plays that tune lor many more lines. He also quotes a few detached phrases from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at various dates, to wit, from 1888 to 1890, the following :
In 1888 in the House of Commons he says:
The time is coming when the present relations between Great Britain and Canada must either become closer or be severed altogether.
At the Club National, on the 2nd of July, 1890, he made another profession of faith: '
I do not mean to say that we should always remain a colonv; on the contrary, the day is coming when this country will have to take its place among the nations of the earth. But 1 do not want to see my country's independence attained through the hostility of one race to another.
Oh, in the opinion of my hon. friends from North Toronto, Frontenac and others that Quebec French Laurier is a most disloyal and monstrous man because he spoke such a language. There is no man in the whole British empire who would not repudiate such assertions. Certainly, at least, nobody would entertain such a proposition in the good city of Toronto or in loyal Ontario.
Far from me the intention of irritating Mr. C. A. WILSON.
the nerves of my hon. friends nor offending their pure and disinterested imperialism, but for their own edification I will ask them permission to read the following:
But it is no longer possible for any Canadian to deny to his country the status and dignity of a nation. British ideals and practice assure to us continuance and growth of the powers of self-government with which we have been so long entrusted. Our connection with the British Crown, though formed by the deepest and most strenuous loyalty, is a connection which involves no economic fetters, and which is rapidly tending in all foreign relations towards freedom of contract and full powers of management, in respect of Canadian affairs. We make our own laws. . No attempt is made at imperial control. It seems no longer possible to w-ithhold from us the right to make our own treaties, even in cases which may indirectly affect imperial interests. British garrisons have been withdrawn, and Canada manages, without review or appeal, her military affairs. The great fortified harbours of Canada, which Britain deemed an essential part of that great maritime system by which she maintained her naval supremacy and effectively policed the world, have been assumed by Canada. In her outlook towards Britain, Canada, while loyal is independent. She faces the rest of the world, in every essential sense, a free, autonomous and imperial power.
And this is an extract from a valuable essay entitled, 'Shall Canada have a navy of her own?' by Mrs. W. Hewes-Oliphant, Toronto, and Toronto was so proud of her that a prize of $400 was awarded to the author ! And in Toronto !
But perhaps, Sir, this authority would leave my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) indifferent and his conscience wall still rest at peace.
Far from me the idea of converting him to that doctrine, but let me bring forth in support, in a different order of things, it is true, but on the same lines, the parole of a prominent man formerly from Toronto and now occupying a very high position in that more or less loyal city of Montreal.
I refer to His Grace Archbishop Farthing.
I am quoting from a newspaper report:
A most outspoken address was that delivered by Bishop Farthing before a representative gathering of churchmen at the first annual dinner of the Federation of Churchmen's Associations, held last night at the Canada Club.
Speaking on behalf of the Anglican church in Canada, he made a striking declaration of absolute independence from the mother church in England. Then he proceeded to castigate the city council of Montreal for its inaction in regard to the outbreak of typhoid, and to call on all churchmen to work for a higher ideal of citizenship.
Owe Allegiance only to Primate of Canada. We need to remember said Bishop Farthing, that we are a national church. There is a tendency across the water to think that we must not legislate or move a step forward unless the mother church tells us we may.

446U
No one has more respect for the mother church than I. No man here owes more to the mother church than I. Everythin}? 1 possess, morally and spiritually I have from her.
But here we are a daughter setting up housekeeping for ourselves. We are not always to he under the dictation of the mother whose home we have left, and for whom we have the deepest respect, and love, and ven eration. We are here as an independent national church.
We realize to-day, more than ever, the prophecies of all the great statesmen, the far foreseeing political geniuses, who have adorned the political summits of the empire, more specially during the last half century, and at the head of whom sparkles with a most brilliant eclat, the late Lord Russell. If you will allow me I will quote just a few words of the famous speech which he delivered in Westminster on the 8th February, 1850, when addressing the House on the question of colonial policy. I am sorry the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is not in his seat, because I think he would be much scandalized at what Lord John Russell said. I shall only read a brief quotation.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Read it all.


Charles Avila Wilson: I shall be happy to do so. He said:
The next point, I think, is that in conformity with the policy on which you have governed your British North America colonies, you should as far as possible, proceed upon the principle of introducing and maintaining political freedom in all your colonies. 1 think whenever you say political freedom cannot be introduced, your are bound to show the reasons for the exemption, and to show that the people are a race among whom it is impossible to carry out free institutions-that you must show the colony is not formed of the British people or even that there is no such admixture of the British population as to make it safe to introduce representative institutions. Unless you can show that, I think the general rule would be that you should send to the different parts of the world, and maintain in your different colonies men of the British race, and capable of governing themselves; men whom you shall tell will have full liberty of governing themselves, and that while you are their representative with respect to all foreign concerns, you wish to interfere no further in their domestic concerns than may be clearly and decidedly necessary to prevent a conflict in the colony itself.
But what I say is this, we should not be considering -whether we should part with those colonies-whether we should make the connection looser-or whether we should even leave them with less means of defence against foreign aggregation.
I believe not only that you may proceed on those principles without any danger for the present, but there may be questions arising hereafter which you may solve without any danger of such an unhappy conflict as that
which took place with what are now the United States of America. On looking back at the origin of that unhappy contest, I cannot but think that it was not a single error or a single blunder which got us into that contest, but a series of repeated errors and repeated blunders. ... I anticipated indeed with others that some of the colonies may so grow in population and wealth that they may say- Our strength is sufficient to enable us to be independent of England. The link is now become onerous to us-the time is come when we think we can, in amity and alliance with England, maintain our independence. I do not think that that time is yet approaching. But let us make them as far as possible, fit to govern themselves-let us give them, as far as we can, the capacity of ruling their own affairs-let them increase in wealth and population, and whatever may happen, we of this great empire shall have the consolation of saying that we have contributed to the happiness of the world.
And to think that Lord John Russell was the Prime Minister of England!
Without endorsing all the above remarks, without sharing in all these opinions expressed by such pre-eminent men, I thought it proper to repeat them in this House for the benefit of all, who may, in my humble judgment, draw from them useful lessons of tolerance, of liberty, of speech, in British parliaments at home and abroad. Nobody would have thought then, nor would think to-day of accusing Lord Russell of treason or disloyalty because of such utterances and predictions? But, here, to a certain class of men, it seems almost a crime to dissertate on the future of our country, on the possibilities of the future, on the preparations for the coining times.
Sir, I don't want to be misunderstood or misconstrued on this question. I am not in favour of the independence of Canada, in the sense that some people attach to the expression. I am not advocating that doctrine. Whatever may be the term employed, whether it be independence, or autonomy, nation or colony-it is of little moment to me so long as we remain what we are, as we are and where we- are. Nothing more but nothing less. We need the protection of the mother country and at all and every point of view either national, political, commercial, and even sentimental, Canada has nothing but to gain and benefit by that protection. No disconnection, no severance, but good amity and alliance between the mother country and her autonomous daughter nation is my motto.
But, Sir, we do not know what the future has in store for us; what natural evolution will bring about. We may ibe left alone and this is one of the reasons why we should prepare, and, amongst other preparations, I believe that the building of a navy is the onp most to the fore and of pressing necessity. Is it reasonable to have a navy of our own? What would

happen to us in case of a, conflict between England and Germany, for instance, or any of the great powers of Europe?
' For one, Sir, I am in doubt on the question whether there is or there is not a German menace, and a reasonable cause for it; whether those who apprehend the conflict, are right or wrong. The only thing we may assert is that this agitation has caused the question of naval defence to spring up to more life again. And the people of this country, and the majority of the members of this parliament, are convinced that it is time for us to fortify and protect our young nationhood.
It would be useless to give too much importance to the stirring articles of a Robert Blachford, or of the legion of journalists of his type, who wrote thousands and thousands of columns on the German question in the German press, in the English press, in the European and American press, not to say in the universal press. Without giving too much consideration and importance to the more or less terroristic speeches delivered by stumpers and lecturers on this subject, I feel justified, in saying that, with all due respect for those who think otherwise, one may draw the following conclusions: Germany is increasing her war material-her navy; she is trying to follow England as close as possible in that line. Is it in view of capturing the supremacy of the sea? England, if not scared, took notice of it any way, and she is now increasing her own navy. It is not war yet, but a serious Dreadnoughts' competition to say the least. It was one of the favourite themes of the politicians during the last campaign in England, and statesmen of no small importance firmly believed in the German peril.
Lord Beresford, speaking at a banquet tendered to him in New York during last summer, went as far as to say:
Personally, I am not at all easy about the immediate future. I see red sky ahead, and I do not like it. Prominent statesmen have made speeches full of anxiety for the possibilities of the situation.
Thousands of people have thought and have spoken that way. A Canadian imperialist writes:
Germany has been for the last few years, ever since the success and power of the first British Dreadnoughts became known, concentrating her national energies in the construction of a fleet of Dreadnoughts and of suitable docks in which to refit and repair them. Neither argument, persuasion nor threat prevails to turn her a hair's breadth from her policy in this respect. Thinking and reflecting men know that in building her fleet at such tremendous national sacrifices as her people are compelled to submit to, Germany can only be doing it for the purpose of wresting from Great Britain her naval supremacy.


Charles Avila Wilson: After all, Sir, can a sensible man reasonably ask himself the following questions:
Why all those peace conferences without practically any results, during the sessions of which every delegate is keeping, with a sentiment of suspicion, his eyes wide opened on his neighbours around the table ronde of the deliberations? What messages do the delegates bring to their respective governments, we know not. We cannot tell. But the evident Tesult is armaments, armaments and more and more armaments?
What is the significance of that steeplechase for Dreadnoughts? It may not be war at once, but assuredly Sir, it cannot be peace! If it is peace, it is a terribly armed peace.
But I do not believe its reign will soon commence. War has ravaged the world since the early days of creation, and will ravage it, I am afraid, as long as there shall be human beings under the skies. That is my honest belief, and I cannot but feel convinced that * all these tremendous preparations for war will only result in war. We all applaud the appeal of the pacifists, and allow me to quote the following from Lord Beresford, who, on 'the same occasion, said:
The English-speaking nations, the United States and the five nations of the British empire, are the great trading nations of the world. Why should they not join and say that there shall be no war? That again, could be no threat; it would mean only that we mean to maintain the peace that at present reigns.
But was that appeal echoed by anybody? Will that long sighed for peace ever come? Will its reign ever begin? And after all, supposing the English speaking races were to join together to prevent war, what would be the result? This alliance of the English speaking peoples would provoke a counter alliance, and the situation would be practically the same. The nations of the world are far from being prepared to accept such a condition. They are not homogeneous enough, and their relations have not the necessary uniformity. The result may perhaps be attained some day in the distant future, when these relations and the essential character of humanity will be better understood, and the nations may then be ready to hear and understand the language that will appeal to them. In case of war between England and Germany or England and any other nation, in what position would we find ourselves? We all admit that we have a seafaring traffic to protect, and sea-boards to defend. The Prime Minister has clearly defined the position when he said:	' When the mother
country is at war, Canada is at war . It would be wasting time for me to repeat the explanation, any unbiased man will

understand it. In case of war breaking outr to-morrow, or for many years to come, England needs all her navy for her own defence, England cannot put a single gun at our disposal. England being attacked cannot defend herself and all her dominions at the same time, one hundred Dreadnoughts would not suffice. Supposing England lost all her possessions and colonies, that would not relieve her from the expense of building a single ship. England needs all her fleet. Why, Sir, her fleet is not strong enough, apparently, because every day she is expending more and more money to augment it, and to modify it to meet new inventions, and more modern devices. How can we reasonably expect help and protection from her in case of a clash between her and Germany, or any other country? England would be pleased, no doubt, to receive money contributions from us, or to receive Dreadnoughts; she needs them, but that is not the question as I understand it. The question is: What can we do to assist her, and what should be the form of this assistance to make it the most effective both for Canada, and England, if we take into account, as we are in duty bound, our status as a nation, the provisions of our constitutional Act, our geographical situation generally, and more especially the strategical point of view, our resources, our revenue and our wealth? These are questions which our representatives at the various colonial conferences have well considered ahd understood, and upon which they have taken their 9tand. The result was the present legislation, which I think wisely and reasonably enacts that we should equip a navy of our own. In case of emergency we may put our naval force at the disposal of His Majesty to form part of the royal navy. This bring up clauses 17, 18 and 19 of the Bill against which there has been levelled so many criticisms by the group of members headed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and by Mr. Bou-rassa, who both wrongly pretend to represent in this House the sentiment of the majority of the people of Quebec. Mr. Bourassa says frankly, in an editorial in his paper * Le Devoir ' of the 11th of February, and in another on the 14th of February, that he is in favour of a Canadian navy:
(Translation). Had the question been the building of Canadian navy, for the defence of Canada, under the control of the Canadian government, I would have nothing to say against clauses 17 and 19, nor in fact against the Act as a whole Had the government committed us to an expenditure, and even a large expenditure, for the organization of the naval defence of Canada, the protection of her harbours and her coasting trade-a trade which, after all constitutes our whole maritime trade-the Nationalists would perhaps pointed out more urgent works to be under-142
taken, even from the viewpoint of the security of our territory; but they would not have urged any objection against the measure itself.
What seems to us foolish and at variance with national interests, even from the mere financial standpoint, is the fact of throwing Canada into the ' vortex of European militarism ' for the exclusive benefit of England.
That is the main objection of these gentlemen to the Bill. These three clauses have been so fully' discussed that nothing new can be said with regard to them. However, for the sake of argument, let us wipe out these three clauses, then the Bill would be satisfactory to my hon. friends. The law being so amended, let us suppose a clash occurred between England and Germany, or any other power, and in case of war the prestige, the honour of the empire would be at stake. Would my hon. friends be prepared to say that Canada should do nothing in these circumstances? Are they prepared to say that while England's fate were in the balance, or in great danger, that our fleet should remain inactive, at anchor, at Quebec, Halifax, St. John and Esquimalt, unconcerned and disinterested? Are they prepared to say that it would not be the duty of Canada to do something for England, because these three clauses did not appeal to them? I know too well my hon. friends, even my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Blondin) who has just spoken. I am-satisfied that he would approve of the action that is contemplated in these three clauses. My contention is that the Governor in Council, under those three clauses, should place the Canadian navy at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the royal navy. This patriotic action would be endorsed by parliament, by the people at large, and by every patriotic French Canadian in the province of Quebec.
Now, Sir, let us not confine our views and our actions to the limited horizon of the moment. Let us think about the future, the near and the far future. As the old proverb has it:	' An ounce of prevention
is better than a pound of cure.' Let us face the future with the calm of men who feel the responsibility of their office, of men who will not sacrifice the interest of their country, the welfare of the people for petty party purposes, of men who realize, who know that their action of to-day will be echoed for years and years to come, for centuries to come of men engaged in the solemn and sacred operation of moulding the destines of a nation.
Mr. Speaker, the British empire is vast, immense and powerful, but it cannot assert, it cannot claim eternity as her privilege. What is a century in the life of an empire? What is a century in the evolution of a nation? To pretend and assert that the British empire will not



dissolve some day, would be to ignore, to deny history.
The British empire is not the first one that was founded. Many empires have spread over the world their alternatively beneficent, and malevolent power and majesty. What has become of the empire of Alexander, of Caesar, of Charlemagne, of Frederick, of Charles V, of Napoleon? The empire we are so proud of, we are so happy to form part of, long may it live for the happiness of Canada, and the whole world! But war has often unexpected and unforeseen results. War means victory, it means also defeat. What would become of us, if, for the empire, it was defeat? Nobody can give a definite and positive answer. Some far seeing minds may only predict, may suppose, may conjecture. Now, Sir, I firmly believe that this is not the time nor the occasion when one may say:	' Dans le doute, abstiens-toi'-in
doubt, abstain,' but:	'In doubt, prepare.'
So vis pacem para bellum. I believe in legislating and preparing for the future. Let us not consider only the cares and views of the moment; let us look farther ahead. England has always protected Canada. From 1760 to 1906, from the capitulation of Quebec to the abandonment of Halifax and Esquimalt, England has maintained a body of troops in Canada, maintained here an army and a navy for about a century and a half. Now the last of the English soldiers has embarked for the mother country. Why has England withdrawn all ' her troops and squadrons? It is because she believed it was time for us to have a militia of our own. It is because she intimated that our wealth was large enough to maintain and enlarge our military force and to build a navy of our own. It is because she had faith in our loyalty to such an extent as to give us the command of our army and navy. England surrendered to us the fortified places of the land. What does England expect us to do now that we have been left entirely to our own selves? Does England expect us to give her money or build ships for ourselves? Does England expect from us imperial gifts of Dreadnoughts when we have not even a rowboat? No, Sir, the only conclusion to draw is that when England recalled her troops from this land, she believed that we were capable of providing for ourselves to a certain extent, and so we do and so we shall do.
Now, Sir, you will remark: In case we should be abandoned to ourselves, to our own resources, have we not the Munroe doctrine to protect us. The hon. Postmaster General has so eloquently given a masterly answer to that question, and in so able a manner, that for me to repeat it would be to minimize it. I will simply say this: Perhaps our neighbours would protect us, but would this protection be for our advan-Mr. C. A. WILSON.
tage or for their own? No doubt they would, at least, ask for a contribution. We would have to foot the bill in proportion to our population, territory, borders and what else and what not. In what proportion would it be-one-tenth or one-fifth? For my nart I prefer to help the mother of our liberties, as my hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) so truly described her the other day, the mother who, for more than a century and a half has accustomed us to concessions of freedom, pf government, of liberty, the result of which is what we are to-day, a prosperous, a free nation. And the best manner to help her, and prevent bad results, is by building a Canadian navy. We owe that to Canada; we owe that to England and the empire. England does not impose any contribution of money on her dominions. She has always been satisfied to let each of them provide for itself, remembering, however, that they form part of the greatest empire of the world and that they have obligations of honour, of solidarity, and confraternity.
The building of a navy in Canada will be, in my opinion, a most beneficial innovation. Industry and labour, at large, will derive the greatest advantage therefrom.
On this subject I cannot do better than quote the following from a valuable magazine called the ' Iron Age':
The Army and Navy as Industrial Schools.
That military discipline is an excellent preparation for work in factories, is asserted by a writer in the ' Iron Age ' (New York, July 29, 1909). In his opinion the enforced military service of the continental nations of Europe is of use to them in this regard, and he suggests that our own navy may perform the same function for us. He writes :-
An American who has spent considerable time in German shops comments upon the excellent discipline which prevails everywhere as the direct result of the military or naval service which all Germans are compelled to perform. The years of absolute obedience to superior officers have a lasting influence upon a large majority of men, as shown by them in the industrial works where they are employed in after life. Quick compliance with orders need not mean servility. It is the same obedience which the men from whom workmen take orders extend to their own superiors. It does not of necessity curtail suggestion, because the trend of discipline is of a different sort. We have heard American employers say that they like to get young men who have been trained in the navy under conditions as they have existed in recent years, because they have been well groundeu in their work, are resourceful and above the average in their ability and willingness lu make suggestions, and at the same time obey quickly, without sullenness and seldom with resentment. The author of a communication to one of the metropolitan dailies, answering a criticism of the navy as a national extravagance, takes up the question from the employee's view-point, saying:-

As for 15,000 young men ' turned from productive industry '-well, the navy requires electricians, telegraphers, carpenters, plumbers, machinists, engineers, coppersmiths, boilermakers, clerks, 59 trades in all, and it educates boys to fulfil these duties. I know whereof I speak. I learned my trade in the navy, was honourably discharged two years ago, having saved $800 in my four years, and I am now on a salary of $3,200 per annum. The navy taught me all I know of ' productive industry.'
The American navy seems to be an industrial school worth taking into consideration. The industries of the country need well-trained men. Schools are being established in many centres in order that the supply may be increased. The suggestion of the benefit of the modern naval training is a good one. The warship of to-day is not unlike a great industrial plant. The immense complexity of machinery which performs the various functions of the vessel, combined with the equipment which looks after maintenance and repairs, affords the opportunity for a practical training which should be of great value to a young man after his term of enlistment has ended, especially if he follows the trade in which he has been specialized. Moreover, the fact that he has lived under strict discipline is a consideration not to be lightly discredited.
I shall quote now from a French Canadian who seems to be a gentleman of experience and an able writer, Mr. Fred. E. Gauthier, who in a letter to the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' dated September 15, 1909, says:
As for the raw material, our St. Lawrence river and gulf, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts can furnish a magnificent and intelligent class of men; all we require is to encourage young men to enter and remain in a naval service belonging to Canada, whether government or merchant, in the same manner
as has been done for our permanent militia corps.
The officers and crews of all Dominion vessels, whether employed as cruisers, survey vessels, in the fishery service or lighthouse service, should be drilled by competent instructors at sea, during the summer; this would not interfere with their regular routine of duties; in winter all these men, or ai i a;t those who are willing, could be attached to the permanent militia units in Halifax, Quebec, or Esquimalt, where further instructions could be imparted, and greater discipline infused. _ Canada would have, before long, a very fair nucleus of trained officers and men, who would feel proud of their service, in the same manner as do the officers and men of our permanent militia corps.
Schools of navigation could be attached to the depot points such as Halifax, Quebec anu Esquimalt, where the men could be taught navigation, qualify under the rules of the board of trade, and obtain certificates as masters and mates. Later on, as the government through experience, perfects this system, the men instead of remaining in barracks in the winter could be put on board a regular training ship and sent on foreign cruise.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to protect our whole trade and not only a portion of it, we have to protect not only Canadian goods on Canadian ships, but also Canadian and foreign goods as well, on British ships. It is true that the six large steamship companies, plying from Canada to British countries and elsewhere, hre English, but they carry away our own goods and carry in the foreign goods we consume. We need those ships for our exports as well as for our imports.
I have a few statistics on our trade with the various countries of the world which to save time, I shall hand to the reporters.



TRADE AND COMMERCE.

[Stage Direction]
Aggregate Trade of Canada by Countries during the Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1908,
Includes Coin and Bullion.
Countries.	Total exports.	Total imports.	Total trade..British Empire- Great Britain	
Australia	$ 134,484,156 2,873,461 2,011,382 30,105 2,483,118 607,350 137,625 267,533 3,408,518 993,442	$. 95,855,887 536,935	s 230,340,043 3,410,396 2,043,575 4,066,972 9,694,919 2,689,353 1,178,944 542,950 5,186,177 1,250,486 454,332British Africa	British East Indies	4,036,867	British West Indies....	British Guiana	2,082,003	Fiji Islands	Hong Kong	
Newfoundland	275,417 1,777,659 257,044	New Zealand	
... Other British Possessions	
Total British Empire		147,748,085	"113,110,062	260,858,147
			
4471
[Stage Direction]
TRADE AND COMMERCE-Concluded.
Aggregate Trade of Canada by Countries during the Fiscal Year ended March 31, 1908,
Includes Coin and Bullion.
Countries.	Total exports.	Total imports.	Total trade.Foreign Countries-	*	s
Argentina.   . .@: 2,266,945	872,026	3,138,971Austria-Hungarjr	11,577	1,365,933	1,377,5103.377,479	2,105,971	5,783,450969,001	350,620	1,319,621Central American States	85,457	84,916	170,373Chile	274,008	117,375	391,373964,793	724,926	1,689,7191,366,319	515,163	1,881,482222,676	42,498	265,1741,000	316,563	317,56341,095	40,061	81,1561,806,732	10,251,717	12,058,4492,374,607	8,250,745	10,625,352304	409,691	409,99565.006	12,093	77,099855,085	1,512,145	2,367,230349,839	806,481	1,156,320741,108	2,197,159	2,938,267477.119	919,826	1,396,945195.465	103,103	298,56892,318	92,318118,505	20	118,525Philippines 	180,614	11,391	192,005543,714	6,732	550,44646,865	154,234	201.099425,068	315,889	740,957St. Pieyre	134,678	38,155	[DOT] 172,833106,594	1,148,575	1,255,10998,805	192,122	290,92717,664	2,759,762	2,777,4265,151	535,444	540,565111,196	277,040	388,236113,520,500	220,791,209	334,311,709Other countries	411,234	146,918	558,152Total foreign countries	132,258,521	257,676,463	389,934,984Total imports and exports	280,006,606	370,786,525	650,793,131
These figures show the immense trade of Canada, half of which, at least, is maritime, which we should protect.
I shall now, Mr. Speaker, deal briefly with the question of the plebiscite wdiich is the great cry of some of our hon. friends opposite. To those who demand a plebiscite, let me say, this: When the people of Canada returned this government into power, it was a renewal of confidence. In 1896, 1900, 1904 and 1908, the country by a large majority expressed its faith in Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party. The people- do not expect from us that on each and every Act of legislation and administration we will spend a quarter or a half a million dollars for a consultation with them. The defence of our territory, the defence of our sea-boards, of our ports and. our harbours, the protection of our trade, the protection of our com-Mr. C. A. WILSON.
merce on the sea, are all primordial questions and so much within the scope of the constitution that this parliament, by the very fact of its existence, has as its sacred mission and duty to take all the necessary steps to protect and defend the people and the territory. The defence of our territory is an elementary duty of a governing power ; a sine qua non condition and reason of its existence. The people will ask:	Why a plebiscite? We have
sent	you	to	parliament to	performyour	duties	and	this is one	of them.Was	there	any	plebiscite in	Englandor in Germany, to approve or disapprove of the construction of Dreadnoughts and the increase	of the naval	forces at
large? No. Nor was there a plebiscite here in 1899, and the people ratified in 1900 the action of the Governor General in Council. In 1907, on the 12th of July, a law was

passed by the French parliament reducing the time of military service from three to two years, and the effect of that amendment to the law, was the licensement of nearly of 50,000 men, and there was no plebiscite. There was no 'plebiscite iin 1862 or in 1868 for the Militia Act, there was no plebiscite even for confederation.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: Was cnere not a plebiscite on the prohibition question.


Charles Avila Wilson: Certainly, and I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question. That was a plebiscite on a question oif internal economy, wnile this is a question international in its scope, and one which affects the defence of our territory, and there is a great difference between the two. My hon. friend knows what was the result of the plebiscite on prohibition? Does he think that that plebiscite advanced the question of prohibition in any degree? No, Sir, I believe that the good will of the people, the work of the temperance associations, and the preaching of our ministers of different creeds do more for temperance than any plebiscite could do. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier urges that this is a question of too large an expense, and one which involves too heavy obligations for the future. He does not want to spend on our protection $15,000,000, but he proposes a heavier expenditure of $100,000,000 or more for the Georgian Bay canal, and for that he does not propose a plebiscite. Supposing a plebiscite would be ordered, what would my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and his supporters say to the electors? Would they say that we must not protect ourselves now that England has withdrawn her Pacific squadron, and her North Atlantic squadron from our waters, and now that the last of the English troops has departed from Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and Esquimalt, for the mother country. Will they tell them that what was decided at the various conferences was unwise, derisoire, disloyal and unconstitutional? Will they go against the statement made to the House of Commons, by Mr. Asquith on the 29th August, 1909, which is resumed as follows as far as Canada is concerned:
As regards Canada, it was considered that her double sea-boards rendered the provision of the fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was prepared, according to the amount of money, that might be available, that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the ' Bristol ' type and destroyers of the improved river class-a part to be stationed on the Atlantic sea-board and a part on the Pacific.
Will they say that we will not help England in case of danger? Will they say that we don't need the protection of England? Will they say that we must not vote a penny for the defence of Canada? Will they say
to the other dominions and colonies: Do what it pleases you to do, we will not contribute in any shape or form? Will they say our trade with Great Britain and ten or fifteen other British countries, our trade with more than forty or fifty foreign countries need no protection? No, Sir, we know them too well; we all know they would not dare speak such a language. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has pretended that on this side of the House there were some grinding of the teeth; the hon. member for North Toronto has discovered a composing room, a rack, a thumb-screw and other forms and instruments of torture. These gentlemen must have had terrible nightmares, and it is no wonder. They are fighting so much between themselves that they have lost their heads and all control over their nerves and imagination. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier must be deaf and insensible if he does not hear the grinding of teeth his policy has aroused in his party against the province of Quebec and himself whose sentiments, fortunately, the hon. gentleman does not reflect on that question. He must be insensible if he does not feel the ferocious bites of his warm friends of yesterday and of the last elections; his leaders, the hon. member for North Toronto, the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, and last but not least, the hon. member for Frontenac. I am sorry that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has belittled that national and patriotic question to a paltry party question. Have you heard him accuse his leader of lack of courtesy towards him, and the member for North Toronto, of having failed to keep his word towards him? But, Sir, is it a real fight between the members at your left or a sham battle? It looks as if it is a case where they all agree to disagree -for party purposes. They are preparing, sharpening their favourite weapon, the double-faced policy. But the people have not been fooled in the past and will not be this time either. The people of Quebec will never consent to play that isolation game. What the people of this country expect from us and want us to do is that: Having been chosen- and elected as members of this parliament for its legal term, we shall govern and legislate for the people; having taken the oath, that oath we shall keep; we shall faithfully do our duty to the full measure, without feebleness of faltering; we shall be faithful to the King and to the constitution of our country; that constitution we shall not disobey, but shall preserve intact and sacred; we shall not sacrifice the slightest parcel of our autonomy to jingoism or partisanship; whatever may be the expenditure for the naval defence, we shall spend the money, and the whole of the money in Canada for Canada. Some people pretend that by building a Canadian navy we are helping to break the

bond that ties us so closely to the mothei country. This proposition ,1 cannot entertain for one moment. We shall uphold, and very highly, the dignity of our nation. We shall enjoy to the limit the full liberty of self-government, and we will not allow any one to interfere in our domestic affairs.
Let Canada build her own navy with her own money; let Canada train her own men on her own ships.- In 1775, in 1812, in 1854, in 1865, in 1899, during the African war, and elsewhere, it was our trained men who added lustre to the Canadian name and advanced our progressive march toward nationhood. Canada in making a start with a navy does not intend to enter into any naval competition, but to bear her share in the great work of maintaining the prestige of the Canadian and British names. By making safer her commercial routes, Canada is thus adding to her commercial renown. Canada with a navy, commands more respect as a nation in international relations. Canada's name has become great and respected because of our ties with the British empire, whose grandeur and prestige we are in duty bound to uphold and increase if possible. Let Canada not break those ties., but let her be more and more worthy and proud of her position within the empire.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to trespass for a short time on the attention of the House while I offer a few observations on this important question, in order that there may be no uncertainty in the minds of my constituents as to the position I desire to take on this question, and no uncertainty as to the motives which impel me to take that position. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat that few questions have occupied the attention of the House which have been fraught with graver results to Canada and her future and which have created greater diversity of opinion than this naval question. I congratulate the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) upon his very fair presentation of the government's position. He made a patriotic speech, recognizing the plain and manifest duty of Canada to the empire under existing circumstances, and I think it would be well if some of his colleagues from the province of Quebec would follow in his footsteps.
In the discussion of this question it is quite natural that the future of Canada should be canvassed by those who take part in it. What is to be that future? Is Canada to remain an integral part of the British empire or is it destined to become independent and possibly annexed to the United States? If Canada is to remain an integral part of the em-Mr. C. A. WILSON.
pire, what is the only reasonable logical position for her to take, and what is her plain manifest duty at the present juncture? Whatever sentiment there might have been in favour of independence with possible annexation to the United States prior to 1891, was wiped out in that memorable campaign in which that distinguished and respected Conservative leader, the late Sir John Macdonald, sacrificed his life for the maintenance of British connection and institutions, and his rallying cry, 'a British subject I was bom and a British subject I will die,' will go down reverberating through the ages of Canadian history, to steady any waverers in in their allegiance to Great Britain and to strengthen the bonds of Canada and the mother country. And the Hon. Edward Blake, in his famous letter to his electors of West Durham, drove the last nail into the coffin of that traitorous sentiment that then existed. As we are aware, Mr. Blake wrote his constituency prior to 1891, informing them that he was unable to accept the nomination for that constituency because he believed the policy advocated by the leaders of the reform party would ultimately lead to union with the United States, and he further expressed his opinion that the destiny of Canada was irretrievably wrapt up in that of the empire. If Canada is to remain an integral part of the empire what is our duty? There are onlv two courses for us to adopt. One is to do nothing, and thus remain inactive and ' unresponsive to all the demands of duty ana gratitude to the mother country. The other is to do something and thus acknowledge that while we remain a part of the British empire and share in the benefits we must assume .some of the duties, burdens and responsibilities of that relationship.
I have sufficient confidence in the patriotism and sense of justice of the Canadian people to believe that an overwhelming majority are in favour of this House making substantial sacrifices for the benefit of the empire, and the only question on which there should be any possible difference is as to the extent and character of that assistance.
I wrote to a great many of my constituents of both political parties to ascertain their views upon this question, and after a careful perusal of the replies I received, I am at a loss to know what a majority really do want. A very small number desire no expense whatever incurred. A very important and influential body of public opinion desire a cash contribution or a contribution of Dreadnoughts. And a very important and influential body of public opinion desire the construction and organization of a Canadian navy.
This shows that public opinion is still in

a fluid condition, that it has not yet become crystallized; and before any definite permanent policy be entered upon, before this House should lay out a permanent policy, time should be given to the people to canvass the situation more fully.
For reasons some of which have been advanced in this House already, I am unalterably opposed to a cash contribution or even a contribution of Dreadnoughts as a permanent policy of this country. A cash contribution looks too much like paying some one else to do our lighting, and also savours a little of tribute. Canadians are not serfs prepared to contribute their taxes to some sovereign powers beyond our borders, even though it be Great Britain herself. Besides a cash contribution as a permanent policy involves the principle of taxation without representation. which is foreign to our democratic notions of government and is thus an impossible solution..
That there is necessity for making some provision is admitted. The very fact of our making any appropriation at all for this purpose is at once an acknowledgment of the necessity for some provision, and hence, the principle being admitted, the policy being adopted, the extent of our help should be in proportion to the necessity of the case.
if the British navy is being challenged, if the empire is in danger, our assistance must be commensurate with the peril.
Then, the question naturally follows, is there a real emergency in the affairs of the empire?
Is the sword of Damocles suspended over the British navy?
Every student of imperial affairs must acknowledge the gravity of the situation. Germany and England; are at present engaged in a strenuous struggle. A war of construction is now being waged ; a war of destruction may follow. Germany by reason of her geographical position is essentially a military, and not a naval, power. Her inland position without much coast line and without colonial possessions naturally make her an inland power. She possesses the most perfect fighting machine in the world. By intense organization, by her technical education, and toy her highly specialized methods of training^ she has become on land without a peer among the nations of the world. There is no army comparable with hers in efficiency, in numbers and in effective fighting force. It is estimated that she could put in the field upwards of 4,000,000 fighting men.
England on the other hand is essentially a maritime power. Her insular position with vast colonial possessions has peculiarly fitted her for the premier naval position among the nations of the world.
As England at present is supreme on the water, so is Germany supreme on land.
Why are these two great powers not content to allow this equilibrium to be maintained? Why is Germany not content to allow matters to remain in statu quo?
England is content that Germany should maintain her supremacy on land because this is essential to her very existence surrounded as she is with aggressive, watchful and resentful neighbours.
Germany, however, is not content that England should maintain her supremacy on the high seas, although this is essential to the empire's very existence. Germany, with her vaulting ambition, is apparently desirous of being supreme on water as she is now on land. She strives for naval as well as for military supremacy.
If the British fleet demolished the German fleet, Germany would still be immune from successful attack by England's forces by reason of her military strength and power.
But if the German fleet once defeated the British fleet, England's supremacy would be lost-the army of Germany could overrun the country-the British empire would be dismembered, and the rich selfgoverning dominions beyond the seas would in all probability, be the prizes of war- and eventually Canadians would pay dearly for the indifference they have displayed to the empire's interests.
Why then is Germany challenging England's naval supremacy? What is the object and purpose of the great activity? At whom is her great naval programme aimed, if not at England? Her fleet to-day is stronger than the combined fleets of France and Russia. She has nothing to fear from these two powers. What then is her purpose? Germany has a population of 60,000,000 people and is increasing at.the rate of 1,000,000 each year. She must secure colonial outposts for her surplus population to which her subjects may emigrate and continue to live under the German flag and suzerainty. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa would make rich prizes for any nation to contend for.
Max O'Rell, the famous French lecturer says that France fights for glory; Germany fights for a living, but England fights for trade and peace.
I have heard a number of hon. gentlemen opposite on the floor of this House declare on several occasions that the Monroe doctrine would protect Canada in the last analysis. I say that such a declaration is unworthy of any Canadian. I was pleased to hear the Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) and the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) resent the imputation that was cast upon Canadian character by some of their colleagues. To entertain the idea that we could look with complacency to a foreign country for protection is revolting to any true British subject, and to rely upon the indefinite and

uncertain policy of a foreign country known as the Monroe doctrine is to lean upon a broken, at any rate an untried reed, and to pace us at the mercy of and under obligation to a foreign country. Such a prospect does not commend itself to the patriotism of any true Canadian. Sir, to state such a proposition is to dismiss it from our minds. The question. I think, must be answered, and the course of this parliament must be determined by the answer to that question: Is there a real emergency in the affairs of the empire? If there is, the insignificant contribution offered by this government is of no assistance in the time of need. Long before the general elections in the old country, British statesmen speaking upon the status of the British navy as compared with foreign navies, raised distress signals. They sounded cries of alarm at Germany's naval activity. During the elections, they attempted to neutralize the effect of their previous statements; but it was too late, the people took them at their word, as that word had been uttered prior to the election excitement. Hon. members opposite offer many authorities to prove that there is no menace at the present time from Germany, no emergency in the affairs of the empire. But of all the authorities that were quoted, the most peculiar and extraordinary was that quoted by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). That hon. gentleman quoted from a speech of the German ambassador who, he said, was speaking in England-I presume making an after-dinner speech-to show the pacific intentions of Germany towards Great Britain. That is the proof the hon. gentleman relied upon -that the German ambassador, speaking in England, told the English people, in an after-dinner speech that Germany's intentions were not hostile and that Germany was not intending to attack England, because of these preparations. As has been stated here, the German people are not the people to hunt ducks with a brass band.
Now, the wisest men in both political parties have conceded the absolute necessity of maintaining Great Britain's naval supremacy. Mr. Gladstone, in 1878, used these words:
The strength of England is not to be found in alliances with great military powers but is to be found henceforth in the efficiency and supremacy of her navy-a navy as powerful as the navies of all Europe.
And Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in June, 1909, said:
The navy is the common security of the whole empire. If it ever fails to be that it will be of no use to discuss any other subjects, and the maintenance of the navy in that position must therefore he the care, not only of us at home, but of the self-governing dominions beyond tbe seas.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: At the imperial press conference, one of the colonial press men interviewed Sir Edward Grey, and the result was published in the Evening ' Journal ' of Thursday, January 27, 1910. Sir Edward Grey, upon that occasion, said:
I cannot think that there is a likelihood of war. I cannot bring myself to believe that a great and intelligent and Christian nation like Germany could attack us without provocation -without grave fault on our own side. But I am compelled to admit that the historical fact is that in the course of her imperial expansion, Germany has in our time gone more than half way to meet war with Denmark, with Austria and with Prance, and has within a few weeks practically presented an ultimatum to Russia giving the option of war or silence regarding the annexation by Austria of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We must face the possibility that our turn might come. It is possible, though I cannot think it probable, that if Germany were strong enough on the sea to risk an encounter with our navy the encounter might ensue in spite of ourselves.
If war were to come, and our navy were worsted, it would spell the ruin of the British empire. Germany would not need to land a soldier in England. Our food comes across the seas. We could be starved into absolute submission in a month.
No other great power has to face such a consequence of defeat.
We have two courses open. One, to allow Germany to easily catch up with us in sea power, and take the chance of a quarrel. The other, to try to keep so far ahead of her naval force that no quarrel will occur.
The latter course seems the necessary one. The possibilities of the other are too grave to risk so long as our resources enable us to keep ahead.
I would hardly contradict any one who would say that it is a hundred-to-one chance against our having war with Germany even when Germany has arrived in a position to risk it. And yet I am compelled to feel that even though it be a hundred-to-one shot against war, we must not, if we can help it, take even a single chance when that single chance includes the possibilitv of the ruin of England-the possibility of the end of our thousand years of English story.
And Sir Edward Grey spoke on March 29 in the House of Commons, and is reported in volume 3 of ' Hansard ' of 1909, page 54, as follows:
First of all the House and the country are perfectly right in the view that the situation is grave. A new situation in this country is created by the German programme. Whether that programme is carried out quickly or slowly the fact of its existence makes a new situation. When that programme is completed, Germany, a great country close to our shore will have a fleet of 33 Dreadnoughts. That fleet would be the most powerful which tbe world has ever yet seen. It is true that there is not one of them in commission yet; but it is equally true that the whole programme comprises what I have said, and when completed the new fleet will I be the most powerful fleet which the world

has yet seen. That imposes upon us the necessity, of which we are now at the beginning-except so far as we have Dreadnoughts already-of rebuilding the whole of our fleet. That is what the situation is. What we do not know is the time in which we shall have to do it.
We must he prepared to defend our national existence under the conditions which are imposed upon us in our own generation. I am glad that it is not to us alone that this feeling is confined. I am glad that the colonies, such as New Zealand recognize that their national existence is one with us in this matter.
The friends of the government, including the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in their speeches have' quoted Lord Charles Beresford as being in favour of local navies for the component parts of the empire. They do not, however, accept his statement that there is a real peril, and that the true policy is one of preparedness on the part of the British navy. I submit that if they accept him as the highest authority on one point, they are bound to accept him on the other. Lord Charles Beresford on January 1, 1910, spoke as follows:
Germans have said that if they intended to attack England it would be without warning. I suggest that Germany would send out her tramps with six-pounders and attack the trade routes-and even a tramp could sink a Mauretania. The pretext is easy-a little difficulty about Holland or Belgium, the Congo, or the TPersian gulf, a diplomatic letter would follow, and what is to stop Germany from striking a blow at night and getting hold of the trade routes? Great Britain has left her arteries undefended.
I say seriously that Germany is deliberately challenging us to make all preparations.


Then Right Hon.   A@: Balfour, leader of the Conservative opposition, speaking on January 4, 1910, said:
He hoped and believed that Germany and Britain may not come into conflict, but said the diplomats of the lesser powers did not share this view. He insisted that Britain was now in a position as regards her navy which she had not been in within the memory of living men. Indeed, her naval superiority on her own seas would be threatened within the near future.
' I don't believe there is going to be war between this country and any great foreign power/ he exclaimed. r Heaven knows I don't desire it. I don't believe it. But please remember that absolutely the only way in which you can secure the peace which you all desire is that you shall be sure of victory if war takes place.'	. .
The empire existed only on sufferance if the navy were not supreme, and he was not content to exist on sufferance.
Now, I purpose quoting a gentleman who has been somewhat assailed in this House, Mr. Robert Blatchford. Mr. Blatchford is
a talented and educated socialist who wrote for the ' Daily Mail ' in London in connection with the German peril. His principles are opposed to a military and naval programme, but in this crisis he subordinates his principles to the welfare and salvation of the empire. In this crisis he was a British subject first and a socialist afterwards. He wrote as follows:
The strongest evidence of Germany's designs against Britain is the German navy. There can be no stronger evidence of any nation's intention to make war than that afforded by wholesale, feverish, and systematic preparations for war.
Now the German preparations are na\;. preparations. Against whom can these preparations be directed if they are not directed against us? Manifestly they are not meant for Russia, nor for I'rance, nor for Amci.,... The magnitude of the preparations points to a prospective struggle with a fleet more powerful than that of Russia or France.
The construction of the German ships prohibits their use in distant seas, against Japan for instance, or the United States. And whereas we have been told in a hundred books and newspapers and pamphlets and speeches that the German navy is meant to wrest from Britain her command of the sea. it would be difficult to find a single German suggestion that the German navy is meant to try conclusions with any power other than Britain. Germany can reach France oi Russia by land. Her fleet is already moro than a match for France or Russia combined Her fleet is built for the North sea, it is exercised in the North sea, it remains in the North Sea.	.
Her ships were built against our ships, the object of the German builders being always to go one better than the British in each type. .	.	. If we do not want to war with
Germany, we must be strong enough to want Germany to cause peace.
Though Germany is a brave, resolute, and mighty enemy, she is not omnipotent, nor is she invulnerable. But she means business-blood and iron business-and all conciliation, subterfuge, and compromise provoke her to contempt and scorn. ...
Germany outs her destinies into the hands of warriors; we leave ours in the hands of politicians. Germany acts; we talk. Words count for nothing in the game of blood and iron. _	.
Arm or surrender; fight for the empire oi loose it. We can choose our alternative; no middle course is open to us.
Now, I submit that when prominent British statesmen on both sides of politics agree in pointing out the gravity of the situation, we as Canadians cannot longer remain indifferent. British statesmen are not extremists, they are not jingoes, they are not alarmists, their language is not violent or exaggerated; their utterances are usually characterized by discretion and moderation, and consequently we should give due weight to their deliberate judgment upon this supreme issue. I think that on the evidence

adduced it must be conceded that the British navy is menaced at the present time toy the German naval programme, and the question naturally suggests itself: Is the Naval Bill introduced by the government commensurate with Canada's duty to the empire? Does' it discharge our plain and full duty to the empire under existing circumstances? In my humble opinion the government has lamentably failed to meet the situation. It is a matter of universal regret that the government has refused to comply with the wishes and plans of the British admiralty as outlined at the recent conference of 1909. The British admiralty are peculiarly fitted and specially adapted to know the wants and needs of the British navy, and they expressed their preferences for certain lines of action, but the Canadian government refused to meet their wishes. In the first place, the British admiralty suggested as an ideal method of assisting the navy, a money contribution, but this was refused. Then they suggested a complete fleet unit which would include a Dreadnought, but this was refused. Then they suggested that this fleet unit should be stationed on the Pacific coast in order to relieve the British men-of-war stationed there, and this was refused. Then they expressed the opinion that the local naval forces, in the event of war, should come under the immediate command of the British admiralty, but this was refused, and made subject to the consent of the Governor in Conucil. The ideal of the British admiralty was that the five component parts of the British empire should each furnish a fleet unit which would, in time of war, come under the control and command of the British admiralty in case of emergency. Canada's danger lies in the defeat of the British navy. Once it is defeated, Canada's contribution of her insignificant defensive force would be of no avail whatever. Canada, in my opinion, should have organized a fleet unit as suggested by the British admiralty, and when the summons to arms was issued, that each fleet unit from the colonies should proceed tu array itself with the British navy and forming a component part thereof dovetail into that great fighting machine. When you compare the fleet units as suggested by the British admiralty with that contemplated by the government's Bill, there is not much difference in the number of ships, nor in the actual maintenance charges. The fleet unit as suggested by the British admiralty consisted of 13 ships, being one armoured cruiser of the ' Indomitable ' class and of the Dreadnought type, three protected cruisers, six destroyers and three submarines, costing $18,500,000, and _ the maintenance charges amounting to .$3,1500,000. The proposed Canadian unit consists of 11 ships, being 4 Bristols, 1 Boadecea and 6 destroyers, costing $11,000,000, and the Mr. S. SHARPE.
annual maintenance charges being $2,500,-
000.	In the matter of initial expense there was only a difference of $7,500,000, and for annual upkeep, a difference of $500,000; But there is a great difference in the effective fighting force of the two units. But the government programme makes no provision for a Dreadnought, and a Dreadnought is the effective fighting machine in modern naval warfare. Superiority in Dreadnoughts will decide the naval supremacy of the future. The British admiralty asked for a complete fleet unit, a living vital fighting force. This government is merely presenting a skeleton without any effective striking power. Hence, I submit there are two fatal defects in the programme of the government which make it impossible for me to support the measure. Although I have in the past expressed myself in favour of the principle of a Canadian navy as a permanent policy, there are two fatal defects in the government programme. One is the absence of a Dreadnought, which would have formed part of the fleet had the government organized a fleet unit; and the other is the presence of a condition that the navy will assist the empire only with the consent of the Governor in Council. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the Bill are fatal paragraphs, in connection with this measure. Paragraphs 17 and 18 read:
17.	The Governor in Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof, on active service at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency.
18.	In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of jHi* Majesty, for general service in the royal navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
And section 19 provides that parliament shall be called for a meeting within fifteen days after the Governor in Council has placed the naval service on active service. These clauses, in my opinion, destroy the whole effect and purpose of the government's Bill. A few men in the cabinet could withhold the consent of the Governor in Council for a considerable time, and in the meantime the British navy might be annihilated. These clauses may become in effect and substance a declaration of independence. Should war be declared against the empire, and should this government decide not to allow our so-called navy to participate in the empire's wars, down would come the British flag and up would go the Canadian ensign. I submit that this is tantamount to a declaration of independence. Should our Canadian navy stand aloof from the British navy in time of great national danger? I would like to ask if our so-called navy, when organized

and constructed, is to be ordered up the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers to be anchored to parliament hill until this fickle, faltering cabinet shall have come to some compromise decision in reference to its ultimate destiny? Personally, I am in favour of the principle of a Canadian navy as a definite permanent policy.for Canada, but I want an effective fighting force-a complete ' fleet unit,' under the central control of the British admiralty, and not subject to the delays nor to the whims and caprices of a hesitating, halting, vacillating cabinet, which in the past has not displayed any great alacrity in assisting the empire in time of great stress and danger.
The leader of the government in his Toronto speech said that the British navy had a displacement of 2,000,000 tonnage, while Germany had only about 600,000 tons displacement. He, thereby, made* the deduction that the British navy was far superior to the German navy, and attempted to minimize the gravity of the present situation. But I submit that this is not a fair basis of comparison. It is not by tonnage displacement that the efficiency, the effective striking force, of a navy is estimated, but -by the number of its Dreadnoughts. It is not the number of obsolete war vessels (of which all count in the computation of tonnage), but it is the number of Dreadnoughts that will decide the naval supremacy of the future. Germany in 1912 or thereabouts, will have more Dreadnoughts, if their present plans be carried out, than England, and hence by this Dreadnought standard of comparison (the only real standard) England is in danger of losing her supremacy.
Hence the present Bill ignores the vital matters in this titanic struggle, and when Germany and England engage in the inevitable final combat Canada's insignificant contribution, handicapped by conditions that will thwart and defeat its very purpose, will not be able to appear in the imperial firing line doing effective service, (along with New Zealand and Australia), in defence of the empire.
Is this inferior-position not humiliating to every Canadian subject? Contrast the position of Canada with that of our sister colonies-Australia and New Zealand-and is there a Canadian that does not feel deeply humiliated? In comparison with New Zealand and Australia our efforts are feeble, our efforts are unworthy of our people, unworthy of our vast resources, unworthv of our premier position as the richest and most populous self-governing nation in the empire.
But what else could the people of Canada expect? The leader of the government is always eloquent when the occasion requires eloquent in hjs loyalty, and loyal in his eloquence-and if loyal speeches
could win battles Canada alone could furnish ' invincible armadas ' comprising stacks of bound volumes of ' Hansard ' and illustrated editions of the Toronto ' Globe '.
But while we indulge ourselves in the harmless and pleasant occupation of making patriotic speeches, and passing loyal resolutions, our sister nations (New Zealand and Australia) are offering Dreadnoughts and fleet units to the empire.
Humiliation! This is not the first occasion on which the bitter draught has been placed to the lips of Canada by this government. This is not the first time Canada has trailed in the rear of her sister colonies instead of blazing the way. When war was declared in South Africa, and German intervention was feared, where was the leader of the government? Where was Canada when all the other colonies were vieing with each other in rushing troops to the scene of hostilities? The right hon. leader of the government was giving an interview to the Toronto ' Globe ' of October 4, 1899, as follows:
The Premier's Statement.-Government has
made no offer of Troops to the Imperial
Authorities.
There is no menace to Canada, and although we may be willing to contribute troops, I do not see how we can do so. Then, again, how could we do so without parliament granting us the money? We simply could not do anything. In other words, we should have to summon parliament. . . . And so it is that we have not offered a Canadian contingent to the home authorities. The Militia Department duly transmitted individual offers to the imperial government and the reply from the war office, as published in Saturday's ' Globe,' shows their attitude on the question. As to Canada's furnishing a contingent, the government has not discussed the question, for the reasons which I have stated, reasons which I think must easily be understood by every one who understands the constitutional law on the question.
Does that memorable interview display any enthusiasm for imperial interests?
What happened is familiar to all:	The
public clamoured for action, the press was loaded with protests, the wave of patriotism throughout Canada became irresistible and would have swept the government, out of existence had it not yielded to the popular demands. Not one, but many Canadian contingents were sent to distinguish themselves along 'with the Australian and New Zealand contingents, and their life's blood has left indelible- stains upon the veldts of South Africa and brought imperishable fame Upon Canadian valour. Ab though all Canada knows full well that the leader of the government resisted to the utmost the sending of the Canadian contingents to assist the empire in the Boer war, and not a man would have been sent, nor a dollar spent if

he had had his way, yet when the wax was over and victory had been won by the valour of the imperial troops, the right hon. leader and his supporters took all the credit to themselves-they presented themselves with all sorts of bouquets, waved the old flag and sang the national anthem over and over again. They have been turning handsprings in their paroxisms of loyalty ever since, little surmising that their outbursts of loyalty would soon again be put to the test. The government is now being tested-they are standing under the measuring rod. Are they measuring up to the full stature of their professions? It is for the Canadian people to say after a perusal of this proposed Naval Bill.
^Now, we come to the question of what Canada's duty is at the present time. If the supremacy of the British navy is being challenged, and I believe it is, if the emergency be pressing, urgent and compelling, and I believe it is, then this House should act and act promptly, definitely and decisively. It is Canada's duty to order, not one, two or three Dreadnoughts, but a sufficient number of Dreadnoughts to meet the emergency. We should order Dreadnoughts according to the extent of the peril, according to the magnitude of the danger to be apprehended, according to the exigencies of the case. These Dreadnoughts should be manned with British men and officers until Canadians can be trained for the service-all at the expense of Canada. Then the question of Canada's permanent policy should be left to the people. Having thus, in part, atoned for our past neglect, and having, in part, liquidated our obligation of long standing, we could then consider with due deliberation and with due regard to our constitutional obligations to the electors who have sent us here, the permanent policy which this country should adopt in regard to the construction, organization and maintenance of a Canadian navy service. Then we would have time to consider and adjust all imperial questions relating to the navy and its relationship to the empire-the question of the control and final command of the navy in time of war and what voice Canada is to have in deciding imperial questions. The peonle of Canada have a right to be heard before this permanent policy is decided unon. We have no mandate from the electors. The public have a right to be heard for many substantial reasons. The government, it is true, says that this question has been before the people since 1902. I challenge the truth of that statement, but even if it be true, that this question has been before the people since 1902, what has the policy of the government been since 1902? Absolutely opposed to the construction of the Canadian navy or to any contribution towards imperial defence. If the question has been Mr. S. SHARPE
before the people in the elections of 1904 and 1908, they have pronounced against the construction of a Canadian navy or any contribution to imperial defence, and now the government, by the present Bill, is flying in the face of the result of these two general elections. But, everybody knows that this is. a. new policy and that it has never been discussed in any general elec* tion. The question is far reaching and involves large and permament obligations upon the country. Important public bodies have requested that the question should be submitted to the people before the government inaugurates a new policy upon which the people have not had an opportunity of pronouncing. I refer to the Dominion Grange and the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, and I may add that the ' Weekly Sun ' and other piominent papers that represent a very large sentiment that exists throughout the province of Quebec and in other provinces demand that the question should be submitted to the people before any definite permanent policy is inaugurated. Whenever a new and important policy is being framed it is usual, and the constitutional practice is, to appeal to the people or to postpone the inauguration of the policy until after the electors have have had an opportunity to pronounce upon it. As 1 stated a short time ago, I am in favour of the principle, as a permanent policy for Canada, of the construction, organization and maintenance of a Canadian navy. That, to my mind, is the only proper solution of this important question. True. I believe that the prevailing sentiment of Canada is against the construction of a Canadian navy and in favour of a contribution by Canada of cash or Dreadnoughts to the empire. Does any one imagine that a cash contribution or a contribution of Dreadnoughts will discharge Canada from further contributions and relieve her from all future obligations? Not at all. The British navy must be maintained and Canada must continue, in some form, its assistance to imperial defence. Canada must adopt some definite permanent policy of continuous assistance. And, Sir, in my opinion, as a permanent policy, either a cash or a Dreadnought contribution is an impossible solution. The government has, subject to the approval of the people, if it were submitted to the people-adopted in my view, the correct principle, of constructing, organizing and maintaining a Canadian navy, thereby exploiting and utilizing our vast natural resources in building up a great industry in Canada. But while adopting the correct principle, the government has destroyed the objects and purposes of a Canadian navy - by not makin0, it a complete fleet unit and by annexing an impossible condition to its service under the control of the British ad-

miralty, namely: that it cannot go to war without the consent of the Governor General in Council. If the government of Canada intend doing anything tovrards assisting the empire in its time of stress and need, she should do something generous, and she should do that something promptly. To accomplish that it is necessary to organize a complete fleet unit with a Dreadnought at the head and not. subjected to any bonds or chains in the form of onerous conditions. Had the government taken this course it would have commanded the respect and support of a large and important body of public opinion.
Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a Conservative government were in power, do you think that that Conservative administration would have brought down such a Bill as this? I do not believe it would. As this Liberal government refuses to recognize Canada's duty to the empire, and has failed to interpret the will of the people in that regard, and as its contribution is not a true index of the heart and feelings of the people of Canada, it may devolve upon the Conservative premiers of the four provinces under Conservative administrations to get together and devise some scheme whereby one or two Dreadnoughts shall be sent to the empire as Canada's contribution. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is a great misfortune, not only for Canada, but for the empire, that a Conservative administration has not been in control of the affairs of Canada during the past ten or fifteen years. Had the Conservative party been in power during these momentous times, and particularly during the imperial conferences, I am absolutely satisfied that some satisfactory scheme or plan of imperial federation would have been devised, and put into operation, and I believe that long before this an imperial council representative of all parts of the empire would have been created, and the dream of all true British subjects would have become a reality. This Liberal government in Canada has always applied the /brakes to any such movement, and it has not only refused to assist, but has absolutely discouraged any such plan at every turn, and on every opportunity. When war was declared in South Africa, the government of Canada lagged behind all other *colonial governments, and showed no sympathy with the empire. At the imperial conference of 1907, the leader of the government expressly refused to support a motion, introduced by one of the colonial delegates, which was calculated to unite the emDire into bonds of closer union. The grumbling assent of this government to the imperial conference of 1909, to the military and naval defence committee, and the niggardly policy as outlined in this
Bill all show a lack of enthusiasm for imperial interests.
Now, Sir, in conclusion, I think, that it is the duty of Canada to place an immediate order for Dreadnoughts to form a part of the Canadian navy and to act in co-operation with and as a part of the imperial navy and under the control, in times of danger and emergency, of the British admiralty. We should then postpone the inauguration of any permanent policy until the Canadian people have been heard from, either by means of a referendum or in a general election. In the meantime, speaking for myself, I desire to go on record, as I have done on previous occasions in my own constituency, and in the corridors of the House, where I have expressed myself in favour of the principle of a Canadian navy. I desire to go on record as in favour of the principle of a Canadian navy as the means best calculated to serve the interests of the empire of the future, and best calculated to work out the great destiny of this country. I regret, therefore, that I cannot support this Naval Bill of the government, because of its meagreness, its niggardliness in not providing for a fleet unit as it should have done, and also because of the impossible condition that the government has annexed to its service in the empire's wars, which condition must render it unsatisfactory to every true Canadian who loves British institutions and British liberty, who is conscious of our deep obligations to the mother country, and who believes that universal peace depends on the maintenance of British supremacy, which is now being challenged and jeopardized by England's greatest commercial, military and naval rival.


Mr.   J.@: BOYER (VaUdreuil.) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it would be commonplace to undertake to prove that Canada passes through an important national evolution. Everbody feels this and it is admitted by all, but every one does not see the causes. These causes are not very complicated and I will try to place them before the House.
Modern nations should never be isolated, as Ch'na has done in the past to. its detriment. The policy of each of them depends more or less upon the policy of the rival nations, and all are ruled by one great law, the international law.
Well, let us see what has given rise to this evolution of this sort of crises through which we now pass, and which forces us at this moment, willingly or unwillingly, to come to a decision upon which our future will rest.
A great European nation, Germany seeks domination. She is fatally brought to that, not so much because her citizens love warfare or hazardous adventures, but because

she has a very large population, and is congested in her own territory, so that she must look for other fields and colonies for expansion. Germany must fight an economical war. England is situated in somewhat an analogous position, but on account of her supremacy on the seas, 'she has by this very fact the outlets which the other nation needs.
Many will say, this economic war will not turn into actual war. Let us hope that they are right, but we must admit that appearances do not justify this optimism. On both sides armaments are going on frantically, so much that in both countries the budgets are frightfully surcharged and one of these nations thought proper to say to its colonies, " Look at the sacrifices which I am obliged to make. Will you not help me? "
" We will gladly help you " responded the over-seas dominions, of which Canada is one.
" And how will you do it? "
Firstly by taking on ourselves the defence of opr territory and our shores; secondly by lending you our troops and our ships, if you are attacked.
This is a natural and proper answer, because :
1.	A free nation surrounded by armed nations, must necessarily assume the means of defending herself.
2.	Unless being absolutely blind, a people cannot refuse to defend its own home and civilization, when such are threatened with destruction.
The interest of Canada is twofold, because it is inhabited by two races who spring from the civilization of two great peoples, who for a long time were rivals, but now attached to one another. We have not two metropolises, one Anglo-Saxon, the other French. And let this not be forgotten. The latter would suffer just as much as the former by a war which would hand over the domination to a foreign civilization opposed to the ideas and the traditions which animate both of these two national groups.
We are consequently confronted by the following problem:
1.	Is it necessary that we should defend the territory and the coasts of Canada?
2.	If so, shall we undertake ourselves this country, take charge of it? Is it neces-fence or let Great Britain, our mother saTy to defend our country? The question is answered by itself; but there are some *who hold a different view. But have they ever clearly understood that Canada is one of the greatest countries of the earth, on account of its territory and natural resources; that if it is not parcelled in the future it will be one of the most powerful. Canada holds already almost the foremost rank through its agricultural products and


Mr. BOYER.: through the development of its merchant shipping. Its mineral resources are immense. Its forests cover the country from one ocean to the other, and we have on that score reserves of the world.
All over the country there is at present a fever of development. AVealth flows like a wave in the west. The great provinces of the centre stand already amongst the strongest foundations of the world. In a word, everything in our country is so great that we cannot grasp it.
Let us merely glance at a part of our maritime coast. Let us go through that region which extends from Montreal, our commercial metropolis, to the extreme end of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The river of that name is the grand waterway of our trade, and through its whole length is navigated by hundreds of ships, the imposing transatlantic steamer as well as the humble schooner or the fisherman's boat. AAre first come across a pleasing country of a remarkable beauty and fertility, and further on we find mountainous regions, dark and wooded, but everywhere we behold villages, fields, herds of cattle and industrial establishments 'busy and flourishing, till we come at the entrance of the Gulf, and to the coal fields of Gape Breton; they are immense, and the only ones we find on the Atlantic *coast, even if -we were to travel from one pole to the other. They are situated precisely at the spot where the American continent is nearest the continent of Europe.
It is there that France erected the fort of Louisburg, under the walls of which the fate of the new world was decided.
Looking at these ruins one is struck by the wisdom /of the great engineer who selected this place from which a vessel could go out and offer battle to the enemy coming from the east, between Cape Breton and Newfoundland. While the enemy that might have seized that place, could block the route to Canada and demolish all the plan of defence. That is what happened, as we know, after the capture of Louisburg by General Wolfe. To-day this military position is still most important. The coal fields of Cape Breton had become for modern navy purposes, an inexhaustible and essential defensive post. Who holds it holds doubly the key to Canada on the Atlantic. That fort defends treasures of forests and fisheries which the general of Louis XV. could not imagine. But principally this lengthy north coast, with its aspect so inhospitable, but composed of iron, -white coal and deep ports, cannot pally this lengthy north coast, with its dockyard for steel vessels.
The Pacific coast offers the spectacle of natural wealth almost equal; but it is not necessary for me to go on further with this demonstration. We the owners of this wealth, are completely disarmed on the sea. Around us everybody, all nations are

in arms. In the east we see Japan, immediately to the south, United States, one of the great naval powers of the world in Central America, each republic has its war vessels. In Europe, as we know, some great military nations are congested foi want of colonies.	.
Under these circumstances how long will we remain free asd protected against the ills of war, if we do not defend ourselves? We are too rich a prey not to excite the covetousness of others. If Great Britain were not there, is it not evident that we would inevitably fall under the tutelage of some other great nation that would make us pay very dear for the protection which she would give us, and it would be a great chance if she did not absorb us completely? Of this common sense alone will convince us; it is not even necessary to read the significant comments which are printed every day in the papers of the nations that have their eyes on us.
Is it our duty to defend ourselves as much as we can in our present conditions?. I say yes. It is not surely for lack of citizenship that some Canadians are opposed to the idea of an effort on our part to defend Canada on the sea. They look at the question from another point of view, and they say that our money would be far better utilized in developing our natural resources. They would be right if the world were disarmed.
Unfortunately, our dignity as well as our interest demands that we should leave no stone unturned to accomplish by our own initiative this essential duty.
I say that it is our interest, and where could we find in the history of the world a people who has succeeded in keeping his national life by leaving the care of his defence to other arms, even to those of friends or allies? We cannot find one. In the life of nations as in the life of individuals, interest is the measure of actions; every one looks before all to things which are of personal interest to himself. It is the law of the world; who will not respect it will fall. The present emergency recalls that law, and Great Britain herself who has protected us heretofore is in need of our help, towards maintaining her rank and dignity among the nations.
Besides, the practice of military and naval arts, carries with it certain important and direct advantages. While increasing the strength of the country, the energy and self-reliance of its inhabitants, it helps powerfully, through the exertions it requires, in promoting the progress of the human race. Is it not owing to war, owing to the efforts made in defending a position or directing an attack that many modern discoveries have been effected.
On the other hand, the establishment of a national navy for Canada will bring with it direct substantial benefits. Great dockyards will be provided which will give employment to many hands, while at the same time developing to great extent our resources. A certain number of our young men will receive from year to year instruction and training in the naval schools; the spirit of discipline acquired while on duty will be an education in itself; numerous families of seamen inhabiting our coasts, and whom the dwindling of the coasting trade has impoverished, will see the good old times recur; a trip to our maritime sections enables one to realize the need for such a revival. As we all know, on the coasts of England, France, and Norway, the sons of fishermen on returning home after doing service on the warships, no longer show the spirit of routine, at any rate not to the same degree as formerly; they show a greater openness of mind, they are no longer chary of innovations which make for greater prosperity and happiness. Such influences are of a nature to transform a people by developing their abilities and imparting selfreliance and initiative.
Of course, all these things will of neces- [DOT] sity cost a great deal; and that is the stock argument of our special pleaders. Do you not perceive, say they, that we are disbursing large sums for providing a navy which will never be in a position to hold its ground against those of the great powers. In other words, you are going to provide a mock navy, a tin-pot navy. Under the circumstances we would be better off with no navy at all, and if we are bound to make sacrifices let it be in the shape of a yearly money contribution to the British navy, and let that settle the matter.
Such a plan is entirely without foundation. What I have previously said is sufficient evidence to that effect; but there is more, and much more, that could be said. Canada is not yet a great nation, at any rate in point of population, but that is increasing rapidly. The next census has in stock for us great and pleasant surprises. Twenty years hence, our numbers will greatly exceed twenty millions, and we will actually be a numerous and very wealthy people. Will we be powerful as well? That depends on what steps we decide to take just now. Possibly, we may be a mere human hive without strength or dignity; it might even happen that our national existence would be done away with. A fleet of warships cannot be created in a moment. Several _ years of preparation are necessary to provide fully equipped dockyards, under competent management, with skilled workmen, well trained officers and men.
That is the work to which we are setting ourselves just now. It might have been wiser to start before now, but we were not at liberty to do so. And when all these meausures have been taken, we will be in a position to hold our own among the na-



But does this mean that the French Canadians are disloyal to England, because a certain number do not like the principle of this Bill in which they may perhaps find too pronounced a tendency towards imperialism, while a certain number of others here protest more or less discordantly because of the enormous expenditure the measure will entail. After all, let us frankly admit it; the French Canadian cannot have the /Same reasons as his English speaking fellow citizen to become enthusiastic in this matter, because in his case blood relationship does not exist; nevertheless, his attachment to the British crown is too evident for his loyalty to be one moment doubted; albeit it must be admitted that with him, the favourable appreciation of the naval question comes from a feeling of gratitude and justice.
I might, Mr. Speaker, cite many of my English-speaking fellow-citizens who have taken up either one or the other of the points of view to judge of the merit of the measure that we are at present discussing, and who will never be accused of disloyalty for all that.
I therefore appeal to the spirit of justice of my opponents and I would ask them in future to conduct their plans of attack on other grounds than that of the French nationality. That we have our fanatics, that is true, and they have perfect right to exist, to discuss and to bring forth their theories as the fanatics of the English language, but they are not the less loyal for all that.
One consideration, Mr. Speaker, and this one alone would be sufficient to secure my support to any measure of a nature to help Great Britain to-day or at any other period of danger or difficulty. This consideration is the protection of our mutual trade which has heretofore been the work of British ships alone. But indeed there are many others which justify Canada in following in the footsteps of the other colonies, to answer the pressing appeal of the metropolis as has been put by several hon. members, amongst them the leader of the opposition.
What it behoves us not to forget in the present debate, and that which from my point of view, justifies the Canadian Government, apart from all matters of sentiment, in yielding to Great Britain's appeal, is the immense and increasing trade between Canada and Britain. England is our best and largest customer. Last year Great Britain purchased nine-tenths of the natural products which Canada exported. For the present, I am looking at the question from a business point of view, l am asking myself the following question. Should Canada help Great Britain in maintaining Mr. BOYER.
the empire of the sea? Outside of national sentiment, I say, yes. Let us examine briefly the important commercial motives which should encourage and justify such an opinion; and here let me repeat what I was saying a moment ago. England is Canada's best client, and should she for a moment cease to buy from us, the greater part of our population-I mean the agricultural population, for 45 per cent of the Canadians are interested in agricultural pursuits- would feel very ill at ease. On the other hand, who could stop England buying the greater part of the natural products which she consumes from her other colonies instead of giving such a marked preference to the products of our country.
In 1908, the total commerce of Canada with Great Britain was $230,440,043; our exports being $134,484,156, and our imports from Great Britain $95,855,887. You may answer me: but England finds a profit in having commercial relations with our country, since she herself sells for $95,855,887, and that the other obligation In this case is reciprocal. Yes, we might possiblv buy elsewhere the manufactured products which she sells us. but we could not so easily sell our agricultural products to other countries, for if England is not an agricultural country, if her dense population on a relatively small territory forces her to buy 75 per cent of the products necessary for her subsistence, it is not likewise for the other part of Europe where agriculture is still in many cases the principal industry of the nation.
It is not in France nor in Germany, the centres of science and of practical agriculture, that we would seek to sell our farm products. It is not in Denmark that we would seek to sell our butter and cheese. In fact, the countries of Europe, with the exception of England, would be very uncertain markets for our agricultural produce shipped in large quantities.
On the other hand, Australia, New Zealand and other colonies would be serious competitors to our agricultural products; if England were to purchase from them exclusively all her natural products and food stuffs she requires.
In 1908 the natural products of Canada were valued as follows:
Sold to
Total Great Foreign produce. Britain. Countries.
Agricultural
products ...$363,126,384 $100,000,000 $10,852,825 Dairy
products ... 29,731,932 23,955,940 Forest
products ... 51,052,689 11,843,094 27,470,751
It is plain that Great Britain offers a vast market for our agricultural industry;

she buys from us nine-tenths of what we can produce. Our cheese and butter find there an excellent opening. Canadian cheese continues to hold first place, notwithstanding a formidable competition from New Zealand, 80 per cent of Great Britain's cheese importations are supplied by Canada (1908 statistics), and we know how this commerce tends to grow under the impulse which is given to the agricultural class to produce goods of high quality able to compete successfully with those of other countries. We could further add to these figures already mentioned, the sum of $7,472,257 that Canada has exported to Great Britain in manufactured products.
In 1908 Great Britain bought from Canada goods to the value of $3 per head, whilst purchases from the United States only bought $1.15 per head. Nevertheless, half of our commerce is with the United States. But here is the difference. We buy more and they buy less. Our total commerce with Great Britain in 1908, was $230,340,043, that is to say, that we bought from them for $95,855,887, whilst we sold $113,520,500 worth of goods to the United States, while buying from them $220,191,209.
Now, we must not forget that we are in commercial relation with all the other English colonies, with whom we have special tariffs.
Newfoundland	 $6,963,836
Australia	 3,410,396
New Zealand	 1,250,456
British East India	 4,066,973
British West India	 694,199
British Guiana		2,698,353
British Africa		2,043,575
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the trade consideration. Let us now review the various incidents which preceded the bringing down of this Bill before parliament and those which have transpired since it was laid on the table of the House. There is nothing more amusing than to review the attitude of the opposition and to analize the conduct of its leaders at each one of the various phases through which the navy question has passed so far.
Let us analyse the incidents, Now, for the first attitude. It was in November, 1909, that the hon. member for North Toronto, in order the better to show to the country his undying filial love for the mother country, as if the British authorities were neglecting or delaying the execution of a project or plan of naval defence which had been examined during the intercolonial conferences of 1897, 1902 and 1905, placed upon ' Hansard ' a spech of several hours' duration to show the absolute necessity of speedy action and of building a navy, the immediate object of which would be the protec-143i
tion of our coasts and which would also go to the assistance of the mother country in case of war, should she require our services. Finally, on the 29th of March, the right hon. the Prime Minister, acting in concert with the leader of the opposition, drafted a resolution in the folowing terms,:-
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of the Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the Last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of the commerc the safety of the empire, and the peace of the world.
That proposition was moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister and seconded by the hon. the leader of the opposition, and agreed to without a dissentient voice; which means that not even the voice of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was heard against the motion. Such was the first attitude of the opposition. The second attitude was that taken in 1909.
In the year 1909, the intercolonial conference of London took place. That conference gave birth to the plan which is the object of the Bill now under consideration, the building of a Canadian navy and the British admiralty endorsed the proposition then made by the representatives of Canada. It was then that one could gather from the reading of the newspapers that the leader of the opposition, as became a good patriot such as he claimed to be, gave his approbation to this pre-eminently national policy and he professed to be in entire accord with the views of the Prime Minister as to the draught of a programme of naval defence. Thoroughly satisfied that the construction of a Canadian navy was what was most desirable in that respect he said that we would by that means discharge our duty to Great Britain, to Canada and he added:
The establishment of a Canadian navy unanimously asked for by both parties would much better answer the purpose than any gift of Dreadnoughts.
And while the leader of the opposition was thus holding forth, the hon. member for North Toronto took up the burden of- the song and in a speech delivered in the capital of Nova Scotia, said:
That we should be ready to defend our country and that a magnificent future was smiling upon us. That the creation of a Canadian navy would result in giving a fresh impetus to the shipbuilding industry and to the construction of steel ships in Canada, thus creating an enormous quantity of labo,.. and promoting an immense development.


Mr.   BOYEE@: leader of the opposition proposes nothing more nor less than that the Dominion government should send $25,000,000 to Great Britain, in order that she may buy Dreadnoughts with this money. But after all the hon. gentleman is humane, and he would feel loath at spending the people's money without giving the people a voice in the expenditure of that money; he would agree, but, of course only after the $25,000,000 have been subscribed to England, that we should refer the matter to the people, in order to know whether they want us to give more.
I could hardly give the finishing touch to this authentic description, without referring to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. Well, sir, I am happy to be able to state that among the leaders of the opposition who can speak with any authority, he is the only one so far who has stuck to his guns. It is true the hon. member from Jacques Cartier, like all the hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, did approve of the resolution of the 29th March, 1909, which aimed at a speedy organization of a Canadian naval service; but he did not feel like sleeping on his laurels, and in his Lachine speech, he emphatically stated that he was opposed to any kind of contribution or marine, etc. Since then, the hon. gentleman has ever maintained the same attitude.
In another respect the hon. gentleman is entitled to credit, and that is for the manner in which he advocates a plebiscite. He wants the government to refer the matter to the people, befor any expenditure is incurred for the navy, while his leader, less exacting, would be quite satisfied, if the money were spent first. Surely the hon. gentlemen disagree as to the manner of helping Great Britain and as to the manner in which the matter should be referred to the people.
That is, sir, a very incomplete hut a truthful statement of the flagrant contradictions into which the leaders of the Conservative party in this House have fallen, since the 29th of March, 1909.
Is such conduct calculated to inspire the electorate with confidence? Is there a single hon. gentleman here, opposed on principle to the building of a navy, who could in the face of such tactics, vote down the measure introduced by the government? He could not even follow my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier in his fictitious opposition, because, if his leader has exaggerated the amount of our contribution, he himself has sinned as much in the opposite direction. That there should arise some difference of opinion as to the mode of assisting the mother country, that is easily understood; hut that we should deny her everything, especially at a time when her prestige is threatened, is inadmissible under the circumstances.

The position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) on the Naval Service Act reminds me of the attitude he took in 1905, during the second session of the legislature, when I witnessed an exhibition such as the one which is now being given us. We were then debating the Act to establish and to provide for the government of the provinces of Alberta and of Saskatchewan. The government, going even beyond the limits allowed under the British North America Act, had in the first place brought down their Bill granting to the minorities and particularly to the French Catholic element identical rights to those engaged by the English Protestant element, in the province of Quebec. The opposition which was under the same leadership as they are to-day so bitterly opposed the provisions of this Act in connealion with legislation concerning education in those provinces, that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) had to part company with his colleagues and in order the better to explain his flight, ha moved, just as he is doing to-day, a motion unacceptable under the terms of the law, that is to say, a motion to make the French language official before the courts of the province.
Do you know what later on became of that amendment or resolution? They caused it to play a very sad part in the province of Quebec. The French Canadian speakers of the Conservative party, wherever they addressed the electorate on the hustings throughout the province took up as their theme the famous Monk resolution: ' Gentlemen would they say, behold the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was the only gentleman who stood up on the floor of the House of Commons and tried to save the French language in the two new provinces. But the Liberals voted down his motion. It is an infamous action.' The gentleman who opposed me in the county which I have the honour to represent failed to tell the electors that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had proposed an impossibility, under the terms of the British North America Act ; he also refrained from telling them that his chief, the leader of the opposition and his followers had voted down his motion; but he was severely punished by the electors, so much so that he even lost his deposit. Now, Mr. Speaker, do you know what will happen with the present attitude of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier? At the next general elections, you will find that Conservative speakers, addressing the electors on the very same hustings will tell them that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is the only member from the province of Quebec who stood up on the floor of the House to oppose the establishment of a national navy and they will exclaim .that the
Liberal members from Quebec did vote down the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. But they will again omit to say that the leader1 of the opposition and the Conservative members did also vote it down.
You will find that I shall, that at the next elections Conservative speakers will themselves state in the same localities that the member from Jacques Cartier was the only member from the province of Quebec to oppose the creation of a national navy. They will claim that the Liberal members from Quebec voted against the sub-amendment submitted by the member from Jacques Cartier. But at the same time omitting to mention that the leader of the opposition and the Conservative members had also voted against it.
Whilst this comedy will" be1 enacted in Quebec, the leader of the opposition and the remainder of the Conservative phalanx will overrun the English-speaidng. provinces claiming everywhere that the government did not do its duty towards England, because its leader, the Prime Minister, who is a French Canadian, submitted to the dictates of the members of his race sitting in this House. That is their double game, and the trick is played. Later we will find the Conservative leaders taking shelter under the same umbrella, and the understanding will still continue. Such are the elements of which His Majesty's loyal opposition is actually composed. And certain persons would like the Liberal members to betray the government on the naval question, to vote with such a party!
On Friday, the 11th February, Mr. Bou-rassa published in ' le Devoir ' this significant avowal as regards to the Naval Bill:
' If it had been for a Canadian navy, for Canada's defence, under the Canadian government's authority, I would not have found fault with Article 17, neither with Article 19, not even with the whole article. Even if the executive had abused of the powers that Article 17 gives it, the fleet remained under its authority, and parliament being convened within the fifteen days, might have overridden the government's decision and recalled the ships. But it is on reading Article 18 that I saw the bottomless depth in which we were thrown without warning and by deceit. It seems to me that the point has been made quite clear by the words of the leader of the opposition himself when in his speech he arraigned the government in the following terms: That the government's propositions do not agree with the Admiralty's propositions and recommendations, inasmuch as they allow the government to refuse to unite the naval forces of Canada to those of the empire in time of war; they

are ill-advised and dangerous. In fact-many other opposition speakers apparently hold the same views. It would be idle to attempt an analysis of their different shades of sentiment.
Our fleet will be entirely under the Canadian government's control and the government cannot definitely place that fleet at the disposal of England without the ratification of parliament. Sections 18 and 19 make this quite clear:
18.	In case" of an emergency, the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal Navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
19.	Whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any part thereof on active service, as provided in the preceding section, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for a meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation and shall continue to sit in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
But let us take the trouble of referring to the Militia Bill of 1868 and we will there find section 61 which reads in a far more peremptory manner than that of the navy.
His Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for actual service, either within or without the Dominion, at any time whenever it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of any of them; and the milita men when so called out for actual service, shall continue to -serve for at least one year from the date of their being called out for actual service, if required so to do, or for any longer period which Her Majesty may appoint:
Has the King ever once exercised the prerogative thus conferred upon him, before it was changed in these latter years by striking out the words: Out of the Dominion? Has the government itself ever forced a Canadian regiment to take part in the wars of the empire, without each one of its members being consenting? But it may be asked, why should the government not consent to a plebiscite?
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us be frank. Is it the government's fault if the people are not consulted on this question, or does not this fault rest with the opposition? If on the 29th March, 1909, instead of agreeing and seconding with enthusiasm the government's proposition, the leader of the opposition had asked for a plebiscite, would not Mr. BOYER.
such a policy been more reasonable than to come to-day, as does the member for Jacques Cartier, and demand that the question be referred to the people.
Why did he not state his objections at the right time, instead of giving encouragement to the government, by his adhesion to go on with their policy? It is too late now, Mr. Speaker, to ask for a plebiscite; even if the government were authorized by the constitution, they could not virtually do it, at this moment. An appeal to the people at this juncture cannot be admitted; it would be considered as an act of weakness at a time when British colonies and their naval policy towards the mother country it would be interpreted as a want of patriotism on our part. The government is the constituted authority in the land, and as such, they are bound to exercise their authority, more particularly on a question of so great importance, not only to England, which is more directly interested, but also to all other countries which hate and envy England, and which would be the first to rejoice over the least hesitation on the part of the colonies. The time is no more for a plebiscite. It should have been asked for, before the policy of the government was laid down and presented to the House.
I am opposed to a plebiscite for another important reason, besides those already given.
We live under a representative government; we are directly responsible to the people, and every five years the electorate is called upon to ratify or condemn the position taken by their representatives on the several questions that have been submitted to parliament. The people pass judgment upon their representatives at election time, when all the political questions aie fully debated on the hustings. It is on that solemn occasion that the electors make a choice of the men that are supposed to be in a position, not only to represent them with dignity and liability, but also to represent their views on the public questions of the day. During the term of a parliament the electorate cannot reasonably interefere and dictate to their representatives in this House.
The Canadian parliament is not a municipal council obliged to submit to the taxpayers every proposal entailing the expenditure of a few' hundred dollars. The constituencies and their representatives have wider attributions and the idea of submitting to the people all important questions proposed to the House for discussion would be an anomaly that the people themselves would be the first to reprove.
Let us suppose for a moment that the government accept the amendment sub-

mitted by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and ask the people to give their verdict on the naval policy. How many members outside of the cities, would be in a position to assert that over 25 per cent of their constituents could decide on that question with a reasonable degree of competency, keeping in mind the limited -amount of information and knowledge they have on the subject. There is nothing astonishing about it. At the present moment I know for a fact that a great number of my fellow-countrymen look only at the economic side of the question, that is to. say, the expenditure it will entail, leaving aside all the wider and higher considerations.
Then, let us sup.pose that the people of the province of Quebec reject all naval policy, when the English-speaking provinces decide on the other-side, this verdict would not mean that my fellow-countrymen are not loyal to the British Crown, and that is. nevertheless, the conclusion that would be drawn from their verdict. We all know what disastrous consequences would follow for that province. We would be isolated from the rest of the confederation. The French Canadians would be an isolated group, looked upon scornfully by the population of the other provinces. We cannot have in this parliament, without great danger of our race and creed, a party not in accord with one or the other of the two recognized political parties of this country.
There is a time for everything: at every election a chance is given to the people to pass judgment upon their representatives and upon the policy they have approved or opposed during the term of their mandate. At election time the electorate become the master, and then we have a real plebiscite.
Now, Mr. Speaker, do you happen to know what is said amongst other things that I do not believe in? Supposing that we had a plebiscite, did we not hear it said, that the province of Quebec, under the guidance of the clergy, would vote against all contribution of help of any kind to England, on the ground that it would be a step toward imperialism? Did we not hear it said that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and an ex-member of this House, making appeal to prejudice, would stump the province, would make a canvas from house to house, would knock at the door of every vicarage and would preach the rebellion, shielding their political aspirations behind the Catholic clergy?
That is what is being 3aid, Mr. Speaker. 1 need not say that I energetically and emphatically denounce all such slanders and calumnies, specially in so far as they are directed against the Catholic clergy of the province of Quebec. The past history of this country is there to teach us what valuable services the Catholic clergy have given to the British Crown in the hours of need, and how they would to-day as in the past, preach devotion and loyalty to the British flag under whose folds we have lived happy and free.
Moreover, is it not that same clergy that assisted in the re-election of Sir George Etienne Cartier, when he came before the electorate with his Militia Bill?
Sir, I have not the mission to defend the clergy of the province of Quebec against certain insinuations that have seemed directed against it in some places. My confidence is strong enough in that clergy, and I admire so much those who direct it, that I can't help saying here, in this House, that the clergy would not pursue such course. There is a tendency to make people believe that if we had a plebiscite, we should be surprised of the mass of English citizens who would be against all contribution to England, direct or indirect.
Well, Sir, I do not believe in this badly calculated prediction, if I may judge by the countenance of this House. Here, all the members are unanimous in having Canada contribute to the defence of the British empire. And, even the' opposition expresses a desire to do more than is proposed by the government. On the other hand, all the prominent Englishmen, the large and small journals of the country, are for one or the other policy except, perhaps a few individuals.
Some take pleasure in saying that the English farmers'do not agree with the idea of creating a national marine, nor of directly contributing for the defence of England. Here, let us be fair towards them. I may for a moment admit that they would not like to see money spent that way, but as to pretend that their greediness would speak higher than their patriotism, I say that is an injury to their address. So, the best proof that the English farmers are not antipathic to the policy, is seen in the two following facts: Lately, at Toronto, there was a convention of the ' Dominion Grange.' The president of the association at the beginning of the meeting spoke, I may say quietly, but cursing war and brining forth the idea that Canada should not spend a penny for war. Some of the members wanted to convert the opinion of the president into a motion, but the discussion became so hot that it was not thought wise to invite the votes.
Not much later, the ' grain growers ' had a convention at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; there was on the bill a resolution in favour of a direct contribution to English marine by Canada.
It was decided not to discuss this question, because it was not in accordance with the object of the association. Here are

two facts, Sir, that are quite contrary to the idea conveyed that the English farmers are antipathic to the mother country. Supposing that we have to face a real crisis, that our territory and our coasts need defence and that our dignity as well as our interests command that we should at once make ready for self defence; all these thoughts are not suggested by what I just said, but by the reflection that such a subject must bring to every mind. But, these considerations do not cover that ground. We must take a higher standpoint, and perhaps this will help us to understand our duty in this case, always possible, that a storm may break over our heads before we can accomplish all the necessary work of resistance. We are here on the Canadian land the offsprings of two great countries, rivals for a long time, to-day together and friends to defend against the possible aggression which would be principally the result of circumstances than bad will; but, even then just as dangerous.
France and England have the duty to defend oneself. What each want to keep is their territory their riches and their civilization, but it is also and before all their spirit itself which would be apt to disappear with the invasion and remain for men only as a great souvenir, such as are to-day the Greek and Roman spirit.
So. this spirit, this civilization, the languages which are the expression of fit are ours also. We are interested to keep them intact and we could not view with indifference a war by which either of these would be in danger. We would feel morally concerned in such a cause, with all our might, our resources, and even our blood.
We would be, we are in solidarity here, and this circumstance will not only bring us closer to our forefathers' countries, but they will unite us better together. It is perhans a means of creating a durable sympathy, a fraternity between the two Canadian races.
This sentiment does not exist actually, we are bound to declare. We live peacefully, but without sympathy, for we know very little of one another, and each group has his pretensions that the other refuses to admit. The politicians. remark this wrong with sadness, and it will not soon disappear since it must do so without abdication.
If, on the other hand, each group could add to the love of the Canadian home which tends to bring them closer, the sentiment of their solidarity in the defence of a still more elevated ideal if this is possible, and for which each group concerned would be ready to sacrifice verv much, the unity would become easier and nearer; the result might be a real alliance which would add some day to the rich bunch of civilization, a new variety formed of the two prettiest


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: and most ancient flowers which compose it. Let us not fear to take strong determinations.
Let us enter, without any mental reservation, upon the new path pointed out to us by honour and duty, as well as by the well understood interests of Canada for the present as for the future.


Mr.  W. B.@: NANTEL (Terrebonne) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adioumed at 11.45 n.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 2, 1910.