1910-02-03

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons, further supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending March 31, 1910. and. in accordance with the provisions of ' The British North America Act, 1867,' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Mr. FIELDING moved that His Excellency's message together with the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That the committee ordered by this House to investigate certain matters in connection
with Mr. Lumsden's resignation as chief engineer of the National Transcontinental Railway he composed of seven members instead of live, namely, Messrs. Geoffrion, Macdonald, Clarke (South Essex), Wilson (Laval), Lennox, Barker and Crothers.


Mr. J. D. REID..: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, if it is the intention to allow this committee to investigate the charges made by Mr. Lumsden of over-classification?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is the intention that the charges ordered to be investigated by the House shall be investigated.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister did not state the other day definitely whether his resolution really referred to the charge of over-classification, as made by Mr. Lumsden.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I have not succeeded in convincing my hon. friend of what I meant I am afraid that anything I might add will not do so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. LAKE:: 1.	How many persons are employed in the office of the inspector of agencies at Brandon?
2.	How many days were they absent from the office during the period commencing 1st April, 1907, and ending 31st March, 1909, on duty and on leave, respectively?
3.	How many days was the inspector of agencies absent from his office during the same period on duty and on leave, respectively ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	3.
2.	As the duties of the inspector are chiefly outside the office no account is kept of the period of their absence.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


THE BANKING ACT.
Mr. BEATTIE:: 1.	Is it a fact that the Banking Act of Canada will expire shortly?
2.	If so, has the government obtained any reliable information regarding the Banking Acts of other countries ? If not, will the government endeavour to secure such information in the near future?
3.	Does the government intend to allow that portion of the existing Banking Act to remain in force, by which the banks of Canada are said to issue nearly one hundred millions of dollars of currency; thereby making, as alleged, enormous profits, for which privilege the people of Canada do not receive one cent of interest in return?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: It is contemplated to provide a Banking Act during the present session. I cannot add anything to that statement at present.


PRE-EMPTIONS AND HOMESTEADS- ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN.
Mr. LAKE:: 1.	What was the total acreage of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads sold in each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively, from the 1st November, 1909, to the 31st December, 1909?
2.	What total amount of money receivable by the government does this represent in each province?
3.	How much has been received by the government on account of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads in each of the provinces from the date of the passing of the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, to the 31st December, 1909?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Alberta, 153,600 acres; Saskatchewan, 287,360.
2.	Alberta, $460,800; Saskatchewan, $862,080; exclusve of interest and entry fees.
3.	Alberta, payments on pre-emptions, $50,114.75; payments on purchased home-teteadsj $89,515.30; Saskatchewan, payments on pre-emptions, $71,838.96; payments 'on purchased homeateads, $208,618.96.
Exclusive of entry fees (these figures show an increase over those furnished on the 18th January, in answer to Mr. Foster's question of that date, which is accounted for by the fact that the complete returns for the month of December, 1909, had not reached the accounts branch when the answer to Mr. Foster's question was prepared).


BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BILD-TITLE TO STREAMS.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the government leased to any person the right to take gravel from lot 379, on Coquitlam river, at New Westminster Junction, British Columbia? If so, to whom, for what period and on what terms?
2.	Does the government claim title to the beds of non-tidal and non-navigable, except for canoes, streams in the railway belt of British Columbia?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No.
2.	The government is advised that so far as the beds and banks of rivers in the railway belt in the province of British Columbia are Crown property, they are Dominion lands, and may be administered by the Department of Interior.
ROST OFFICE, NEW WESTMINSTER. B.C. Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:
1.	Is the post office at New Westminster about to be placed on the basis of a city office, with appointments to the staff directly from the government rather than from the postmaster?
2.	If so, to whom should applications for employment be addressed, and what endorse-


William Stevens Fielding: ment is required to secure consideration by the department?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1. and 2. No. The office is, however, being changed to a semi-staff basis by which the salaries of the clerks will be paid by the department direct. Applications for employment should be addressed to the Postmaster General. The endorsement required is qualification and ability to do the work of thb office.



STANLEY BARRACKS.

Mr. WALLACE:: If the Baby farm is to be sold, is it the intention of the government to buy other property in or near the city of Toronto on which to build a new barracks in place of Stanley barracks?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Yes.



SOUTH AFRICAN PATRIOTIC FUND.

Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	Has the government any control of the South African Patriotic Fund? If not, who has?
2.	Have any complaints been made to the government that certain persons who are entitled to receive benefit from the fund, have not received any consideration?
3.	Has the government any knowledge of how much was paid into this fund?
4.	What persons have received benefit from this fund, and what amount in each case?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	(a) No. (b) It is controlled by the Canadian Patriotic Fund Association.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The government has no information on this point.



NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada. He said: When, three weeks ago, I had the honour of presenting this Bill to the House, I entertained the hope that by this time my hon. colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr Brodeur), would be sufficiently restored to health to permit him to undertake the duty which now devolves upon me. To my deep regret, this hope has not been fulfilled. It is the misfortune of the House that it has to be deprived of the wealth of information, attention and care which had been accumulated by my hon. colleague in the preparation of this measure and for the exposition of the policy of which it is the expression, from its basic principle to the minutest detail. Perhaps the House will agree with me at the outset that it would not be amiss to cast a retrospective glance

upon the attitude which has been maintained up to the present by the two parties that now stand face to face on this question. In so far as the present government and the Liberal party are concerned, that question arose for the first time at the imperial conference of 1902. At the conference the subject of defence was very carefully discussed. The discussion repealed the fact-which indeed was hot unnatural, which had often taken place before-that between the advisers of His Majesty the King in Great Britain and His Majesty the King in the dominions beyond the seas, there was a divergence of views. The Secretary of State for War requested-or I should say suggested-that the dominions beyond the seas should equip and maintain a body of troops for Imperial service, which, in case of war, would be turned over automatically to the war office. Some of the Dominions, through their representatives, to this agreed; others disagreed, among the latter being Australia and Canada. The Secretary for the Navy suggested-I don't say requested-that the dominions beyond the seas should contribute yearly to the maintenance and equipment of an imperial navy. Most of the dominions there represented to this agreed, but the ministers who represented Canada could not give their assent to this proposition. They gave expression to their views respectively before the conference, and embodied them in a state paper with which the House and the country have long been familiar. They recognized at once the obligation of Canada to relieve to a large extent in so far at all events as the means of Canada would allow-the burden which has hitherto been on the shoulders of the British tax-payer alone. They declared that as Canada increased in wealth and population it would go further in the matter of defence, and that in everything that we would undertake in that direction, whatever might be done would be done in co-operation with the imperial authorities, but always and ever under the control and responsibility of the Canadian authorities, in accordance with our right to self-government in this as in all other matters.
This was in 1902, nearly eight years ago, and for eight years this policy of the present government has been before the country. From this policy the present government has never deviated. This policy we affirmed again at the imperial conference of 1907. We affirmed it again last year in this House when the question came up for concrete and immediate action. This policy is embodied in the Bill now before this House, and by this policy the present government stands or falls. But fall we shall not. This policy is in the best traditions of the Liberal party. This policy is the latest
H	...

[Stage Direction]
link in the long chain of events which following the principles laid down by the Reformers of the old times, Baldwin and Lafontaine, step by step, stage by stage, have brought Canada to the position it now occupies, that is to say, the rank, dignity and status of a nation within the British empire. This policy is the full maturity of the rights asserted, the obligations assumed, by Canada, which inspired the imperial poet whom, after Canada had given a preference in her markets to the products of the mother country, he put in her mouth these proud words:
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own;
The gates are mine to open.
As the gates are mine to close,
And I set my house in order.
Sir, if we adopt to-day this policy, if we have put it in the form in which it is now before the country, it is because we lay it down that Canada is a nation, but a daughter nation of England. Such has been the strong and consistent course of the Liberal party from the time this policy was initiated.
And I may ask now, what has been the policy of the Conservative party? I think I am not offensive or unjust to the Conservative party when I say that upon this question their attitude has been what it is to-day-divided in counsel and divided in action. So far as this House is concerned, our policy more than once has received the assent, at least, the tacit assent, of the members of the Conservative party. It has been more than once reviewed or commented upon, but never challenged or dissented from. Outside of this House it has received the open commendation of the best and most experienced minds in the party. I am bound to say at the same time that it has been censured and criticised - severely censured and severely criticised-by those who within the party boast of their imperialism, who carry abroad upon their foreheads the imperial phylacteries, who boldly walk into the temple and there loudly thank the Lord that thev are not like other British subjects, that they give tithes of everything they possess, and that in them alone is to be found the true incense of loyalty. Was it, Sir, because of the proddings of these very zealous and very officious men that my lion, friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster! brought up this question of imperial defence last year? I know not? But on the first day the House met my hon. friend gave notice of a motion designed to bring the matter in concrete form before parliament and the people. I understood the motion of my hon. friend to be an en-dorsation of the policy which we had always pursued, and in so understanding it I do not think I did him an injustice. I

[Stage Direction]
meant to pay him a compliment. At all events, this is the motion he offered:
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self-help and selfrespect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibilities and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great sea ports.
I repeat that as I construed the language of this motion-unless my hon. friend is a disciple of Tallyrand, who said that language had been given to man to disguise his thoughts-this meant nothing but an en-dorsation of our policy. It was so interpreted on the other side of the House. If we are to believe the tardy disclosure that we heard the other day from my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who told us that this motion created some stir in the ranks of the party, and that he at once had taken the position that he could not support it. Whether it was for this or some other reason, the fact is that my hon. friend from North Toronto, whilst he had been hasty in putting this motion on the notice paper, was very slow to move it.
Mr. FOSTER.: My hon. friend knows exactly the reason why. Will he state it?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know; perhaps my hon. friend will tell me.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend knows quite well that the motion was postponed from time to time because of conference with my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware that my hon. friend-


George Eulas Foster: Then my right hon. friend had better refresh his memory before he makes the statement:


Wilfrid Laurier: Pardon me-I have not finished my sentence. I am not sure that my hon. friend ever spoke to me about it, but if he did, it was simply to suit the convenience of the House, and not because there was on this side any opposition to his motion.


George Eulas Foster: I did not say there was.


Wilfrid Laurier: Neither did I imply anything derogatory of my hon. friend because he postponed moving it. But the fact is that he postponed it for two months; I do not know what the reason was. My hon. friend suggested to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier that if they agreed the matter could be put over.


Mr. MONK.: My right hon. friend's memory is evidently deceiving him in saying I opposed the motion. I stated the Sir WTLFRTD LAURIER.
other day that I thought it was inopportune.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and my hon. friend is still of the same mind. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier thought it inopportune, my hon. friend from North Toronto thought it opportune, many other members on that side of the House thought it opportune, and we on this side of the House all thought it opportune. Be this as it may, it is not worth while having any discussion on this point, why. the motion was not moved at the first opportunity. The fact is that it was not moved for two months, until the 29th of March. At that time the atmosphere had become very much charged with electricity. A debate on the condition of the British navy had taken place in the Imperial House of Commons; attention had been directed to the ' armament going on in Germany, and the news had been flashed across the ocean that New Zealand had made the offer of a Dreadnought to the imperial government Then it was that for the first time, we heard in this House the suggestion, of an offer of a contribution to the imperial navy. That suggestion came from my hon. friend from North Toronto, but it came in a very mild and tentative manner. I will give to the House the very language my hon. friend used on that occasion. This is how he spoke:
To-day peril stands at the gateway. It is not for me to say how great it is, but I cannot brush it aside. To-day it impresses itself upon the greatest statesmen of the old country; to-day it appeals to Australia until public subscriptions are taken, and the government is being importuned to do even more than its settled policy to meet the emergency; to-day little New Zealand gives one Dreadnought and offers a second, and to-day Canada faces that position of peril and emergency. Let me say to my right hon. friend, that if after careful consideration he proposes to this parliament a means for meeting that emergency adequately, now and as it should be, whether it be by the gift of Dreadnoughts or the gift of money of this country, this side of the House will stand beside him, and stand for Canada in supporting that measure.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. -


Wilfrid Laurier: This was not very effective language coming from my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), it was not as incisive as his sentences generally are. I do not think he had yet found his sea legs. My hon. friend spoke rather tentatively, simply suggesting a contribution, and adding that if we proposed it he would agree. We did not think it was advisable to depart from the policy we had laid down. We said that we wmuld maintain the position we had taken, and after some consideration the

House agreed by a unanimous resolution upon the line of our policy of 1902, and in order that there may be no misgivings or misunderstandings upon that, in view of the cheers from the other side a moment ago, I shall once again read this motion:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the- most loyal and heart / co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.
When this resolution was moved, and accepted by a unanimous vote, we believed that it would be binding upon the other side of the House as it is binding upon this side, but in this we made a mistake. We supposed when this resolution had been solemnly adopted, gentlemen on the other side of the House who had given their assent would at least have the small merit of consistency, but in this we were deceived. It never entered our minds that men on the other side of the House would go back on the opinion they had solemnly recorded. In this again we made a mistake. We paid them too great a compliment. The session had hardly closed when the terms of this resolution were attacked and challenged by gentlemen who had voted for it, attacked in the press, attacked in conversation with reporters, attacked on the public platform. Thus the summer went on, everybody, almost, on the other side spoke upon this resolution, discussed it and controverted it. The leader spoke, his first lieutenant spoke, the rank and file spoke, and they all spoke together and all spoke differently, their fiddles were singularly out of tune.
This was the condition of things when this House met on the eleventh of November and we were the witnesses of a curious spectacle. The men who had been so loquacious during the recess suddenly bem
came dumb, the men who had discussed and debated this resolution, the moment they passed that bar yonder, the moment they came into this House at the time and place appointed for debate, became as mute as oysters. With a demure face and without a smile they told us they could not debate or discuss this question until they knew what had taken place at the conference at London, until they had all the papers, although during the recess, without knowing what had taken place at the conference, without having the papers, their nimble tongues had been wagging, wagging, wagging, in all the tones of the gamut, and in resonant cacophony. Thi3 sudden prudence and caution after so much extravagance of language did not deceive anybody; it was very transparent, although a somewhat clumsy attempt to hide the difficulty which, it had been apparent to all observers, would meet them as soon as they came together. When they were talking among themselves, one here and one there, one in Alberta, the other in Winnipeg, one in Toronto and one in Quebec, they could all sneak differently, each one trying to appeal to the passions and feelings of his immediate audience; but when they came here they had to try to speak to the country, and speaking to the country, they had to speak something at all events like unanimous language. There was the difficulty.	Hence the
silence, hence the demand for papers, and in the meantime they met and deliberated. They deliberated in the morning, they met in the evening and again deliberated and the result of their meetings and their deliberations, if we are to credit the reports in opposition newspapers, although they are not always the most reliable, was the appointment of a committee with the object of trying to frame a policy, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, trying to find a platform or something on which the bold lion from East Grey and the gentle lamb from Jacques Cartier could roar and bleat in unison. The task was rather a difficult one and how far the committee succeeded we know by what took place within three weeks, when this Bill was introduced for the first time. Three members of the opposition then spoke and all three spoke differently. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). if I understood his speech aright and I think I did, agreed to the principle of this Bill, but thought it did not go far enough. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) there was no hesitation as to what he meant, he is opposed to this Bill and to everything of that kind. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) also spoke; I do not know that, I exactly apprehend his meaning, but

I think he was not so very sure of his ground and he wanted to have a referendum.
Sir, the result of all this is plain: on the other side we have a House divided against itself. At one end we have the negative extremists represented by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. *On the other end we have affirmative extremists, those who desire a navy, but an imperial navy to be maintained by contributions from the self-governing dominions, those who believe that if we have a navy it should pass automatically, in time of war, under the jurisdiction of the admiralty; those who believe one project of a navy is not sufficient, that we should also vote an emergency contribution.
Sir, all these forms of opinion are simply different forms of a respectable, though misguided, imperialism. And it is to that view I wish to address myself at first, If I may say so,-if I may be permitted to speak of myself personally-I d-o not pretend to be an imperialist. Neither do I pretend to be an anti-imperialist. I am a Canadian, first, last and all the time. I am a British subject, by birth, by tradition, by conviction-by the conviction that under British institutions my native land has found a measure of security and freedom which it could not have found under any other regime. I want to speak from that double standpoint, for our policy is an expression of that double opinion. Let me say at once to gentlemen who differ from me, to those who pretend to be imperialists, to those who pretend that the British empire must be the first consideration that, in my judgment, the policy which we advocate, the policy which I have the honour to place before the House at this moment, is in better keeping with the true spirit upon which the British empire was founded, upon which it exists, and upon only which it can continue to exist. There is a difference of opinion upon this, and it is to this difference of opinion that I desire to address myself at this moment, This is not the first time in history that men who have conceived a new idea and have felt very strongly upon it have made a sad failure when they have attempted to cany it into effect. Peter the Hermit preached the first crusade, and his voice aroused Europe. Under the influence of his impassioned words, men abandoned their avocations and took up arms for the deliverance of the tomb of the Saviour from Mohammedan desecration. But Peter the Hermit proved to be a most unfortunate leader. Thousands of men flocked to his banner, but the eloquent preacher was unable to direct their movements. Under his direction, the expedition of which he was in command moved on from disaster to Sir WILFRID LATTRIER.
disaster. And so it is with the shortsighted men who believe that their policy of centralization would unite the British empire. Mark the difference. Their policy is centralization; our policy is autonomy. And let the tale of the past tell the tale of the future. Sir, of all the phenomena of history, I do not know any that carries with it a greater lesson than the existence of the British empire, composed of young nations scattered all over the earth, with no force binding them, but attached to the motherland simply by their own devotion. If, in the days of the Emperor Augustus, when Rome had reached the summit of her power, when after generations of conflict that empire had at last reached a condition of peace, when her dominions extended all over the basin of the Mediterranean, but when thirty legions were necessary and were kept moving all the time from one end of the empire to another to keep in subjection rebellious races-if then some one had said to the strong Roman statesmen of that day: The time will come when the small island of Britain, now the most distant of Rome's possessions, will itself establish an empire which will extend to the confines of the earth and will be maintained, not by force but by a new principle discovered by her people, the principle that government must rest on the consent of the governed, these great Roman statesmen would have laughed at the idea; they would have said: That is Utopia; force and force alone, can build and maintain an empire. If, without going so far back, we go no further back in history than the first year of the reign of the late queen when Upper Canada annd Lower Canada were in the throes of rebellion, if some one had then said the day will come when these two provinces, now kept in subjection and obedience by force of arms, will reject force, will become obedient and devoted subjects, and will extend the Dominion of the Queen from ocean to ocean- the answer would have been that it was the maddest of all conceptions. Well, Six, this maddest of all conceptions has become the reality of the present day. And now. Sir, I pause to ask: What is the principle, what is the inspiration, what is the one thing that quelled rebellion in Canada, that brought Canada to the position that she occupies to-day ?-what is the principle, the inspiration which has made Australia what it is, which has made New Zealand what it is, and which to-day, in South Africa, torn by war only ten years ago, is building up a nation undei the British flag? What is it, but the principle of autonomy, the principle of self-government? Yes, it was when Lord Durham, speaking from Canada, then still in the throes of civil war, said that the only manner in which the colonies could be kept loyal and

devoted was to give them self-government- it was then that the principle was announced upon which the British empire is founded. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) the other day, in his speech on the first reading of this Bill, said that the British empire is of recent date. He is right, it is of recent date ; the date was the day when the principle was adopted of self-government for the colonies. Consider, for a moment, what would be the position of Canada if we had continued to be governed, as we were in 1837, simply by irresponsible ministers in Downing street-irresponsible,
I mean, to the people of this country? Should we have content, devotion, loyalty? No, we should have to-day what we had then-discontent, and dangerous dissatisfaction. Sir. the history of all countries which have had colonies is the same, with the exception of Britain in the nineteenth century. In every case there arose in the colonies a class of different interests from that of the mother country; the mother country would not yield; discontent crept in and led at last to estrangement. Lord Durham was the first statesman of all the ages to recognize this truth. And he proclaimed it boldly. And bolder yet was the remedy he suggested-give to the colonies the same rights and privileges and powers as are exercised by British men in their own islands, the power to govern themselves according to their own rules and notions The conclusion of Lord Durham was so strong that there was nobody to combat it. But it was so much at variance with the practice of all the ages that there was no one to apply it. When the constitution of 1841 was ostensibly established upon the report of Lord Durham, there was no acknowledgment of the principle of self-government, and the instructions eiven bv Lord John Russell to Mr. Poulett Thomson, the first governor under the new system, was to govern, not according to the views of ministers responsible to the people but in the manner directed by himself alone. And this is the manner in which Poulett Thomson carried out his instructions. In a letter to a friend he said:
I am not a bit afraid of the responsible government cry. I have already done much to put it down in its inadmissible sense; namely, the demand that the council shall be responsible to the assembly, and that the governor shall take their advice, and be bound by it. In fact, this demand has been made much more for the people than by them.
It was not until there was sent from England a man as broad in genius as Lord Durham himself-Lord Elgin-that, with the assistance of Baldwin and Lafontaine, we
had responsible government in this country. And it was from that date that the British empire started upon its triumphant march across the ages. I again pause to ask: When these great men, Durham, Elgin, Lafontaine and Baldwin, laid down the principle of responsible government in this country, did they set a limit upon its potentiality ? No, they launched it out, untrammelled and unfettered, to inclose the earth in a bond of union and liberty. They did not tell the people that the principle could be trusted for a certain distance, but that it would have to be abandoned the moment they came to the ultimate result of its operation.
But now we are told that in matters of naval defence we are to abdicate the principle of responsible government; we are told that we can have responsible government in everything else, we can make our own laws, we can administer our own affairs, and even have control of our land forces, but that in matters of naval defence we should have no powers of our own. I need not say that this principle is one to which we on this side of the House cannot agree. We are told that the only way in which naval defence can be carried on is by contributions to the imperial navy. I have to submit that this idea of contribution seems to me repugnant to the genius of our British institutions; it smacks too much of tribute to be acceptable by British communities. The true conception of the British empire is the conception of new, growing, strong and wealthy nations, each one developing' itself on the line of its own needs and conditions, but all joining in the case of common danger, and from all points of the earth, rushing upon the common enemy. But, Sir, the point is no longer arguable. The point has bepn settled at the last conference.
Many and many a time upon the floor of this House, in the press of this country, we have been assailed, and our action has been compared with the action of Australia, who, in 1902, agreed to give a contribution for the maintenance of the imperial navy. But, Sir, let us look and see what has recently taken place in Australia. Australia has abandoned the position it took in 1902, and it has come to the position taken by Canada. Australia to-day, like Canada, is building a fleet of her own. And, Sir, there is something still more significant; it is not Australia which is paying a contribution to Great Britain for the purposes of the Australian navy, it is Great Britain which is paying a contribution to Australia for that purpose. Need I say more? All the best men, even in the ranks of the Conservative party, who have given any attention to this question have come to the way of


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can it be that there are men in this House so lost to the sense of responsible government that they will deny such a proposition? Let me illustrate my point by history. I appeal to history and I trust that I will be able to satisfy every hon. gentleman in this House. During the nineteenth century England has been more than once threatened with war. In 1861 she was nearly at war with the United States-luckily Providence averted it-when the United States ship 'San Jacinto' took from a British mail steamer the two delegates, Slidell land Mason, who had been sent to Europe as the agents of the southern confederacy. It was an act of war on the part of the United States, so interpreted and rightly interpreted, but luckily the United States gave way and war was averted, If war had been declared immediately we would have been drawn into it and it would have been our duty at once not only to defend our territory but to help England in that
struggle. There was another instance. England was at war in the Crimea with Russia. For myself I do not hesitate to say that if that war were to be undertaken by England under similar circumstances, I would hesitate very much before I would give my consent that we should take part in any such war if conditions were the same as they were then. But, they are not the same now as they were then because at the present time we have British Columbia to look afteT and if war were declared between Great Britain and Russia our first duty would be to look after British Columbia which might be attacked by Russia from the Pacific ocean.
I am well aware that for expressing the opinion which I did express the other day and which I repeat on the floor of this House I have shocked many and many a good Conservative mind. I was accused of treason. Charges of treason are familiar to me. I have heard them in my own province time and again, and I have heard them in the province of Ontario. Charges of treason are very easily manufactured. The other day I was speaking in Toronto. I was saying that we were British subjects, subjects of His Majesty the King, and in speaking of the sovereignty of the King I called in the use of the word suzerain and in doing this I find that I shocked many a tender soul. I shocked the tender soul of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) for one. When reviewing my speech a few days afterwards, he spoke as follows:
Some rather foolish, even mischievous talk, has been indulged along these lines. It has been asserted that we have wrested our fiscal autonomy, our political autonomy, even our naval autonomy, from Britain, and the latest addition is practically our autonomy in our international relations. After this, all we have to do in bowing our knee and saluting King Edward is to call him, not sovereign, but suzerain. It is a mistake which creates false impressions.
If these utterances are merely for the sake of rhetorical adornment they are but foolish. If, however, they are studied and serious, they are revolutionary. We cannot have absolute autonomy in any of these and remain in the empire.
Well, is my hon. friend in this, merely playing on syllables? If I had said ' sovereign ' that was all perfectly loyal, but I said ' suzerain ' and that smacks of disloyalty ! Sir, I am sorry to say to my hon. friend that I rather rubbed my eyes when I saw his criticism. I do not pretend to be a master of the English language, but I think I know something of it, and I have always understood that if there is any difference between ' sovereignty ' and ' suzerainty ' it is merely a shadow a.nd that it is used by men of greatest eminence indif-

ferently as applying to the same condition of things. I am sorry that I have to ask my hon. friend to brush up his classics. Would he be satisfied with the authority of Sir Walter Scott? Would Sir Walter Scott satisfy his literary aestheticism, or would he be satisfied that Sir Walter was sufficient of a Tory not to harrow his imperial soul? Let me ask my hon. friend, as I said a moment ago, to brush up his classics. Let me ask him to read again ' Quentin Durward' and he will find on the same page Sir Walter Scott using the expression ' sovereign ' and ' suzerain ' as applying to the same condition of things and to the same man. In the thirty-fifth chapter of ' Quentin Durward' my hon. friend will find that Lady Isabelle, addressing the Duke of Burgundy, uses this language :
' My lord, duke and sovereign/ said Lady Isabelle, summoning up all her courage, ' I observe your Grace's commands, and submit to them.' . . . ' My submission.' she said,
' only respected those lands and estates which your Grace's ancestors gave to mine, and which I resign to the house of Burgundy, if my sovereign thinks my disobedience in this matter renders me unworthy to hold them.'
Again:
, ' ^ Lord, ' she replied, still undismayed,
1 am before my Suzerain, and, I trust, a just one.'
I think that after this I can be freed from the hypercritical fastidiousness of my hon. friend both in point of philology and imperialism.


George Eulas Foster: Will you let me see the Durward ' extract?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. The great mistake which is made by those imperialists of the school of my hon. friend is to confound the condition which exists in Great Britain with that which prevails in the colonies. England belongs to the circle of nations which is known as the European concert, it is one of the four or five nations of Europe that are always watching one another. There are no public works to carry on there, and she can devote herself and her resources to armaments. But, the colonies are not in that condition. Our chief consideration is public works, to develop the resources of our country, and therefore I say that this is a mistake which should not be made by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House? They are not the first ones to make that mistake. England made the same mistake in the eighteenth century when she tried to force the American colonies to contribute to her armament by taxation. They protested, but their protests were not heeded, They protested again and at last, though they were a loyal population, they were driven to distraction and they Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
severed the tie that connected them with the mother country. Benjamin Franklin was one of the leaders of the movement in the colonies at that day, yet it is on record that he was a most devoted loyalist. He went to England to try and prevent the mischievous course which was being followed by the British government, but his visit was to no purpose. He was heard before the bar of the House of Commons. There the question was put to him whether or not, in case of war the colonies would contribute to assisting England and this is what he answered:
I do think they would so far as their circumstances would permit. They consider themselves as part of the British empire, and as having one common interest with it. They may be looked on in here (in London) as foreigners, but they do not consider themselves as such. They are zealous for the honour and prosperity of this nation; aDd while they are well used, will always be ready to support it, as far as their little power goes.
If I quote this language, it is not because there is complete analogy between the conditions which exist to-day in the selfgoverning colonies of Great Britain and that which existed in her American colonies of that day. There is no danger to-day that England would impose taxation on her colonies without representation, or _ that her colonies would go into rebellion, but I read this because there are men here, who, like the Bourbons, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing, and who go not appreciate the present conditions existing between England and her colonies.
There is another point to which I should give some attention. Great objection has been taken in the province of Quebec because there is in this Bill a provision, that, in an emergency the Governor in Council may call out the fleet and put it at the disposal of the War Office. Section 18 is in these words:
In case of an emergency the Governor General in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal navy the naval service or any part thereof, sj"1Ps or vessels of the naval service, and the oihcers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belong-in" to the naval service.
Section 19 is in these words;
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 issue for a meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the dav appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit m like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.

Great objection has been taken in my province because the power is there given the Governor in Council to call out the fleet before summoning parliament. It is said that this is a derogation from the rights of parliament and that parliament should exercise its control first. Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious. The conditions may be such that the government may be forced to take immediate action. Parliament will be called immediately to approve or disapprove, but the conditions may be such as to compel us, without the loss of a minute, to avail ourselves of all our resources in order to come to the rescue of a part of the country which might be threatened. British Columbia, for instance, is exposed to attack from the Orient. I do not think there is any danger at present, because British diplomacy has secured us an alliance vith Japan. Nor do I think there is any reason to fear an attack from Russia, because Russia has been crippled by her war with Japan. But all these things may change. Japan, may cease to be an ally, Russia may recover her strength; and if we have to wait until parliament meets before we can act in conjunction with the British forces, the results may be disastrous. Circumstances may be such as to force us to do what Japan did-strike the enemy before the enemy strikes us.
I now come to the composition of our fleet. Here again we have not had the good luck to satisfy our friends opposite. It is said in the press, and no doubt will be repeated here, that we should have followed the advice of the admiralty and put a fleet unit on the Pacific ocean. Is there a man who will blame us because we said to the admiralty that we could not agree to put all our forces on the Pacific ocean, that we have also a large sea-board on the Atlantic and must divide our forces between the two. But we are asked why did you consent to such an insignificant navy as the one you propose. Well, we thought it prudent, for reasons I shall explain in a moment, to commence moderately. Two plans were proposed to us. One was to have a fleet of seven ships and another a fleet of eleven ships. The seven ships were to be composed of three Bristols and four destroyers; the eleven were to be composed of four Bristols, one Boadicoa and six destroyers. For the reason that we have to protect our coasts on the Pacific and the Atlantic and consequently to divide our fleet, we thought it better to have eleven rather than seven ships. In this we acted on the advice of the admiralty. Still we are blamed because we are not to have an armoured cruiser of the ' Dreadnought ' type. Perhaps I can quote an authority on this point which will satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite. Those staunch imperialists will
not be satisfied unless we have a ' Dreadnought ' in our navy. While that view i3 respectable, it does not compare with the opinion of a competent man qualified to speak on the question. I am sure every one will agree that I could not quote a better authority than the old tar, Lord Charles Beresford-as good a sea-man as there is in the British navy. In an interview published in the ' Times ' of last summer, Lord Charles Beresford said:
His view of the situation was that our great Dominions could best help us, not by spending two millions on battleships to serve in British waters, but by making proposals for defending themselves.
But he questioned the wisdom of their putting money into torpedo vessels and submarines and sending a large amount over here to build a battleship, the life of which was only twenty years, with luck, and might be only twenty months. If they invested two millions in home defence, and in having cruisers which could go out and protect their trade routes, he thought it would be a better investment than in helping to defend the shores of this country.
That, Sir, is what we are doing under this Bill. In another interview, also in the ' Times,' Sir Charles Beresford spoke as follows:
For the colonies, cruisers are much better, as the idea of protecting Britain and weakening the defence of the colonies is all wrong.
These were the reasons which actuated us, and I think they are of such a character as will command the approval of this House.
With regard to our scheme, as I stated on the first reading, it is our intention to build eleven ships-four Bristols, one Boadicea and six destroyers. I have given the character of these ships. It is our intention to have them, if possible, built in this country. That will cost a little more and we are prepared to pay a little more provided the difference is not extravagant. We intend to call for tenders as soon as this Bill becomes law, in order to see whether we can have this plant put in this country with the view of building these ships. I have been asked also how long it would take. I must say that I am not able to-day to give these details; I shall be better informed when we come to the committee stage. My colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has been unwell, and I have not been permitted, to have as many interviews with him as I could wish; but giving the matter the best attention that I can, I may say that it would take probably one year to complete a plant for building the ships in this country, and then probably four years to complete these eleven ships. As I said at the first reading of the Bill, the cost of these ships would be a little over $11,000,000, and the total cost of mainten-

ance, including upkeep of hulls, machinery, sea stores, fuel, interest and depreciation is estimated at $4,253,000.


George Eulas Foster: I did not understand my right hon. friend clearly. Do I understand him to say that it will take one year to construct a plant which will be sufficient to build this fleet, and then four years to complete the vessels?


Wilfrid Laurier: That I understand.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister gives that to the House, of course, as sufficiently certain, to base the judgment of the House upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not say that.


George Eulas Foster: That is what we really want.


Wilfrid Laurier: It would be difficult to give more than an approximate idea upon that until we know exactly the proposition made to us. Then we can speak accurately. I give these figures as the result of the best inquiry I can make, no more.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the authority upon whom my right hon. friend depends?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot give that to my hon. friend to-day.


George Eulas Foster: We might get into the same difficulty we did in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. We want to avoid that, if possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is no doubt a laudable object; but I am sure that my hon. friend himself would not regret the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific even if it cost more than it has, and I think perhaps it will be the same with the navy.


George Eulas Foster: I would not have my right hon. friend take silence as consent. I am altogether opposed to that view. Can he tell what the plant which would be suitable to construct these vessels would probably cost?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not able to give my hon. friend more information than I am giving to-day, I am discussing this matter from a general point of view. When we come to the committee stage, I will endeavour to satisfy his curiosity as to these details.
Mr. W-. F. MACLEAN. May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? The interpretation clause of the Bill says that ' emergency means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended.' If it requires one year -to construct the plant and four years to construct the navy, what would he Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
do if such an emergency arose in the meantime?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think, Mr. Speaker, we are getting pretty far from the question we have in hand just now.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? It is simply this:	does that plant include machinery
for the manufacture of guns and machinery? -because seventy per cent of the cost of these ships consists of guns and machinery.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think ships and guns are different things. But I am only at present giving a general outline of the policy; I do not think the details are a part of the present discussion oil the second reading of the Bill; they can all be asked for in Committee of the House. I may say that it is the intention of the government to establish a new department for this service-not under a different minister, but to have a deputy minister charged with the duty of looking after this naval expenditure and this naval construction. On this point I will give further explanations when we are in committee.
There is one other observation I should make. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in the -course of his observations the other day, if I understood him aright, whilst approving of the principle of this measure, thought it did not go far enough, but that we should also make an emergency contribution on account of the apprehended danger to Great Britain from Germany. I do not know whether I have apprehended rightly the position taken by my hon. friend on this point. I think I did. At all events, if he did not take this position, it has been taken very generally by the press of the country speaking for the other side of the House. For my part, I do not see any cause of danger to Great Britain at the present time. Let me say further that if Great Britain were engaged in such a contest, a wave of enthusiasm to assist her would sweep over this country and all other British countries. It is true, Germany is creating a navy, but I see no reason whatever for supposing that Germany is creating a navy for the purpose of attack or that England is increasing her navy for the purpose of attacking Germany. The fact is that all the nations of Europe at the present time are arming: England is arming, Germany is arming, France is arming, Austria is arming; but I do not believe any of these nations is arming with any intention of attacking its neighbour, but all are arming simply because they are afraid that they will be attacked by one of their neighbours. I was impressed by one statement of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, though I do not share in the conclusions which he implied from it. He said that if wrar came between England and

Germany, it would come within the next three or four years. I have not been able to get any satisfactory answer to this query: what is the reason for supposing that war *from Germany is to come within the next three or four years? Germany commenced to build a fleet in 1900; but, a3 my bon. friend rightly said, no European nation, commencing with nothing, as Germany has done, can create a fleet inside of fifteen or twenty years. If that be so, it is not to be expected that Germany will be in a position to attack England within the next three or four years. What will be the position of things in 1912? The figures of comparison between the German and British navies will be as follows; The total tonnage of displacement of the British navy will be 20,000,000 tons, and that of the Germany navy 890,000 tons, a difference of 1,100,000 tons. Under such circumstances danger is not to be apprehended within three or four years. Moreover, I call attention to this fact. No one knows exactly what is in the minds of the German government, but everybody knows that between the people of England and the people of Germany there is no cause of war. They have always been fast friends so far back as contemporary history goes. In the Seven Years' war England and Prussia were fast allies ; in the Napoleonic wars Germany and England were fast allies. And there is another feature; democracy is coming to the front in all the countries of the world, and all the democracy of the world is opposed to war, because it is well known that war falls upon the masses of the people. War may come, I do not say it will not come, but I was impressed by a statement made the other day by my hon. friend opposite. He stated that England had subsidized the nations of Europe time and again to enable them to defend their liberty or their independence, or their autonomy against foreign aggression. England subsidized Prussia under Frederick the Great, when Prussia was engaged against France and Austria in the Seven Years' war. England subsidized all the nations of Europe during the Napoleonic war when all the nations of Europe were defending their autonomy, their independence, against the Colossus. She was able to do so, why? Because, of all the nations of Europe, England was the nation which had spent least upon armaments. She had never spent any of her resources as thei other nations did, purely upon her armies, she had extended her trade and her commerce, she had developed her resources, and in time of war she was able to assist other nations with money, which, as we know, is the nerve and sinew of war. Napoleon, in a fit of anger, called England a nation of shop-keepers. No higher compliment was ever paid to England than this, if it were meant as an insult, because it was
these same shopkeepers who grappled with the Colossus and were able to bring him down and make him bite the dust. For Canada, for my country, I would desire no better title than also to be called a nation of shop-keepers-and to be able to supply the~sinews of war.
Sir, up to this moment I have endeavoured to meet the arguments of those who in this controversy say that our policy is wanting in the duty which we, as part of the British empire, owe to England. But, Sir, there are also on the other side of the House those who arraign our policy because, as they say, we sacrifice by it the interests of our native land to the interests of the empire. There are the two extremes, they are there, sitting together, side by side, cheek by jowl, blowing hot and .cold.
I have endeavoured up to the present time to deal with those who blow hot; let me try a word now with those who blow cold. Need I say that this applies chiefly to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and to those who think with him upon this question. The policy which they have taken in the province of Quebec is that our attitude at the present time is uncalled for and unnecessary, that it is a surprise upon the country, that we never had a mandate to carry it on. Sir, is it possible that such an argument is heard in this House? Have these men been asleep for eight years? Are they Rip Van Winkles? Must I call their attention to the policy we laid down, which has been communicated to this House and to the people and which for eight years has been before the people of this^ country? At the conference of 1902 we laid this paper before the conference;
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval side of defence as well.
On the sea coasts of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of those men, and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion the ministers repeat that while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purpose of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that those expenditures shall be so directed as to relieve the tax-payer of the mother country from some of the burdens which he now bears, and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of experienced imperial officers, so far as is consistent with the principle of local self-government which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.

This paper has been before Canada for the last eight years, and we are told in the province of Quebec that this policy of ours is a new departure. Canada has progressed since 1902. We stated in 1902 that, as Canada advanced in wealth and population, we would advance in our defences. The population of Canada in 1902 was 5,400,000 souls; the population of Canada in 1910 is at least 7,400,000 souls. The revenue of Canada in 1902 was $58,000,000; the revenue of Canada in 1910 is at least $100,000,000. We, therefore, think that the time has come when, as was stated in 1902, we should take a step forward, and this is what we are doing. Upon this men can differ, although in my opinion they should not differ; but to tell us that this is something unheard of, a new policy, is simply trifling with common sense. But, Sir, that is not all. They took another position, that the naval service is absolutely uncalled for and unnecessary. Why do we ask parliament to vote for this naval service? It is simply because it is a necessity of our condition and the status we have reached as a nation. Do these gentlemen forget that, as I stated a moment ago, the revenue of Canada is today $100,000,000, and the population over
7,000,000? Do they forget that our country extends from one ocean to the other, and from the American boundary to the Arctic ocean, not on the map only but in actual and ever-increasing settlements? Do they forget that there are growing up on the Pacific coast, cities fast approaching in strength and wealth, eastern cities, that Vancouver to-day has a population of 100,000, that Victoria has a population of 40,000? Do they forget that Prince Rupert is also fast advancing to the front? Do they forget that we are going to build a railway from the interior to Hudson bay? Do they forget that we have gold mines under the Arctic circle? Do they forget that Canada is expanding like a young giant, simply from the pressure of the blood in its young veins? Are we to be told under such circumstances that we do not require a naval service? Why, Sir, you might just as well tell the people of Montreal, with their half million population, that they do not need any police protection.
But that is not all, there is something coming yet, and the position is taken by gentlemen on the other side of the House, speaking in the province of Quebec, that we are not to risk one man or one dollar for the maintenance, the preservation of British supremacy on the high seas. We took the position last year that we should endeavour and we would endeavour to maintain British supremacy on the high seas. We are told m the province of Quebec that we are not to risk one dollar or one man in order to carry out this object. Sir, I have only to say Sir WILFRID LADRIER.
this, that this service will not be compulsory. No one on the other side of the House, no one in any part of the country will be bound to serve in this navy of ours, it will be the free will of any body who wishes to risk his life for his King-it is his privilege, and who will deny it to him? Those who object will not have to lift a finger if that fleet is called out. Their part will be simply to enjoy the security, the ease, the comfort, gained for them by the sacrifice of other and better men. We are told that we should not risk one dollar for such a purpose. Sir, if it be the will and wish of the parliament of this country that this navy of ours should engage in war, whose liberty will be affected by it, whose right jeopardized, whose privilege interfered with? This is a constitutional country and the majority have the right to speak and to dispose, and it is the part of the minority to agree and to accept, unless, of course, rights, privileges and liberties are interfered with; but there is no question in this policy that any man's liberty will be interfered with or his rights endangered.
There will be Canadians of French descent in that fleet. And if, which God forbid, this fleet should ever engage in war, my hope is-nay my certainty is-that these men will fight for the King of England, as their ancestors fought against the King of England when under the gallant Montcalm they repelled attack after attack, when, in the summer of 1759, they kept at bay for three long months on the rock of Quebec the flower of the British army and the flower of the British navy under the command of the young hero, Wolfe. Later, on this same rock of Quebec, they fought for the King of England against American invasion. And. still later, on the banks of the Chateaueuav river, they fought under that true soldier, Salaberry, to keep the flag of England floating over their homes. All these many events have had their part in making my country what it is. And now, when I review the long conflicts between the French and the English, I follow the events without any sense of shame or humiliation. For history attests that my ancestors fought with all the prowess of their race, a prowess equal to that of their opponents; and, if they lost, they lost because England was at that time under the leadership of one of the ablest men of that generation, the first William Pitt, whereas France was under the influence of the King's mistress. My ancestors lost on that occasion, but -it simply transferred their allegiance from one sovereign to another. They lost in the final the battle, but they did not lose anything of their independence, of their liberty, of their rights and privileges ; and to-day the sun in his daily career

does not shed its light upon any people on the face of the earth enjoying more liberty than my fellow countrymen of French extraction. And my last words to the doubters, to the scoffers, is that freedom is worth fighting for and worth dying for.
But, Sir, these men will not be reached by any noble sentiment; perhaps we can reach them by appealing to their selfish interests; perhaps they will be found sensitive in their pockets if they are not sensitive otherwise. What would be the condition of Canada to-day, and of the province of Quebec in particular, if England were to lose the supremacy of the seas? Canada to-day is a prosperous country. Quebec is a very prosperous province; but is not that prosperity due to our trade with England? Let the market of Great Britain be lost-and it would be lost if the British supremacy on the sea were lost-and the prosperity * of Canada and the prosperity of Quebec would be affected for years, if not for ever.
Sir, in the settlement of political problems it is very seldom that a solution can be reached on pure abstract principles. When a conclusion is arrrived at, it is reached by taking into consideration several points of view and a common ground lias to be found upon which the different schools of thought, the different prejudices and passions, and the different shades of public opinion can be united. That is true everywhere, it is truer in Canada perhaps, than in any other portion of the earth. I stated a moment ago that it was the report of Lord Durham which had been the foundation of the system of local self-government. It may be considered a singular fact that the report of Lord Durham was received bv the French Canadians of that day with pained surprise. The reason is known to those who have studied the history of that period. Friend of liberty as he was, broad as he was in his conceptions, far-\ isioned as events showed him to have been, Lord Durham himself did not appreciate the whole effect of liberal institutions. Coming to Canada at a time when the very atmosphere was reeking with rebellion, he formed a hasty judgment unon the French population of that day, which he expressed in vehement and somewhat haughty language. He thought they could not be reconciled to British rule, and stated in his report that the conditions were such that the two provinces should be united, so that French Canada should be ruled by the stem and relentless hand of an English-speaking majority. It is not to be wondered at that when the report was made known in Canada it not only caused, as I have said, pained surprise, but produced a feeling of injustice and wrong. Sir, I repeat that Lord Durham, friend of liberty as he was, did not realize
the full force of free institutions, did not perceive, as other men perceived at that time-men who, on this subject had a better conception of things than he had- that there are principles superior to race feeling, that there are principles that can unite men or all origins in a common aspiration for the welfare of their common country. Such a man was Louis Hippolyte La-fontaine; such a man was Robert Baldwin. When the provinces were united, Lafon-taine, speaking of the Act of union, characterized it:
As unjust and despotic in this that it was imposed on us without our consent; in this that it deprives loner Canada of its legitimate number of representatives; in this that it deprives us of the use of our language in the proceedings of the legislature against the justice of treaties and the pledged word c.1 the Governor General; in this that it forces us to pay against our consent, a debt which one had not contracted; in this that it allows the executive power to take illegal hold, under the name of civil list, of an enormous portion of the revenues of the country.
This was a severe arraignment, and unfortunately it was only too true, but what was the conclusion arrived at by Lafon-taine? Did he say that the French Canadians should not accept the Act of union? No. Men there were at that time who im mediately started an agitation for the repeal of the union, and those men were joined some years afterwards, when he came back from exile, by Papineau, a strong man, an eloquent man, a man of intense nature, and whom the very intensity of his nature always carried beyond the point into impracticable conclusions. La-font aine was a different man, he was a broad man, he understood the situation. .The Act of union was not satisfactory to his fellow-countrymen, he thought it was an injustice, but he accepted it, because principles there were by which every injustice could be rectified. It is upon those principles, Mr. Speaker, that we rely. In the address which I have just read, addressed to the electors of Terrebonne, he continued as follows:
The reformers in the two provinces are an immense majority. . . . Our cause is the same. The interest of the reformers in the two provinces is to meet in the legislative ground, in a spirit of peace, of union, of unity, of fraternity. Unity of action is more than ever necessary. I have no doubt that the reformers of Upper Canada, feel, as we do, the need of it, and that in the first session of the legislature, they will give us unequivocal proof of it, which, I hone, will be the pledge of a confidence both reciprocal and durable.
Sir, in these noble sentiments he found an auxiliary in that other great and true Canadian and British subject, Robert Bald-

win. The confidence which he had looked for, he found; it turned out to be as he expected. It wras not only reciprocal and durable. Above all it was fruitful. That policy obtained for the French-Canadians the restoration of the rights of which they had been deprived by the act of unions; it removed the dissensions, which up to that time, had rent the land; it introduced amity and concord among the different races and branches of the Canadian family; it established a permanent and ever-growing prosperity; it increased loyalty to the Crown and brought it to its highest pitch of enthusiasm and devotion; it brought up Canada, step by step, stage by stage, to the high position which it occupies at this moment; and as I said at the beginning, so I say in conclusion, this is the last and crowning effort of the policy which was then happily inaugurated. Sir, we must advance, we icannot remain stationary. We must advance. To remain stationary in this age is to retrograde; we must advance. And again on this occasion, as in the days of Lafontaine and Baldwin, we appeal to moderate men in all parts of the community. We appeal as they did appeal, in a spirit of amity, of union, of fraternity; we appeal, as they appealed, in the highest conception of the duty which we owe to our country and to the mother country. It is the tradition of these great men, which is our supreme inspiration to day in turning this page of the history of Canada.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I join most sincerely in the regret which has been expressed bv the Prime Minister at the continued illness of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, which prevents him from addressing the House upon the second reading of this Bill. However, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has taken up that task. He has addressed to the House a very long speech, more than three-fourths of which had absolutely nothing to do with the subject which is now occupying the attention of the House and of the country. The right hon. gentleman seems to think, for some reason, that this is the year 1837. This is not the year 1837, and we are not engaged to-day in a discussion as to whether this country shall have autonomous rights and privileges. That question was settled 75 years ago. It is significant that when my right hon. friend finds himself in circumstances of peculiar difficulty with his own party, he always goes back to the days of 1837, and quotes to us, not only from the speeches of Lord Durham, but from the eloquent orations of Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin. It is an old piece of tactics on the part of my right hon. friend, and I sincerely condole with him Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.
to-day in the circumstances in which he finds himself. Why, Sir, he told us in the first place, that he had an absolutely united party behind him; and then, not very long afterwards, we found him dealing at great length with criticisms which had been made upon his course in the province of Quebec, and presumably from members of his own party.
The right hon. gentleman has seen fit to introduce a great subject most profoundly affecting, not only Canada, but the whole empire, in a highly controversial and partisan spirit. He has indulged in what he calls a retrospective glance, accompanied by observations more or less dignified as to the supposed divisions in the ranks of the Conservative party. Well, Sir, there is no attempt to gag any one in the Conservative party, and there never will be, l hope.
But my right hon. friend has invited some remarks which otherwise I would not have felt impelled to make to-day; he has given us a retrospective glance, but his retrospective glance does not go back to some periods that perhaps he might be well inclined to forget, and he has conveniently forgotten them to-day. He speaks of criticism from the province of Quebec. Sir, I venture to tell him this, that if he has received any criticism from men who, in the past at least, have been his followers in the province of Quebec, that criticism and that feeling are due to himself more than to any other man in Canada. A retrospective glance seems to suit the humour of the right hon. gentleman to-day. Well, Sir, what was his own aspiration in the days of 1891 and 1892? His teaching in regard to this matter in the province of Quebec was summarized in his own hearing, in this House, only three years ago, by one of his own followers, and it was in words which are to be found in ' Hansard ' of the 29th of November, 1896. It is the language of Mr. Bourassa, a disciple and follower of the right hon. gentleman; and here is Mr. Bourassa's language, which was not called in question by the right hon. gentleman at the time it was uttered:
Well, sir, what was the language of Mr. Laurier in Boston in 1891: that Canada would never consent to imperial federation even on commercial lines alone, because the consequence would be the participation of Canada in British wars, and Canada would never consent to participate in British wars.
Was that or was that not the teaching of my right hon. friend in 1891 and 1892? Does he now deny that summary of his position which was given by his own follower in this House and which was not denied by him at that time? Well, Sir, we may go on to a little further retrospect since my right hon. friend is anxious for retrospects.

Here is his own language recorded in the pages of ' Hansard ' and I am anxious to observe whether hon. ge*tlemen on the other side of the House who applauded with such vigour the speech just delivered will applaud the words which I shall proceed to quote, used by the right hon. gentleman as the leader of the Liberal party in this country, which,, as he declares has an absolutely consistent record in this matter:
I hold out to my fellow countrymen the idea of independence, but, whenever the day comes, it must come by the consent of botli countries, and we shall continue to keep the good feeling and the good-will of the mother land. If we are true to our record, we will again exhibit to the world the unique, the unprecedented example of a nation achieving its independence by slow degrees, and as naturally as the severing of the ripe fruit from the parent tree.
Then, further, in the course of the same remarks


An hon. MEMBER.: What date?


Robert Laird Borden: ' Hansard ' 1892, page 1142. If any hon. member desires to examine the remarks of the right hon. gentleman he will find them there and further at page 1143:
Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy ?
As he has invited controversy with respect to the matter, although I had hoped that he would have elevated the discussion somewhat more above controversial lines. I have to tell him that in my judgment, since he has held the reins of government, British diplomacy has more than once got this country out of difficulties in which it has been involved by the blundering of himself and his colleagues. Further, at page 1144, since my Tight hon. friend desires a retrospect, I find him using this language on the same occasion:
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) no doubt would prefer an English shilling to a Yankee dollar; but for my part I am differently constituted. I am ready any day, whether I am charged with annexation or not, to take a Yankee dollar in preference to an English shilling. ... I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada, to see Canada an independent nation in due course of time.
Well, my right hon. friend may have recanted that opinion. I am not aware that he has ever publicly recanted that aspiration and it would seem to me, having regard to some of the provisions of this Bill that he has not, and, if I may indulge in the tactics of my right hon. friend, rumour reaches us from some sources in the country that this very measure now presented to the House in so eloquent a speech is being held out as an important step in the
direction of that independence which was at one time at least the aspiration of my right hon. friend.
Now, Sir, the right hon. gentleman declared to us that he has been told from some source in criticism of this measure that aid should be given by Canada to the mother country in respect of the naval defence by means of annual contributions. I have already expressed my opinion on that point, and as I spoke in this House at great length on the first reading of this Bill I shall be enabled to curtail my remarks today. As far as I am concerned, while the system of annual contributions might be best, and, no doubt, would be best from the purely strategical standpoint, I firmly believe that no such system could be adopted, but that eventually and permanently the basis upon which Canada must contribute to the defence of the empire will be by employing our own material, our own men, our own resources and the skill of our own people. But, Sir, we have to consider to-day some of the propositions of the government not only as embodied in this Bill, but as embodied in the speech of my right hon. friend. He told us on the first reading of this Bill that Canada must be at war when the empire is at war. Any man who has the slightest acquaintance with international law knows that that is absolutely the case. Yet, my right hon. friend has somewhat receded from that opinion to-day, because he has told us that under conceivable circumstances the rest of the empire might be at war while Canada was at peace. Such a proposition is absolutely impossible. So long as Canada remains in the empire, Canada is at war when the empire is at war. So long as the English flag floats above Canada, Canada is at war when that flag is attacked. The moment a shot is fired or a blow is struck at that flag, Canada is at war with the nation or country which fires that shot or strikes that blow. In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman recedes, as I understood him to recede to-day, from the position which he took on the first reading of the Bill, we must understand that some very strong compulsion has urged him to take that course, and that difficulties within the ranks of his own party have compelled him to recede from what was in the first place the true and correct declaration of the position of this country. I shall not stop to dwell upon the argument of my right hon. friend based upon the authority of that great constitutional work, Quentin Durward, as to the exact similarity of meaning between sovereign and suzerain. Every one knows that the term ' suzerain ' is a term which has come down to us from the old feudal days. I have not had an opportunity of examining the book, but I would not be very much surprised to find that my

right hon. friend, in consulting this eminent constitutional work, has, after all, misread it and that its authority might be turned against him.
Let us look for a moment at the position of affairs to-day. The question which we have to consider is undoubtedly a very important one. It is the question of organizing the forces of the empire for defensive purposes in naval warfare. The question which is before the House to-day is simply as to whether the proposition as embodied in the policy of the government and as embodied in the Bill is one which can fairly recommend itself to the people of the country. In the first place, my right hon. friend has referred to the resolution of March, 1909. I distinctly understood from the clear terms of that resolution that any proposal to this government should follow the suggestions of the admiralty made in the year 1907, and I say without the slightest hesitation that in the most important respect of all, the control of the naval forces of the empire in time of war, the Bill of the government absolutely departs from the suggestions of the admiralty and therefore absolutely departs from the resolution unanimously agreed to in this House in 1909. What was the suggestion of Lord Tweedmouth, First Lord of the Admiralty, on that occasion? The suggestion-indeed it was more than a suggestion, it was an absolute declaration- was that, so far as the naval forces are concerned, there must be unity of control in time of war. It does not require experience, it does not require naval knowledge to understand that in time of war the whole integrity and future of its empire may depend upon that unity of command and control. What did Lord Tweedmouth say in his address to my right hon. friend and the other delegates? He said this: I
I have only one reservation to make, and in making it I ask that, as we have proved ourselves successful in the past, you should put your trust in us now. The only reservation that the admiralty desire to make is, that they claim to have the charge of these strategical questions which are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the naval forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist atack and to defend the empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the dominions beyond the seas. We thoroughly recognize that we are responsible for that defence. We want you to help us in that defence. We want you to give us all the assistance you can, but we do not come to you as beggars; we gladly take all that you can give us, but at the same time, if you are not inclined to give us the help that we hope to have from you, we acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the King's dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.


Robert Laird Borden: !
Could there be anything more definite, specific or emphatic than that declaration. But that is not all. Let us take the declaration of Mr. McKenna, First Lord of
the Admiralty at the recent defence conference to be found in the English state paper brought down, pages 22 and 23:
If the problem of imperial naval defence were considered merely as a problem of naval strategy, it would be found that the greatest output of strengh for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command. In furtherance, then, of the simple strategical ideal, the maximum of power would be gained if all parts of the empire contributed, according to their needs and resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.
Further on he said:
If the fleet unit maintained by a Dominion is to be treated as an integral part of the imperial forces, with a wide range of interchangeability among its component parts with those forces, its general efficiency should be the same, and the facilities for refitting and replenishing His Majesty's ships, whether belonging to a Dominion fleet or to the fleet of the United Kingdom, should be the same.
And I especially invite the attention of the right hon. gentleman to this:
Further, as it is a sine qua non that successful action in time of war depends upon unity of command and direction, the general discipline must be the same throughout the whole imperial service, and without this it would not be possible to arrange for that mutual co-operation and assistance which would be indispensable in the building up and establishing of a local naval force in close connection with the Royal navy.
I also invite the particular attention of my right hon. friend to what follows:
It has been recognized by the colonial governments that in time of war the local naval forces should come under the general directions of the admiralty.
Not only in 1907, but also in 1909 we have the clearest and most specific statements from men who know infinitely more about these matters than any man in this House, that unity of control and unity of command in time of war are absolutely essential to successful action. There cannot be any question about that. There are many continents in the world, but only one sea. That sea is a great highway. It is the highway of British commerce. It is the highway of the commerce of Canada because the greater part of our exports are sea borne. It is the highway of the world and especially of the British empire. That sea is one, and it would be absolutely impossible for the different local units of the empire to cooperate successfully under any circumstance, in time of war, unless there was absolute unity, command and direction.

If the right hon. gentleman had spent more time on section 18 of his Bill, I think he would have better justified the expectation of this House. Clause 18 is as follows:
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.
What is the meaning of that? The plain and direct meaning is that the Governor'in Council may refrain from exercising the discretion which is there provided for. If the government should so refrain, what will be the result? Are we to be face to face with the condition which the hon. gentleman says is demanded by our autonomy-that Great Britain being at war we shall declare that we are not at war and that our fleet shall not take any part in it. If the clause does not mean that, I would like to know what it does mean. So far as I can understand the English language, it means just what I have said. I have just this to add, that when Great Britain being at war, the Governor in Council shall declare that our fleet shall take no part in it-and they may do that simply by inaction, by standing still, by making no order in council-I say that when that occasion comes then, such inaction or declaration will amount virtually to a declaration of independence.
I have the further objection that unity of organization is not effectually provided for. The Prime Minister of Great Britain used this language in announcing the results of the Defence Conference:
It was recognized that in building up a fleet a number of conditions should be conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size, in order to offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in the service; the personnel should be trained and 'disciplined under regulations similar to those established in the Royal navy, in order to allow of both interchange and union between the British and the Dominion services; and with the same object, the standard of vessels and armaments should be uniform.
As a matter of fact, there is no unity of training. The men to be engaged in the Canadian navy are to be three-year men; and, if I understand rightly the lessons I have endeavoured to learn in regard to naval training, it takes at least six years to make a sailor efficient in these complicated and mighty engines of war used on the high seas at the present time. So there will be no unity of organization, and apparently there is to be no unity of training, because the officers are to depend for their training, not so much on the British service as on the schools which it is proposed to establish, and I have not ob-95
served any very distinct provision in the Bill as to the character of the training which is to be given in those schools.
Now, I would like to read one other extract upon that point. The admiralty most distinctly recommended a fleet unit. It declared:
In the opinion of the admiralty, the Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, in capable of being used in its component parts in time of war.
The fleet unit to be aimed at, should, therefore, in the opinion of the admiralty, consist at least of the following:-
1 armoured cruiser (new ' Indomitable ' class) which is of the ' Dreadnought ' type.
3 unarmoured cruisers (' Bristol ' class).
6 destroyers.
3 submarines, with the necessary auxiliaries, such as depot and store ships, etc., which are not here specified.
Such a fleet unit would be capable of action not only in the defence of coasts, but also of the trade routes and would be sufficiently powerful to deal with small hostile squadrons should such ever attempt to act in its waters.
Then in paragraph 11:
As the armoured cruiser is the essential part of the fleet unit, it is important that.an ' Indomitable ' of the ' Dreadnought * type should be the first vessel to be built in commencing the formation of a fleet unit.
On that I would like to remark that Australia accepted at once the proposal for the establishment of a fleet unit and did it under the conditions which I find set out on page 26 of this blue-book in the following words:
The Australian fleet unit should form part of the eastern fleet of the empire to be composed of similar units of the Royal Navy, to be known as the China and East Indies units respectively and the Australian unit. [DOT]
So that Australia has not only carried out the recommendations of the admiralty in that regard, but has gone further: it has distinctly declared, if I may rely on the blue-book, that its fleet unit shall be a part of the eastern fleet of the empire.


Frederick William Borden: Will my hon. friend look at the bottom of page 25 where it is said:
When placed by the Commonwealth government at the disposal of the admiralty as in war time, the vessels should be under the control of the naval commander-in-chief.
It would seem as if the commonwealth government had the power to place them under the control of the admiralty or not.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as that is concerned, my position is as distinct as I can make it. I say that any proposals for the establishment of a naval unit of



the imperial navy will be absolutely useless, and worse than useless-I would go further and say dangerous-unless it is expressly stipulated that in time of war there shall be but one navy under one central command and direction. We might repeat in the British navy the history of the ' Invincible Armada,' which was composed of five or six different Armadas of distinct organization, different training, different equipment; and we know what the result was in that case. My right hon. friend referred, for some reason that I could not comprehend, to the adventures and crusades of Peter the Hermit, I could not see the exact line of argument by which he introduced Peter the Hermit, or a great many other things, into his speech; but he could not have given a more apt illustration of the argument I am making. What was the cause of the failure of that crusade? The fact that it was composed of a heterogeneous assemblage of men of different countries, without any unity of organization, without any unity of training, without any unity of command; and the same result which befell the crusade of Peter the Hermit would be likely to befall the navies of the empire if they should be organized on any such basis as that which my right hon. friend has proposed to the House.
What further does the right hon. gentleman propose? He proposes that we should build a certain number of cruisers of the Bristol type and of some other type. What' will these cruisers amount to as an effective fighting force in time of war? At the highest you might say they will be commerce protectors. I do not know that you could say that. They might be useful as scouts, or be of some advantage to this country in protecting our fisheries. But what would be the result in time of war? I will tell my right hon. friend what the result would be. An Australian or New Zealand Dreadnought would be called on to protect these Canadian cruisers from attack by the enemy. Surely that would not be a very proud position for the people of Canada to occupy in the day of stress and trial.
As far as any effective fighting force is concerned, it is not supplied by any proposals of the government. I believe the empire is confronted with a serious situation. I gave my reasons for that belief a few days ago, and I will not repeat them to-day. I believe that the duty of Canada is not to be occupied in shaping its policy to meet conditions which are largely the creation of my right hon. friend, but rather1 to do something immediate and effective in order that we may at least stand side by side with the other great dominions of the empire in the day oiE trial. _
Sir, I have another observation to make.


Robert Laird Borden: We all did agree, at least I did agree, to the resolution of March, 1909, but every man in this House who since that time has given the slightest consideration to this question will realize that when we talked about the speedy organization of a Canadian naval unit of the imperial navy -because that is the way I prefer to express it-we are speaking of something that cannot be brought about in ten, fifteen or twenty years. Why, my right hon. friend to-day has even a vaguer idea of what he proposes to do than he had in respect of the National Transcontinental railway. I did not like to interrupt him; he was being interrupted a good deal; but there was one question which I would like to have put to him, and I shall take the liberty of putting it now. He says these vessels are to be built in Canada. I would like to know whether they are to be built in a private shipyard or in a government shipyard? Has the government come to any conclusion m regard to that?


Wilfrid Laurier: In a private shipyard.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I will venture to say that when my right hon. friend intimates that a private shipyard capable of constructing these ships and of providing the guns, armament and all the equipment which are the most essential parts of such war ships, can be established in this country in one year, he convinces me that he has not given very much consideration to the subject. I venture to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that at the very earliest possible moment he should revise his estimate in order that he may not incur criticisms of the character which have been justly made in this House with respect to his predictions concerning the National Transcontinental railway, to which I have just alluded.
I was referring to the resolution of 1909. We spoke about-a speedy organization of a Canadian naval force. I do not believe that that force or that service can be brought about, can be effectively organized, in less than 15 or 20 -years, probably it will take longer. I say to my hon. friend that inasmuch as he cannot do that in less than the time I have mentioned, there is another consideration which I would like to bring to his attention. My hon. friend has some recollection of the attitude^ he took in 1899 with respect to the participation of this country in the South African war. In the 'Globe' of October 4, 1899, he expressed himself in this way:
As I understand the Militia Act, and I may say that I have given it some study of late, our volunteers are enrolled to he used in the defence of the Dominion. They are Canadian troops, to he used to fight for Canada's deI fence. There is no menace to Canada, and

although we may he 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.
There was not a very great delay before my hon. friend altered his opinion in that regard, but I would like to interject this observation that a delay such as that which then occurred might spell ruin to the empire if it took place with regard to the employment of our naval forces. I venture to recall to my right hon. friend the reason which he gave in a speech delivered at Sherbrooke, in the province of Quebec, in the month of January, 1900, that was after he had reconsidered his attitude with regard to the participation of this country in the South African war. His words are as follows:
We believed it our duty as a British colony to take part in the war, and permit two thousand Canadian volunteers to enlist in the English army and to fight for the mother country. We did it because we believed it our duty to do it, in response to the unanimous sentiments of the people of this country. We are a free country; ours is a constitutional government, and our duty is to put into execution the popular will, and the moment the popular wili was known to us we had but the duty to discharge, and we discharged it of our free will. There was no power to constrain us to act as we did; but in the plenitude of our legislative independence we had the right to reply to the popular will. I
I would invite my right hon. friend today to respond again to the popular will, *and the will of this country to-day is that these different proposals ought to be submitted to the people and the people ought to be permitted to pass upon them before any permanent policy of this kind is engaged in. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that course. I am as strong as any man in this country in the belief that it is the duty of Canada to participate upon a permanent basis in the defence of this empire and to do our reasonable share in that regard. But I say that to attempt to force a policy of this kind upon the people of this country *without giving them an opportunity to say yea or nay with regard to it, would be one of the worst mistakes that could be made by any man who really favoured that policy. If my right hon. friend was able, in very short meter indeed, in 1899, to respond to the popular win, there seems no Teason he should not to-day be equally ready to respond to the popular will upon this question. What the people of this country want, as far as any man can judge who has observed the currents of 95i
public opinion, what the people of this country desire, is immediate and effective aid to the empire, and to have any proposals of a permanent character very carefully considered and matured, as they ought to be considered and matured, before any such policy is embarked upon, because there are a great many considerations that must be taken into account. There is the consideration, and not an unimportant one, to which I alluded, in speaking on this subject on the 12th of January, as to the voice of this country with regard to matters of international concern. These matters must be dealt with and considered by the great dominions of the empire before any permanent basis of co-operation by* those great dominions in the naval defence of the empire can become thoroughly established. That is a question which must be taken into consideration and must be faced.
Inasmuch as the proposals of the government are weak and ineffective, as they afford no immediate aid and assistance, as they could not be carried out for ten or fifteen years so as to become efficient, I say it would be the proper course to mature more thoroughly those proposals, to take up all matters that concern our relations to the empire in respect to co-operation in imperial defence, and in the meantime to do that which, after all, is the most important thing, stand side by side with the mother country under the conditions which confront her at the present time. The needs of the empire are before our very eyes to-day. We have the splendid example of the other great dependencies of the empire. Are we of less faith and of less courage than they? Shall an Australian fleet and a New Zealand Dreadnought defend the flag which floats above us while our little cruisers are fleeing helpless before an enemy? I do not so understand the spirit, the intention, or the desire of the Canadian people. I believe they are ready to assume their full share of meeting any peril that shall assail the empire, come when it may. Their hearts and their hands are as strong to will and to dare as were those of their fathers before them, and I do not doubt that, as my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has eloquently expressed it, the men of French descent in this country will be as prompt and ready to do their share with the English speaking citizens of Canada, as they have proved themselves in days gone by. Thus, let our aid be prompt and generous, so that it may bring to the motherland the assurance not only of material support but of a courage, a faith and a determination which shall proclaim alike to friend and foe that whether in peace or war, the empire is one and undivided.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I Jhink those of us who have given some attention and some study to the important matter which is now submitted to the House, will readily admit that never, in this or any other parliament since confederation, indeed I plight say never at any time since we have possessed the privilege of self government in this country, has any question of this magnitude and of such vast consequences, been discussed in the free assemblies of this country. The Bill in itself outside of section 18 does not present to my mind any very striking feature; it is the extension, if I may use such an expression, of legislation which we have had in a diminished form upon our statutes ever since the mother country called upon us to assume our proper share of the burden of defence. Therefore, I think one may say with the exception I have just pointed out, this legislation is not in any sense extraordinary. But it must be viewed,, I submit, under all the surrounding circumstances, and particularly, as a first step towards the execution of a policy or what
I called at another stage of this Bill, an agreement arrived at with the_ imperial authorities. At that time my right hon. friend stated that what he was endeavouring to carry out was not an agreement but a policy, and that statement was covered by the applause of those who sit behind him. But I see no material difference between the two names, what we are doing now, as I understand it, is carrying out a policy of defence, that was laid down at the last imperial conference held during last summer. It therefore seems to me of the utmost importance that we should all understand clearly what is the course upon which it is sought to have the country embark. My right hon. friend might have given that to us in a very few words this afternoon; but so far as I was able to apprehend the meaning of his speech, he confined himself, as he usually does, to brilliant generalities, speaking with the eloquence that characterizes him. But is this a proper occasion, I would ask, on which to deal in generalities? Was it not more fitting, at this important stage of the measure when we are asked to affirm the principle, that he should leave aside those historical allusions to the greatness of the empire, to the long forgotten career of Peter the Hermit, and such things as that, and tell us clearly what it is to which he is now asking us to commit ourselves.
My hon. friend has spoken of differences of opinion in the ranks of the party on this side of the House. They may exist, but they are acknowledged. Let me say to him that, when, on a question of this magnitude, we do not find it possible to see eye to eye on all phases of the question, we acknowledge it openly, instead of trying to cover it with a veil, and to convey in a different manner, in different places, and at different periods, the meaning of a policy which it seems impossible to grasp and to thoroughly understand. Therefore I say it is incumbent upon us to take all proper means that there shall be no mistake on that point. That is the reason why there is, on the ministerial side of the House, that apparent-acquiescence and unanimity which, as every body knows, merely conceals the grinding of teeth which otherwise would be apparent among them. How, I ask, are those gentlemen held together? No doubt what the government organs and my right hon. friend himself have stated at different times and at different places, explains it; no doubt, in the confusion which reigns among them, they do not fully apprehend the real aspects of this question, and I have heard muttered here a moment ago that patronage possibly is the explanation. I told my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) a day or two ago that I was sorry I could not be here, through illness, to uphold by word of mouth and


Robert Laird Borden: by my vote that very appropriate motion which he presented to this House in regard to the- curse of patronage. That curse I think, explains the apparent indifference and the alleged acquiescence which we find among those hon. members who come from my own province of Quebec, because I know what is their private opinion upon this subject. I say more. As long as that curse exists and is maintained by this government, as long as we have here men who hold promises of position, and who have held out to them the prospect of petty grants of money to be made within the limits of their county, so long shall we not see in this parliament that free expression of opinion which we find in the British parliament at the present time.
But. let me particularize, because, although I want to ibe as brief as possible and merely upon this occasion lay some of my views in support of my opinions before the House, I will not on that account diminish what I have to say upon these preliminary and important points. From the beginning of this controversy the organs of my right hon. friend in the province of Quebec have laid before the public what seems to me to he absolutely the contrary to what this Bill and this policy are. I could quote from the accredited organs of my right hon. friend. I could quote from other newspapers in my own province, which, although they are not the properly accredited organs of the government, have been brought by influences which I suspect, hut the extent of which I do not know, to support in a general way the policy of a Canadian navy. My quotations in that respect might be infinite in number. Let me quote an article published a few days ago, on the 29th January last, in ' Le Canada,' my right hon. friend's own organ in the city of Montreal, upon this question, and let the members of this House judge whether this exposition is a truthful one, is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. After enumerating what this newspaper calls the diversified views of the opposition, after having given us the views of the Conservative members from the west, given us their own private, individual view, or what purports to be the view, of the leader of the opposition, and after having given a garbled view, an insincere and untrue aspect, of what it calls the Monk-Bourassa policy, it goes on-I will not detain the House with it-to tell us what is the policy of the government. I will give it in English:	,
Canada must gradually take charge of the defence of its own territory on land and on sea.
It refers to New Zealand and Australia, and continues:
We are less exposed and we have no business to prepare a defence against attack from the United States, our friends and allies. A powerful hostile fleet could not attack up coming from Europe without having vanquished the imperial fleet-an impossible contingency. Therefore, we are only exposed to raids of hostile cruisers, isolated, or, at least, very few in number, that wo'uld have been left outside of any naval concentration to run upon the seas and harass British commerce. Therefore, we must indeed content ourselves with rapid cruisers and torpedo boat destroyers small vessels armed to attack, and whose extreme rapidity enables them to elude pursuit.
I may say to my right hon. friend that what he called some days ago the shivering electors of Jacques Cartier are indignant at this expression.
Therefore, we must do something in order to bear the burden of British defence. This something we will do in full harmony with the British admiralty by constructing ships for our own defence, if needed. These ships will be at our expense and under our control, but if we are asked for them we may

' may ' is marked in specially heavy type.
-lend them to Great Britain. The imperial authorities accept this programme with gratitude, as representing our full share of the imperial defence.
First point.
Our fleet being essentially defensive, we do not cause any damage to anybody, and our act is as far from militarism as the organization of a police force differs from the creation of a permanent army which is destined for the offensive.
Second point.
This navy we are constructing will not in any way cause us any expense to this extent that we will not be obliged to borrow a single cent.
Third point.
Our readers have here, shorn of all useless verbosity, of all declamation, of all appeals to public sentiment, the exact expression of the four policies that have been produced in Canada on this question of an imperial navy.
This has been dinned into the ears of our population for months, and I ask the House again: Is this the true expression of the policy that underlies this Bill along with the authentic conclusions arrived at by the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909 which we are now about to carry out? In the same city, but speaking to different readers upon the same subject, what do we find in another organ of my right hon. friend, the Montreal 'Herald'? Commenting upon the very able speech delivered in Montreal some days ago by a gentleman who was formerly

a member of this House, Mr. Bourassa, it says:
We do not mind confessing that Mr. Bourassa is largely right when he says that the Canadian fleet would almost as a matter of course take part in the empire's naval struggles. In other words, the theory of national control, exercised dispassionately, would in any imperial emergency prove but a fiction. Yet that fiction, like many a legal fiction, would shelter a mine of practical wisdom, and enable us to avoid many of the difficulties that would arise under the application of the more logical suggestion of Mr. Bourassa. For organic union we are not yet ready. But we are ready or should be, to take some share in the naval defence of the empire. By the creation of a Canadian navy we can fulfil our duty in that regard, and at the same time preserve ourselves from all the perplexities, at home and abroad, that would follow either the policy of direct cash contributions to the British navy, or the creation of a federation of British states. Our fleet would be in our own hands, to go or not to go to the empire's wars. That in practice it would no doubt inevitably go to any major war would not destroy the value of the freedom from entanglements that the Dominion would possess under this policy. Under it, the question of participation may be puc off for ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred years, if war should not ensue. Britain has not had a great naval war for a century. The creation of new centres of imperial naval strength in Canada, .Australia, New Zealand and South Africa may help to make such a war improbable for a century to come.
This is the view presented to the English electors of my own province. But let us look for further differences and we will find some equivocation in a letter which the right hon. the Prime Minister himself wrote to an elector of the province of Ontario who was seeking information upon this subject and who, a farmer, wrote to the Prime Minister disapproving entirely of this expenditure. The right hon. gentleman wrote on the 8th of November last in reply to the very emphatic letter which he had received :
I have very little exception to take to your letter, and I am sure that when our policy has been laid before parliament there will not be much difference between your opinion and ours, and I do not think there should be any.
*
He did not want any expenditure at all for the construction of a navy, or any contribution. On writing this as his view, the Prime Minister tells him that there is very little difference between them. I
I would respectfully call your attention to the fact that you are in error in saying that this is a new matter. On the contrary it has been before the Canadian public since the conference of 1902, when an attempt was made to force us into a policy which you might properly call militarism and against which we dissented. I would draw your attention to the paper which was laid before the Mr. MONK.
imperial conference at the time by the ministers who attended it>
that is to say Mr. Fielding, Mr. Paterson. Sir Wm. Mulock, Sir Frederick Borden and myself, and in which we thus declared our policy:-
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval side of defence as well. On the sea coasts of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion the ministers repeat that while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purpose of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures shall he so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which she now bears ; and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of experienced imperial officers so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self government which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.
_ You will therefore see that we refused to go in for any larger expenditures than would he warranted by our development as a nation. This policy has been before the people for several years and it has never been challenged so far as I know, by any one.
I overlooked that I am no more in sympathy than you are with militarism in any form, but the question of defence is one which cannot be altogether overlooked.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend the Postmaster General says hear, hear. He has been saying hear, hear, all afternoon. Surely he deserves the knighthood and I hope I will be present when he receives the accolade.
It is the penalty of becoming a nation and which all nations have to hear and which, in course of time, I hope they may dispense with.
Without going any further, because I might multiply these examples, I say it is important to show that in reality there has been an attempt on the part of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his friends to veil and disguise their policy in grandiloquent^ expressions of all sorts instead of putting it fairly and frankly be-for the people. We have, therefore, the right to ask in the first place what is that policy. Now, I lay this as the basis of my argument. It is absolutely impossible to pursue even the very meagre report of the imperial conference, and there can be no doubt that report is incomplete; in fact it was decided at the conference that only such papers as were agreed upon would be put on record-I say it is impossible to read

that blue-book through and have any doubt whatever that the policy is absolutely new and novel, differing in every respect from any policy enunciated or suggested before by either the imperial or this government. There can be no doubt tiiat the policy is entirely novel, and that the people have so far been kept in the dark as to its real meaning and import. Let me point out what in reality is the proposal which was laid before the imperial conference in 1909 and agreed upon by our delegates and the others, and I will do it in connection with this proposition, which it is also necessary in the interests of truth to elucidate, and which is this. A local navy or a contribution of ships .and money is attended with precisely the same political consequences, because, in my province at any rate, it has been held out to the people in a deceptive way, that what the government proposes to do is to organize a naval defence uniquely and solely for our own protection, and it has been hinted every where that this was the first step in the direction of a far larger emancipation than we have hitherto enjoyed. I say that in the first place, it is suggested that in the case of the navy we are arming for our own xiro-tection. The responsibilities, however, are precisely the same, as far as political consequences are concerned, as if we were contributing in money or ships to the British navy. In the first case, as they are, we are arming for our own protection; in the second, we are making common cause with the imperial fleet for imperial defence. That is the pretension set forth in my "wn province, this view has been systematically advanced in the province of Quebec by people who are interested in deceiving the electorate. But in either case, the consequences, now I say, are the same. The only variation lies in the mode of assistance. That was what was advanced at every stage of this discussion as far as the British government was concerned. Of course, my right hon. friend did not agree to that. He who makes such terrible attacks on this side of the House, because there are on this side honest and sincere differences of opinion, has differed so often with himself on this very subject that he thinks he can escape by playing the role of the tadpole which throws mud all round it in order to escape. I am prepared under any circumstances to respect the opinions of my fellow citizens on this subject and that does not seem to be the disposition of the right hon. the Prime Minister or the future Knieht of the Bath, my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). As soon as he is knighted, he will, like the errant cavaliers of ancient times, put a patch on his eye until he has met with some man of noble blood and slaughtered him.
What I say is that this proposition which I venture to lay before the House was abundantly proved by the proceedings of the conference itself in regard to which if my hon. friend, instead of giving us the story of Peter the Hermit, had explained those things, as he should have done, on the second reading of the Bill, I might have been spared the trouble of detaining the House on this point.	_
In support of this, let us take in the first instance the declaration of the results of the conference made before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. Asquith, and set out in the proceedings of the conference-a declaration which was absolutely approved by the conference itself, and after one of our own delegates, my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, had moved a vote of thanks to the British government. This is the statement made by the Prime Minister:
The conference, which has just concluded its labours, was convened under the terms of Resolution I of the conference of 1907. In the invitation sent by His Majesty's government at the end of April to the governments of the dominions, it was stated that the object of the conference would be to discuss the general question of naval and military defence of the empire, with special reference to recent proposals from New Zealand and Australia, and to the resolution passed on March 29, by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada. It was further stated that the conference would be of a purely consultative character, and that it would be held in private. It follows that all resolutions come to and proposals approved by the conference which has now been held, must be taken, so far as the delegates of the dominions are concerned, to be ad referendum, and of no binding force Unless and until submitted to their various parliaments.
1 should add, in special reference to the delegates from South Africa, that they did not feel themselves in a position, in regard to either naval or military defence, to submit or to approve positive proposals until the union of South Africa was an accomplished fact. With this preface I will briefly summarize the main conclusions of the conference in regard, first, to military, and next to naval defence.
After the main conference at the foreign office, a military conference took place at the War office, and resulted in an agreement on the fundamental principles set out in papers which had been prepared by the general staff for consideration by the delegates. The substance of these papers, which will be included among the papers to be published, was a recommendation that, without impairing the complete control of the government of each dominion over the military forces raided within it, these forces should be standardized, the formation of the units, the arragements for transport, the pattern of weapons, etc., being as far as possible assimilated to those which have recently been worked out for the British army. Thus, while the dominion troops would in each case he raised for the defence of the

dominion concerned, it would be made readily practicable in ease of need for that dominion to mobilize and use them for the defence of the empire as a whole.
The military conference then entrusted to a sub-conference, consisting of military experts at headquarters and from the various dominions, and presided over by Sir W. Nicholson, acting for the first time in the capacity of chief of the imperial general staff, the duty of working out the detailed application of these principles.
I may point out here that the creation early this year or an imperial general staff, thus brought into active working, is a result of the discussions and resolutions of the conference of 1907. Complete agreement was reached b.v the members of the sub-conference, and their conclusions were finally approved by the main conference and by the committee of imperial defence, which sat for the purpose under the presidency of the Prime Minister. The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are that, while preserving the complete autonomv of each dominion, should the dominions desire to assist in the defence of the empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined info one homogenous imperial army.
Naval defence was discussed at the meetings of the conference held at the Foreign Office on the 3rd, 5th and 6th August. The admiralty memorandum, which had been circulated to the Dominion representatives, formed the basis of the preliminary conferences.
The alternative methods which might be adopted by Dominion governments in co-operating in imperial naval defence were discussed. New Zealand preferred to adhere to her present policy of contribution; Canada and Australia preferred to lay the foundation of fleets of their own. It was recognized that in building up a fleet, a number of conditions should be conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size in order to offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in the service; The personnel should be trained and disciplined under regulations similar to those established in the Royal navy, in order to allow of both interchange and union between the British and Dominion services; and with the same object, the standard of vessels and armaments should be uniform.
A remodelling of the squadrons maintained in far eastern waters was considered on the basis of establishing a Pacific fleet, to consist of three units in the East Indies, Australia and China seas, each comprising, with some variations, a large armoured cruiser of the new ' Indomitable' type, three second-class cruisers of the ' BristolJ type, six destroyers of the River class, and three submarine of ' C * class.
Further on:
Separate meetings took place at the admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and general statements were agreed to in each case for further consideration by their respective governments.
Further on:


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As regards Canada, it was considered that her double sea-board rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed, according to the amount of money that might be available, that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the Bristol class, and destroyers of an improved River class-a part to be stationed on the Atlantic sea-board and a part on the Pacific.
In accordance writh an arrangement already made, the Canadian government would undertake the maintenance of the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, and it was a part of the arrangement proposed with the Australian representatives that the Commonwealth government should eventually undertake the maintenance of the dockyard at Sydney.
Will my right hon. friend or any of the gentlemen who sit behind him, from the province of Quebec at any rate, state that, even this has been laid before the people of our province. They have never heard of it, in that shape or in any shape, and have never had any occasion to pronounce their opinion upon so important a matter.
Let us look a little deeper into this matter and see what was laid down in regard to this policy at this conference. The admiralty memorandum-I am now speaking of naval defence-was fully approved by our delegates. I will quote from it as briefly as possible. But I appeal to the good sense and good faith of the House to say whether any man who takes the trouble to read through this blue-book can arrive at any other conclusion than that which I laid down a few moments ago, that under the terms of this agreement we undertook to accomplish the duty that our delegates subscribed to, either by building a fleet of our own, or by contributions of ships or of money. In either case the principle is the same.
In the admiralty memorandum in respect to naval defence, I find this laid down:
Separate meetings accordingly took place at the admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, when the following general statements were agreed to in each case, it being recognized that in the time available it was impossible that all details should be thoroughly gone into and settled. Several administrative and financial points remained still to be decided.
And in the admiralty memorandum, which has our approval entirely so far, this is said at page 23:
2.	If the problem of imperial naval defence were considered merely as a problem of naval strategy, it would be found that the greatest output of strength for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command. In furtherance, then, of the simple strategical ideal the maximum of power would be gained if all parts of the empire contributed, according to their needs and

resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.
3.	It has, however, long been recognized that in defining the conditions under which the naval forces of the empire should be developed, other considerations than those of strategy alone must be taken into account. The various circumstances of the oversea dominions have to be borne in mind. . . .
4.	The main duty of the forthcoming conference as regards naval defence will be, therefore, to determine the form in which the various dominion governments can best participate in the burden of imperial defence with due regard to varying political and geographical conditions. Looking to the difficulties involved, it is not to be expected that the discussions with the several Defence Ministers will result in a complete and final scheme of naval defence, but it is hoped that it will be found possible to formulate the broad principles upon which the growth of colonial naval forces should be fostered. While laying the foundations of future dominion navies to be maintained in different parts of the empire, these forces would contribute immediately and materially to the requirements of imperial defence.
I pass certain paragraphs which go to maintain absolutely the contention which I am endeavouring to support, and I come to the close of the memorandum:
13.	Pari passu with the creation of the fleet unit, it would be necessary to consider the development of local resources in everything which relates to the maintenance of a fleet. A careful inquiry should be made into the shipbuilding and repairing establishments with a view to their general adaptation to the needs of the local squadron. Training schools for officers and men would have to be established ; arrangements would have to be made for the manufacture, supply, and replenishment of the various naval, ordnance and victualling stores required by the squadron.
14.	All these requirements might be met according to the views of the dominion governments, in so far as the form and manner of the provision made are concerned. But as regards shipbuilding, armaments and warlike stores, &c., on the one hand, and training and discipline in peace and war, on the other, there should be one common standard. If the fleet unit maintained by a dominion is to be treated as an integral part of the imperial forces, with a wide range of interchangeability among its component parts with those forces, its general efficiency should be the same, and the facilities for refitting and replenishing His Majesty's ships, whether belonging to a dominion fleet or to the fleet of the United Kingdom, should be the same. Further, as it is a sine qua non that successful action in time of war depends upon unity of command and direction, the general discipline must be the same throughout the whole imperial service, and without this it would not be possible to arrange for that mutual co-operation and assistance which would be indispensable in the building up and establishing of a local naval force in close connection with the Royal navy. It has been recognized by the colonial
governments that in time of war the local naval forces should come under the general directions of the admiralty.
All this was fully approved by our own delegates. Their conclusions, their decision as to what was going to be built, are to be found fully given at page 26 of the printed report.
But I have said that in order to fully understand the extent of this new scheme, one must also take into consideration what seems to have been lost sight of, and was never alluded to in any way, so far as I know, by my right hon. friend, a most important part of the conference which concerns military defence. I do not wish to quote at length although I have marked certain parts of what has reference to that portion of the conference. The military memorandum is absolutely agreed to by our delegates, and I say it results clearly from that military memorandum that if it is carried out, before long what military forces we have in this country will be absolutely at the disposal of the imperial authorities in case of war. I do not wish to quote at length. I affirm that even for a layman like myself, it is impossible to read over that military memorandum approved of by our delegates without arriving at the conclusion that the whole of this scheme exhibits the constant carrying out of what has been characterized in a vague kind of way since some years, in this country and elsewhere, as the imperialist scheme, the putting into execution, the carrying out of what has been for a long time the dream of some people to which I shall refer presently, of a political union, practically, of the empire and the abolition of what is most important in the autonomy of the dependencies, reducing them in a certain sense to mere municipal institutions and conferring upon the imperial authorities at home, without any corresponding privilege, without any granting of further privilege to ourselves, of the absolute right of control without any consultative voice on our part whatever. All this is most important, all that is most precious in the privileges of self-government which we have acquired under circumstances of great stress and difficulty years ago-


Frederick William Borden: I do not wish to interrupt, but I know the hon. gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. I would ask him to return to the statement made by the Prime Minister of England from which he read a little while ago in which the premier uses these words:
The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are, that while preserving the complete autonomy of each dominion, should the dominions desire

to assist in the defence of the empire in a real emergency.
Etc., they can do so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I read that.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, but the hon. gentleman did not apparently heed it, did not seem to have understood
it. '


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, I understand it. I intend touching on that point in a moment, but I say at once, in order to answer my hon. friend, that if this scheme of centralization of military and naval power is put into execution, that part of the memorandum upon which the minister lays such great stress will become practically inoperative.


Frederick William Borden: Oh no, it is the basis of the whole scheme.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I can imagine it goes on a par with the lame excuses advanced by the Prime Minister, betraying to my mind his absolute ignorance of our situation, that in case war broke out under these circumstances, with our naval organization brought absolutely under this policy and everything laid down in this blue-book being carried out, the general staff, with its branches all over the empire having fully organized, he will summon parliament to know if our people are ready then to fight. I think I know the people of Canada well enough that, if all this is carried out they will not take refuge under that most unconstitutional argument which is on a par with what my right hon. friend said in Toronto the other day about the King of England being a suzerain. If the right hon. gentleman is correct in that interpretation, what I learned when a boy about the Crown of England, and what I taught in the university as a professor of constitutional law for many years, would have to be taken back as absolutely erroneous. I do not know what the heroine of Quentin Durward, a very pleasant novel, understood by a suzerain. She was speaking at a time of feudal tenure when suzerains existed. I am not aware that they exist now. But, if I understand the rights and privileges of the British Crown, it is subject to no such accident; it is continuous, it is absolute, it is sovereign; it goes on without any special transmission or succession. The King of England is the King of Canada practically. He concentrates in that power which we call the Crown all executive power, all the pow*er that makes the laws, all the administrative power, subject, of course, in regard to the executive power to the limitation that now he acts through ministers who are responsible to the representatives of the people- Sir. FREDERICK BORDEN
a very important provision and, though he concentrates within himself the legislative power, arid though all laws are really made by him, these laws are made with the consent and advice of both Houses of parliament. The legislative power is in him, as are the executive and judicial powers, and particularly with respect to the armed forces of the Kingdom wherever they are. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that this is a prerogative which has never been diminished in any way. The King is the chief commander of the military and naval forces. The House of Commons, in its widest aspirations, has never thought of depriving him of this special prerogative, nor have the people of England done so, being controlled by that wisdom which has ever characterized them. The King is the master of all armed forces-no suzerain there. But, as we all know-it would be taking up the time of the House uselessly to discuss the matter -the exercise of that power was held under control of the people for a long time in England by the Mutiny Act. This Act was passed every year. Hon. members of this House are familiar with the peculiar machinery which enabled parliament, although the command of the forces was in the hands of the Crown, by this yearly passage of the Mutiny Act to curb and restrain the exercise of that power. This continued until, I think, the year 1881, or thereabouts, when we had in England a regular military law. Moreover, parliament always exercised a very strong control over the military and naval forces by the annual voting of money. To-day, in England, as here, money is voted yearly, and without money you cannot have soldiers or navies. But the right, the prerogative, is in the King. If the King had the money, as he used to have in the old Plantagenet and Lancaster days, he would not require the annual vote of parliament to direct the army and navy as he chose. I may be mistaken, but that is the way I look at it. Therefore, I say this section 18 enunciates a new principle, when it says that the Governor in Council, may if it chooses, place the navy at the disposal of the British government. That is something new. If we could say that it was intended to facilitate the carrying out of the agreement as arrived at in London, if we could say it was in order to remove all doubt with respect to the principle which I enunciated a moment ago, well and good. But my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is a master of circumlocution and deceit, has, I think, placed this proviso in this Bill in order to be able to say to the people what 'Le Canada' printed in such heavy type, and I cited a moment ago, that in reality we-

parliament-control this naval force and it could only engage in war after it saw fit.
Now, I am extremely sorry to take up the time of the House, and I will not insist further upon that point, though I should like to have done so; not in order to instruct the members of this House- I have no desire to take that position- but in order that the people of this country should see behind this measure, which is apparently rather inoffensive, and see what the policy is concerning which my right hon. friend did not make in those explanations which seemed to me to be due, in the first place to this House, and in the second place to the nation at large. What, I say, are the consequences of this policy? If we have, or are about to undertake that we will build a navy or make contributions upon the understanding laid down in good faith by the British government and by the delegates at this conference, if we are going to move beyond the defence of our own country as a legitimate part of our burden-a part that has never been denied by Canadians, never from the first day, never, even at a time when they had against the mother counmost serious grievances-I say, if that is the policy, as I claim it is in the very words laid down in this document, what are the consequences? Let me sum up these consequences briefly:
1.	We become more strictly bound by the foreign policy of the British government, its alliances offensive and defensive, for the reason that we engage to support by force the empire's exterior action.
This, I say, is the first consequence: We enter actively into the exterior policy of the British government. We no longer say: We are a dependency; we are a possession; we will not attack, we will continue the role we played for more than half a century and will undertake that burden which will otherwise rest upon you, the defence of this country.
2.	If the scheme of the imperial defence conference is approved by us, we are hound to participate as belligerents in all British Wars. I
I say it is impossible for us, under the agreement arrived at, to avoid this; it is a necessary consequence. My friend, Mr. Bourassa, pointed out in Montreal the other day what a number of wars had taken place even since we had undertaken the defence of our own country. On no occasion, except under the peculiar circumstances of the South African war, was it thought by the mother country that we should participate in those wars. We were entire strangers to those countries, entire strangers to the causes that led up to those wars. Some of them were wars of
conquest, I do not say unjust conquest; perhaps some of them were necessary on the part of Great Britain, but we were never asked to take part in them.
3.	We become parties to all British guarantees to foreign nations.
Great Britain has undertaken very serious responsibilities, involving possibly very extensive wars, towards those foreign [DOT]nations. I say that we in Canada, under pain of being branded as unfaithful to this agreement, and worse than that, as cowards, would be obliged to take part in those wars, and in those terrific conflicts which may be occasioned by her guarantees, and which may be brought on at any moment. Let me point out what those guarantees are. They result from treaties which, from time to time, Great Britain has entered into, treaties with which we have nothing whatever to do. But they are binding all the same, and I venture to say that, with my small knowledge of history, and of the circumstances which surround these agreements, they will have to be performed, and they will be the occasions of war, and in those wars we must participate. We cannot possibly and honourably avoid them so long as we are bound by this agreement. Let me refer the House to a work by Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, 1856, in which he says:
It is sometimes assumed that the responsibilities of Great Britain begin and end with the defence of her islands against invasion. This is far from being the case. She is in no whit less responsible for the defence of India and of her other possessions and colonies scattered throughout the world. Besides that moreover, she is bound by the most solemn engagements, some of them of great antiquity, with reference to the territories of other countries which she has guaranteed.
She could not allow those guarantees to fail, and we could not allow her to stand alone isolated, after having made this agreement in defence of these guarantees.
Thus she has guaranteed that Belgium shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state by articie 7 of the treaty of 1839.
She has undertaken, in case of the attack of an invader, to protect Chusan (an archipelago off the east coast of China) and its dependencies and to restore it to the possession that end, by the treaty of 1885.
She has guaranteed that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg shall henceforth form a perpetually neutral state, by the treaty of 1867.
She has guaranteed the integrity and perpetual neutrality of Switzerland hy the declaration of 1815.
She has guaranteed, as against Russia, the territories of Norway and Sweden, undertaking to furnish naval and military forces to that end, by the treaty of 1885.
She has guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire in Europe, by the treaty of 1856.

She has guaranteed Greece as a monarchical and independent state by the treaty of 1832 and 1863 and the perpetual neutrality of the Ionian islands also by the treaty of 1863.
She has especially guaranteed as against Russia all the Ottoman (Turkish) nossessions in Asia, engaging to defend them by force of British arms, in the treaty of 1878.	.
She has engaged to ' respect the independence ' of .the Sultan of Muscat (on the south short of the Gulf of Oman, near the Indian ocean) by the declaration of 1865, and to 'promote the integrity and independence' of Persia by an agreement with Russia embodied in correspondence extending from 1834 to 1888.
And most especially and most repeatedly has Great Britain guaranteed her most ancient ally. Portugal, to defend and protect that country ^itself as well as ' all its conquests or colonies '-an obligation which seems to extend to Delagoa bay in Africa-by various treaties beginning as far back as 1373 and coming down to 1703.
* Thus,' says Mr. Bowles, ' singly or together with other powers, Great Britain is under the most serious and solemn treaty engagements with respect to Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Portugal, Greece, Muscat, Persia and China-engage ments which might at any time only be capable of being carried out by force, and for the forcible carrying out of which all her power might not be too much.
I mention these things because, so far as I know, they present a feature of the case which has not been insisted upon during the discussion up to the present moment. _ Now, I say that we guarantee the integrity of the empire-that is the way I understand this agreement-that is what we do, and why endeavour to conceal the existence of the obligations we are assuming? We receive no guarantee as to the maintenance of the integrity of our own Dominion. Most important of all, we have no voice of any kind in the conduct of imperial affairs, while being bound by imperial obligations towards foreign countries. We become liable to the political and financial results of those obligations, without any representation, or administrative responsibility. I say, therefore, that, by this policy, we associate ourselves with Great Britain as a world power, deeply (interested in and responsible for international happenings in every part of the world, and obliged to exercise continual vigilance upon our part. Let me quote to the House what is said on this point by a newspaper of Ontario, 'The Weekly Sun,' of the 26th of January last:
Some points arise out of the discussion that call for special consideration.
The first was contained in the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; the second in what was said by Mr. Monk.
The premier said that when Britain is at war Canada is at war as well. This has always been true in a theoretical sense, but it will become most emphatically true, in a very practical way, if the proposal to build a Cana-Mr. MONK.
dian navy is gone on with. During the present generation Great Britain has been engaged in a dozen petty wars without so much as creating a ripple on the surface of things in this country. This was because the scene was far away, and Canada was not directly engaged. So long as we confine our forces to land forces Britain may engage in a very considerable war, with a distant country, without Canada also becoming directly engaged unless our parliament and people deliberately decide that Canadian troops shall be moved to the scene of conflict. If we create a navy the situation will be wholly different. A naval force will necessarily be on the sea; its officers, bearing the King's commission, will be under the same direction and control as officers in the royal navy bearing a like commission. The consequence will be that the moment Britain engages in any future war, that same moment, if a Canadian warship is within reach of the field of operations, Canada will, through her navy, become engaged as well.	. .	.	.
The consequences arising from this situation were well stated by Mr. Monk. Canada will thus, without any control whatever over British diplomacy or British treaties, become liable to find herself at any moment plunged into war because of this diplomacy or as a result of these treaties. In other words, statesmen in Britain, who are not responsible to our people, who cannot be called to account at polls held in Canada, will be placed in a position to use forces armed and paid for by this country in any war Britain may choose to wage. We may at any time find ourselves actively engaged in conflict without our consent, and in a conflict, too, of which the Canadian conscience would not approve.
That is possible. The members of this House have heard of the China war which has been called the opium war. It was a war which was waged by England in order to oblige China to open her treaty ports to the opium dealers of India. There may have been some treaty obligation on the part of China, but, at any Tate, that was the object of the war. Applying what I have just read to the case would it be with enthusiasm, that, having convoked parliament, the people of this country would engage in a waT which must necessarily cost us at the very least some $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 for the purpose of forcing Ching-Ching-Chinaman to eat opium? I doubt it. To continue the citation:
Another consequence will arise from this situation, and one that was not spoken of either by Mr. Monk or the premier. Because Canada will be thus made responsible for British policy the attention of our people will be constantly diverted from our home affairs to British affairs. Canadian people are sufficiently complicated already. We have a wide stretching territory; the interests of one section of Canada are not always in accord with other sections; we have representatives of all races under the sun; we have enormous resources to develop. We require the wisest statesmanship and the most carefully thought-out-constructive policy for the purpose of meeting the problems presented. If we are to be continually distracted by old-world poli-

tics and disturbed by old-world quarrels, it will be impossible to give to tbe home situation the careful, painstaking attention that situation calls for.
I must quote also from another article from the same paper on the same date entitled ' Part of a General Scheme ' for. it goes to support what I stated a moment ago as the result of a general view of what had taken place at the conference.
This proposal to create a Canadian navy is but one part of a general plan now being put into operation. It was preceded by a change in the Militia Act giving to the government power, which it did not before possess, to order Canada's land forces on service outside the borders of Canada. It is being accompanied by a reorganization of these same forces which will make these correspond with the organization of the British army to the [DOT] end that British and Canadian troops may (it in together when called upon for joint action in foreign war. The intention on the part of those behind the new movement, is to gradually develop very considerable naval and military forces in this country that will be part of a world-wide war power, and available on call for service in any country to which they may be called by the central authority.
Such a scheme cannot be carried out in its entirety without effecting a fundamental change in the character and ideals of our people.
The writer goes on to point out very correctly and I think wisely that the whole course of thought, the idiosyncrasy, if 1 might use the term, the mental structure of the people of this country will be completely changed and this transformation will be from a new world and a young nation suddenly to the old world with all the vices, embarrassment and troubles that attach to that sudden change.
Therefore I say we have no control over the government and no representatives in the parliament which makes and unmakes wars and controls our destiny.
' Now I wish to say a word or two in regard to the character of this contemplated change and I shall say it briefly. Up to 1894 and even to a later date the British government never for a moment intended that Canada should do more than provide for its own defence. Never up to 1894 was that contention put forth, although the matter had received the constant attention of the imperial government, and although on more than one occasion that government had given to us in authoritative and official form communication of the conclusions at which it had arrived. With regard to defence, we have never, as I stated before, shirked the duty which seemed to be imposed upon us properly of attending to the defence of this country We gave proof of that in 1776. The right hon. Prime Minister alluded to what we did at that time. We gave further proof
of it in 1812 and 1814. No sacrifice was spared by the people of Canada to provide as far as we possibly could against American invasion and we did our full duty at that time as history proves. After we succeeded in obtaining responsible government in 1848, the British government began insisting-I do not say improperly-I say properly-that as a corollary duty of the liberty we then had acquired we should provide for self-defence and that duty should be performed. I stated, that when I, in answer to a call from my electors, gave them my opinion on this question. We took in this country at that time the ground that we must organize our own defence and the attitude of Cartier and his associates is not open to any doubt upon that point. No suggestion was ever made at that time that we should go beyond that. The utterances of Cartier and Macdonald go to prove that. I do not fear to assert that the traditions of the Conservative party, as I read them, point to the fact that that was the policy of the party. It started from the principle that having local self-government we must be ready to assume the duty of self-defence. These statements never went further than that; and when allusions are sometimes made to strong expressions by Sir George Cartier and Sir John Macdonald on the necessity of maintaining British connections, these expressions were always used in reply to the outpourings of friends of the Prime Minister, of the Prime Minister himself, when they ventilated policies such as those my hon. friend the leader of the opposition described to-day, and when they spoke of breaking down the barriers existing between us and the United States and pointed to the inevitable destiny of being absorbed by the great republic which awaited us. But nowhere will you find in the utterances of these great forerunners of the present Conservative party, nowhere will you find in the speeches of Sir John Macdonald or Sir George Cartier or of their successors the formulation of any such ideas as that we should go beyond the maintenance of our actual position. I had the honour, although I was very young at the time, of knowing the late Sir John Macdonald and also the late Sir George Cartier, who was an intimate friend of my family, and of whom I may say with the poet that he danced my infancy on his knee, and I am aware that these men were loyal subjects of the Crown and opposed to any policy which would lead to the severing of the tie that bound us to the mother country and which they deemed so essential to our welfare. But everybody who has studied history, everybody who has read the imperial state papers referring to Canada, from 1860 to 1867, everybody who has read the life of Sir George Cartier knows that he never went beyond that, and
*3011

any attempt to prove that he did must necessarily fail.
I said a moment ago that England herself had laid before us in an official way her contentions with regard to defence; I would like to refer to. what occurred in this country more than half a century ago at the time of the American war. At that time the Duke of Newcastle proposed to the Canadian government-it was during the union of the two Canadas-that we should do three things. He proposed that we should organize in Canada a force of 50,000 men, that we should place it under imperial direction and vote the necessary supplies for five years. Let me point out how that proposition was received by the Canadian government; and I cannot better do this than by referring to a memorandum prepared by the Canadian cabipet in October, 1862, to be handed to His Excellency the Governor General for transmission to the Duke of Newcastle. This memorandum proves that the men of that day, who are taking part in the conquest of our political liberties, were men who realized better than do those who are now controlling the government of this country, what that demand meant. Let me quote from the memorandum :
Another suggestion embraced in his Grace's despatch is well calculated to excite surprise. Your Excellency's advisers allude to that portion of the despatch in which his great purposes to remove the control of funds required for military purposes from the domain of parliament. His Grace is evidently aware that the proposition wears the aspect of ' an interference with the privileges of the representation of the people,' and it is certain that any measure liable to this construction never will be and ought not to be entertained by a people inheriting the freedom guaranteed by British institutions. The imperial parliament guards with jealous care the-means of maintaining the military and naval force of the empire. Its aopropriations are annually voted and not the most powerful minister has dared to propose to the House of Commons the abandonment of its controlling power for a period of five years. If the disturbing action of ordinary politics is a reason for removing the final direction of military preparation from parliament, it is in every sense as applicable in England as in Canada. What the House of Commons would not under any circumstances of danger entertain, is not likely to be entertained by the legislature of Canada. Whatever evils are incident to representative institutions, the peo

pie of a British province will not forget that they are trivial in comparison with those which are inseparable from arbitrary authority. Popular liberties are only safe when the action of the people restrains and guides the policy of those who are invested with the power of directing the affairs of the country. They are safe against military despotism wielded by a corrupt government, only when they have in their hands the means of controlling the supplies required for the maintenance of the military organization.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: ' A union for defence' is proposed by His Grace the Secretary of State for the colonies. A union of the British North America provinces for the formation and maintenance of one uniform system of military organization aud training, having a common defensive fund, and approved by Her Majesty's government; a union whose details would emanate from the Secretary of State, and whose management would be entirely independent of the several local legislatures. Your Excellency's advisers have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that any alliance of this character cannot at present be entertained.
Your Excellency's advisers now turn to the general principle which underlies the argument of His Grace. That the right of selfgovernment has for a co-relative duty the maintenance of provision for the defence is a proposition which, in the abstract, is indisputable; but it is only indisputable in the case of government of states which are sovereign in themselves, as between a colony and the parent state it cannot be said to exist in the same sense.
The whole memorandum is pregnant with protest against any application of the principle that the military or naval forces of this country should be controlled by any other power than the legislature which established them.
Let me now refer to a memorandum prepared not so very long ago-not by any conference, but by a special committee of the Imperial Privy Council itself. That council itself took this matter into consideration in 1896, and made a report regarding the' defences of the empire, to which the Duke of Devonshire alluded when he spoke at the meeting of the British Empire League on the 3rd of December, 1896. This is what the Duke of Devonshire said:
I have found with very great satisfaction on my return to office, after an absence from official life of a good many years, the large progress which has been made in the consideration of the great question of imperial defence. A body is now in existence, and has been for many years called the Colonial Defence Committee, composed of representatives of the admiralty, the war office and the colonial office. That body has made a complete study of the question of colonial defence as it effects every colony of the British empire. It has studied the question from the point of view of each colony, and every colony, whether it be a Crown colony or a self-governing colony, is now in possession of the views of Her Majesty's government as to the nature of the attack-the possible attack-to which any of them may be exposed, and as to the means of defence which it is possible to oppose to such attacks. Every colonial government now knows what the imperial government is prepared to undertake in their defence, and what must be left to themselves to undertake. Now, although the instructions to this committee, and the plans which this committee has prepared, are, and must be, to a very great extent, of a confidential character, yet I am permitted to make a public announcement of the principles upon which

those plans are based; so that not only the public at home, but every one of our colonial fellow-subjects should know how much it is that the government are prepared to undertake in the defence of the colonies, and the duties which in their turn they think ought to be undertaken by the colonies themselves. These principles are as follows: The maintenance of sea supremacy has been assumed as the basis of the system of imperial defence against attacks from over the sea. This is the determining factor in shaping the whole defensive policy of the empire, and is fully recognized by the admiralty, who have accepted the responsibility of protecting all British territory abroad against organized invasion from the sea. To fulfil this great charge they claim the absolute power of disposing of their forces in the manner they consider most certain to secure success, and object to limit the action of any part of them to the immediate neighbourhood of places which they consider may be more effectively protected by operating at a distance.
It is recognized, however, that Her Majesty's ships engaged in hunting out and destroying the squadrons of the enemy may not be in a position to prevent the predatory raids of hostile cruisers on British ports. The strength of such an attack will vary in the different parts of the world according to the strength of possibly hostile, navies, the proximity of their bases and the troops that are or could easily be brought there in anticipation of war. It also varies from time to time with changing political combination. But it is improbable that this raiding attack would be made by more than a few ships, nor could it be of any permanent effect unless troops could be landed. In no case could a greater force than a few thousand men be collected and conveyed without such arrangements and preparation as would bring the operations under the category of those which the navy has undertaken to prevent.
Against a raid of the nature indicated, it has been considered necessary to make secure those places which are essential to the nary for coaling, refitting, and repairing. Ports for this purpose have been selected by the admiralty, and imperial resources in men and money available for use abroad have been concentrated on their defence. Apart from the harbours fortified for the navy, there are other ports which, though they do not enter into what may he called the -general strategic scheme, are also liable from their commercial importance to predatory raids, and which require measures of defence for the protection of the special interests involved. The resources of places which, in the opinion of an enemy, would justify the very considerable risks which a raid on them would involve, are generally sufficient to admit of the provision of local defence by local means; and where the liability to attack and the resources to resist attack co-exist, it has been held to be the duty of the colony to make provision for adequate defence. In dealing with places of this nature the committee have advocated the creation of sufficient fixed defences to prevent their unmolested occupation by hostile cruisers, but more especially the provision of
troops sufficient to deal effectually with such forces as an enemy must put on shore to enable him to secure any permanent advantage from his attack. Troops without works may detect an enemy and frustrate his object. Works without troops are useless and delusive. It is necessary to lay stress on this fact, as fortifications give an appearance and feeling of security which is not justified unless they are fully garrisoned by welhtrained men and supported by mobile forces, and because expenditure on defences involving a heavy outlay at one time and little at another, can be more easily fitted into the exigencies of fluctuating budgets than expenditure on troops which must be constant to be effective.
I will not continue this quotation, but it results therefrom that the British government itself, in 1894 or thereabouts, formulated a plan which was based on close application and study; and the Duke of Devonshire stated:	'We communicated
officially this plan to the colonies in order .that they might govern themselves accordingly-* That was one clearly enunciated plan under which we did not depart from the policy we had always followed of defending our own shores. But there ought to be added to that the proper equipment of dry-docks and coaling stations and such armaments as would enable us fully to defend ourselves against sudden raids. Nobody that I know of in this country is opposed to that, or would deny-because a raid is always possible-that we should guard against any attack of this nature. What I say is this: That at the conference of 1907, which my right hon. friend attended, and in which he denied absolutely that we should accept any scheme of this kind, no very different plan from this very one was laid before the conference. There was a small addition. Lord Tweedmouth, in addressing the conference, stated first and foremost, and as the representatives of the British government had always stated: We demand as a sine qua non the complete control in time of war of all naval forces, whether colonial or otherwise; but he stated there, what the Duke of Devonshire had stated to the British League in 1897, and what he stated also on a memorable occasion in the House of Lords, when questioned by Lord Minto, that all they asked from us was this very thing. Lord Tweedmouth added that we should have light torpedo boats or destroyers, which he said could not cross the ocean under any circumstances, but which might be used as a complement to this scheme of defence. He did not go any further. And let me point out this to my right hon. friend, who used such violent language in regard to myself at the time of the first reading of this Bill- very violent language. In fact, to use the words of the rhymster;

There never was heard such a terrible curse;
But what gave rise
To such a surprise
Was that nobody felt a penny the worse.
What the resolution of the 29th of March last stated was that we should proceed to organize the defence of the empire how? On the lines laid down at the last imperial conference. Well, the lines laid down at the last imperial conference, with the exception of the light craft to which Lord Tweedmouth alluded, were precisely those of the scheme which was proposed by the Duke of Devonshire, and which I am not prepared to combat. It was a reasonable scheme, I think. At any rate, I am not against our assuming that part of the common defence of the empire. But what we have to-day, I submit, is a totally different scheme, which has never been discussed before in this parliament and never has been discussed before the people. I, therefore, say that it is safe to conclude that this is an innovation, a complete change has been contemplated. And who are the originators of that change? Who, I ask this House, has been so earnest in promoting this gradual advance until at last we are face to face with this scheme, which is totally different from the two others and from the third more ancient, which began in 1862? To my mind it is largely the work, in the first place, of the Imperial Federation Society, which failed because it had no representative character and had proposed boldly in the beginning a scheme for which we were totally unprepared, political union, which is virtually comprised in this present project, and when that society failed and the new one, the British Empire League, was organized, they took it up and the members of that anti-Canadian society, I will call it such, have been ever since moving heaven and earth to bring about this very policy to which many of us at present object. Look at the active members of that league. You will find they are not representative men; they are very respectful men, but if you read their speeches you will find that they have gone to England and stated that this very scheme is popular and accepted with joy throughout the country. What authority have they for that statement? Col. Denison or Mr. Small, at one of their meetings, after congratulating the meeting that it was not open to the press, stated that it was known that war decimates sailors, the British have great difficulty in finding complements of men for their navy, and they could easily recoup themselves here, there were 75,000 men at their disposal as a naval reserve, and the people were anxious to place them at the disposal of the British empire. I say that in making these statements they had no Mr. MONK.
authority and did not represent the sentiments of our people.
I have alleged and it has been said that this scheme, if it is properly shown to the people, will prove that it bears in its flanks the destruction of our right of self-government. I say in the first place it tends to deprive us of control of our land and sea forces. It binds us to the consequences of the external policy of the Downing street government, which we cannot control or hold responsible. It leaves us, I say, practically with large municipal powers. If you take away from a country, from any nation, the Tight to control, at any rate as free nations usually do, its relations with other nations, I say you deprive it of one of its most valuable inherent rights as a nation. I say in respect to this policy that it differs from the suggestion which .began when we obtained responsible government in 1848; it differs essentially from the Imperial Defence Committee's report and it differs entirely from the suggestions made by Lord Tweedmouth in 1907. It is, in fact, a scheme which might be called the scheme presented to the last imperial conference by the Bight Hon. Mr. McKenna, which was far -more extensive and was never heard of or discussed by our own people.
There are many other things to be said in reference to this question, and if I am able to do so I shall express those views at the proper time. But I wish, before resuming my seat, to say one word in regard to the reproach which has been addressed to us in all or nearly all the newspapers of this country, a most unjust and unfair reproach, to my idea. We have been branded, those who hold the views I have just expressed to the House, as ingrates, as wretches with no other sentiment than that of selfishness and egotism, and it has been claimed that what is asked from us to-day, this, to my judgment, unjustifiable sacrifice of our liberty, we owe to the mother country. Without them we would be nothing at all in this country, nothing whatever, and I heard it said to-day that if British supremacy upon the sea was to fail we would disappear at once. It reminded me of the old saying of the fates in Borne; ' While stands the Colosseum Borne shall stand; when falls the Colosseum Borne shall fall, and with Borne the world.' I think the members of this House will admit that during weeks of denunciation, a public man cannot with equanimity see himself charged with these grave failings, of ingratitude and selfishness, and although I do not want to open or unduly extend the chapter I would say one word on this subject.
Is our indebtedness so very great? Do we owe all this to the mother country, and have we done nothing for ourselves in re-

spect to external affairs or in respect to our own political development? Have we been like sponges or jelly fish, occupying a merely passive role in that regard, and has everything that could be done been done by the mother country? One word as to that. Look at the diplomatic handling of our affairs by the mother country ever since 1782, to begin at the beginning. I do not pretend that for what was done there was not fair justification. We had an immense territory, we were a small people, and the government of those days had to look after the interests of a vast empire, and it was then, be it said, under the control of foreign nations with regard to its dependencies which it very soon was obliged to abandon, and had it not abandoned that policy and those notions, not one, I venture to say, of those dependencies would have the British flag over it to-day. I shall not allude to what took place in 1782. Most of the gentlemen 'who sit in this House have read the story of our negotiations with the revolted American colonies, when the British government sent to Paris to meet such men as Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Jay, Mr. Oswald and Mr. Vaughan, who had no knowledge whatever of this country, no diplomatic experience whatever, and who, if they had had their own way-and I think if Lord Shelbourne himself had had his own way- would have taken a course which would have resulted in there being no Canada at all. Had not Mr. Strachey, as every one knows, the special diplomatic envoy of England, arrived at the last moment to save the shreds of British territory which exist on this continent. to-day, everything would have gone by the board. Mr. Oswald was anxious to give up the whole of Canada, Nova Scotia and all the rest of it; he called this country the back land, a swamp that was of no value whatever, and when Mr. Vaughan saw that, he ran to Franklin, that keen old fox, and his associates, who were more than a match for these two men, and induced them to give up mo3t valuable territory.
As I say, the two negotiators at that time were anxious to obtain the consent of the British government to give up Nova Scotia and Canada as of no value whatever. I do not wish to enter into details, but they gave up a territory of over four millions of acres, constituting to-day seven of the most fertile and magnificent states of the American union, to which Jay Adams and the others recognized that they had no right whatever. Thus to-day we are deprived of that fertile region communicating with our northwest and are bound to traverse an arid desert which will ever remain a barrier between our fellow citizens in the west and ourselves. They gave up the Indian territory; that is his-96
tory familiar to all. And when they did that, everybody knew, except these two innocent gentlemen themselves, that the ultimatum of the American congress wa3 reduced to this: Give us independence for the thirteen colonies and ask for no indemnity for the loyalists who have suffered through this waT. That was the ultimatum: But Benjamin Franklin and Jay took it upon themselves, as they themselves afterwards explained and as is explained by their biographers, to insist upon this piece of precious territory which had been conquered by our ancestors, which belonged at one time to France and was ceded by France to England. This was given up in spite of the fact that the American congress never wanted it. I do not see anything in that that greatly shows anxiety to protect our rights. If you go further, what about the sacrifice involved in the Ashburton treaty? Lord Ashburton said it was a mere marsh of the state of Maine, and said in the British House of Commons that it would have been absurd to go to war about that territory. Or about the western territory belonging to us, the state of Oregon. If any man wants to know the value of this territory in Maine, let him read the history of the Intercolonial, by Sir Sandford Fleming, and learn what a sacrifice on our part was involved. I say that anybody who looks carefully through these negotiations will arrive at the conclusion that England was governed at that time by principles of expediency and not purely by a desire to maintain integrally the territory that belonged to us and our descendants. And, as to the Washington treaty, is there anybody in this House, who, knowing what has been published since that time, has any doubt but that there was then seriously debated- even when we had acquired imnortance, when this country was a confederation and was extending westward and intended to cover the whole of the northern part of this continent-is there any doubt in the mind of any man that the question of ceding Canada was discussed as a complete settlement of the Alabama claims and the claims resulting from the civil war? Is there any man who doubts that the British plenipotentiary at Washington 

I -think it was Sir Edward Thornton-stated that he was ready to give up Canada but did not like to do it without the consent of the people? If it were necessary to prove this, I would take up time quoting the authorities. But we need not go back even so far as this. Everybody knows, as a matter of the present generation, the history of the Alaska difficulty. We abandoned all our rights under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty for valuable privileges at the very time that this Alaska



difficulty was under consideration and when, as was pointed out, I think, by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) we should hold to all these privileges until we on our side had obtained a just and fair treatment of our claims. Everything was given away without equivalent obtained. And I am wondering this evening after what has been told us, if what happened in regard to the Alaska boundary is true. Is it true that Lord Alverstone, after having agreed with our own Canadian representatives as to the judgment that they were about to give, went, the day after to the final meeting of the Joint Commission, and there to the intense surprise of Sir Louis Jette and Mr. Aylesworth, changed his award and gave out two valuable islands-valuable from a strategic point of view-without having re-conferred with his fellow delegates. How can we explain such a thing as that? Certain it is, in regard to that transaction, that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself stated that our representations were ignored, that the three men named by the Uniied States government were not, as the treaty required, impartial j urists. My right hon. friend stated in this House that his government made representations at that time, and yet the British government proceeded to accept the nomination of these three representatives of the United States without paying any attention to our protest. Members of this House will recollect what the Prime Minister said at that time in a moment of, to my mind, just irritation. I merely mention these facts, and have no wish to go into detail. There are rnanv other facts that might be cited to prove this claim that any man who says that we owe a debt of gratitude to the mother country in respect to these many transactions under which our territory has been greatly fragmentized, is speaking of -what he knows nothing about. But let us look for one instant at the internal work that has been done here. What of this pretension that if British supremacy is not maintained upon the sea, we cease to exist? I think that is carrying assertion a little far. Whatever we have in this country in the way of economic development or in the way of free political institutions is our own work. We built it up ourselves. And my right hon. friend will admit that, in the early days, -we had to wrest concessions from the mother country. The Act of 1774, the Constitution Act of 1791, the responsible government of 1848, the different Constitutional Acts of a later day, confederation itself-were these things originated in England and brought out here for execution? Let us be fair; they were carried out by our own people. Our own Mr. MONK.
people framed the confederation and brought it to England for sanction. Our own people extended the confederation from one side of the continent to the other. And the merit of England is that she recognized, as Spain did not, that, unless she entered upon a Liberal policy with her great dependencies she would have to submit to the fate that ultimately overtook Spain itself.
I would not open the chapter of 1837 as my right hon. friend has done. But I must confess to my friends from the province of Quebec, on the other side, not that I think them more intelligent than my friends of English origin on this side, that it is a surprise to me that they who know what it has cost us in blood, and sacrifices, and money, the liberties which we have earned, should treat so lightly, in such a childish manner, the scheme which has been brought before us to-day, and which, to my mind, inflicts a grievous wound upon the self-government which cost us so dear in the province of Quebec. I say that is to me a subject of surprise. It is not so long ago that (men were thrown into jail for claiming just such things. There is not a man in this House who would continue to live in this country if he did not enjoy what was asked for by the ninety-two resolutions. I would not live in a country which did not possess the full enjoyment of what was claimed by those resolutions. Yet men were thrown into jail for claiming that which we could not live without to-day-no accusation, on suspicion, respectable men, honest men, put in jail for more than a year, and then released with nothing against them. Others were sent to the scaffold. I have been intimately connected and related with men who were not French Canadians, the counsel and defenders of those men at that trial, and I can say this from information received from them, men who have obtained a high judicial position in this country, that that trial left upon them many bitter reflections. Think of an officer, being a good hand at sketching, sitting down and sketching with levity a picture of one of those men hanging on a scaffold, showing it to his neighbour, before the trial was terminated. But I do not want to enter upon those events to-day. I will say this, however, that if this system of branding a public man of honest convictions as an ingrate, as a coward, continues, I will reopen that chapter, and ' say things which I believe will silence them for ever.
In all those discussions at the imperial conferences it has struck me that our representatives seem to have been impressed with the desire of giving every thing and claiming nothing. Whether my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who I regret to see is not here,

were hypnotized and put into a trance I do not know. But at those conferences nothing was claimed. You would imagine that people accustomed to British liberty, to British privileges, when proposals of this kind were laid before them, would ask for some correlative privileges, which every Britisher is proud to possess throughout the world. But no. At one conference there is a resolution proposed by an Australian delegate, and carried, to the effect that in so far as diplomatic and confidential relations would allow, it was proper for the British government to communicate commercial treaties to the colonies. Lord Tweedmouth, Mr. Chamberlain, and other English public men. imbued with the broad principle that responsibilities of this kind carried representation, had stated, as Lord Tweedmouth did at the conference of 1907: We dont ask you to do this without inviting you to share in the representation. That proposal was in harmony with British ideas. But on our side nothing was asked, nothing was claimed. I do not mean to say that if these things were in that shape before us, I would adhere to them. I think that ' sufficient to the day is the evil thereof '. But I am impressed with the idea that nothing seems to have been asked, and that we entered into this unlimited scheme of responsibility in such a manner as to distinguish us completely from the British subject who lives in the British isles, and who himself controls the foreign policy of the empire.
Now, I notice that at a meeting of the Women's Canadian club at the city of Quebec His Excellency the Governor General, in a very interesting speech, spoke as follows, after having devoted his attention for a considerable time to a justification of imperialism:
(Translation). Is there in the world a people more privileged than the people who inhabit the fine province of Quebec? Your laws, your language, are under the special protection of the British Crown. In return for so many privileges and advantages, the Crown exacts nothing from you except sentiments of loyalty. The word ' imperialism ' does not imply active intervention from England in the government of this country; the word ' imperialism ' symbolizes the power of each of the units of the empire and absolute liberty, in each of these units.
Now, I do not for a moment apprehend that these remarks of Lord Grey before the ladies of Quebec would have any practical result upon this very important political question. We have not reached that stage which gave rise to the old French saying, ' Le royaume est tombe en quenouille.' But I would be curious to know in what respect this scheme increases the amount of liberty that we enjoy at present, and in what respect it increases the happiness we have succeeded in obaining in this country, and which we at present enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that I thought from their position and from what I know they know, my friends from the province of Quebec who sit on the other side of the House would look at this question more seriously than they seem to have done. I have been several years in this House and I have been astonished at their conduct sometimes, I am bound to say after what I have alluded to, as to the struggles which took place in our province for the obtaining of the liberties which we now all enjoy and for which I think some credit is due for what was done in the province of Quebec. I have seen these gentlemen in this House vote against the maintenance of the rights that were claimed for the minority in the organization of the new provinces of the west, I have seen them vote against the maintenance of the right which all parties in this House admitted to exist with regard to the French language in these provinces when at one time I moved for the maintenance of the strict right of the French Canadian to speak- only to speak-in that language in both of the assemblies of these provinces. They voted against it when it was admitted in this House by every jurist that that right stood exactly upon the same plane as the right to free education. I have seen them remaining during all these years utterly indifferent to the denial of the rights of the minority in Manitoba after having heard them say what they said in my province before the elections in 1896. I must confess to these gentlemen that their final cheerful adhesion to the scheme now submitted to this parliament is an additional, and I may say, a somewhat painful surprise, I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, although I agree with something that is contained in the motion moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, a subamendment as follows:
This House, while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown, is of opinion, that the Bill now submitted for its consideration changes the relations of Canada with the empire and ought, in consequence to be submitted to the Canadian joeople in order to obtain at once the nation's opinion by means of a plebiscite.
After the long explanation that I have given I think the House will realize that it is the right of the people of Canada to be consulted upon this new policy. I think it is an infamous denial of the rights of the people to pass on and carry through this scheme without even giving them a chance, they, who are the absolute masters, of expressing an opinion with regard to a policy which is new to us, new to them, has never been even mentioned before the people of this country and upon which they have the right without any doubt of expressing their free opinion


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of emotion that I now rise to give my earnest support to what I believe to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced into this parliament, since it has been in existence. I hope I will be brief in the remarks which I intend to offer, I hope I will be clear and that I will treat this subject, not with levity, but with the gravity which it imposes upon one. Sir, I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches which have already been delivered by my right hon. friend .the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden) and by my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I have listened to what has been said and I believe that as regards the policy of the government, no clearer, no more eloquent statement could be made than the one which was made this afternoon by the Prime Minister of Canada. Let me say, in justice to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, with whom I may differ, that he has placed himself squarely before the House, and that he has presented in a concrete form, the policy of his party. I have listened courteously, I believe, to the statement which has just been made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, who represents one wing of the Conservative opposition. I say that I have listened courteously to him, as I always do. I can never forget one thing. When my hon. friend speaks, I always remember that he was my old professor at Laval University, and I owe him the courtesy which a pupil owes to his professor. I did not interrupt him when he began his remarks and he should have spared me his sneers when he referred to a knighthood dangling before the eyes of the Postmaster General. Mr. Speaker, remember that this is intended for Quebec consumption; it is not for Ontario consumption. I have only this to say in answer to my hon. friend that he might have offered to his pupil a little more of the milk of human kindness and a little less of the cup of bitterness. Sir, I am a reformer, I do not belong to the party which by divine right is called upon to govern all the peoples of this world. I am a reformer, I am a plain man. Unlike my hon. friend, I am not a seigneur, no blue blood about me. Speaking as such, as belonging to that vast army of common people so well described by the late Abraham Lincoln as the race beloved of God, since they were so numerous on the face of the earth-yes, as a plain man and a reformer, with the deep sense of the duty which devolves on me on the present occasion, let me say to my hon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: friend that if, forsooth, I am a knight, I am a knight of labour, nothing more and nothing else. And when I shall have said this evening what I intend saying, my language may be repeated in the smallest hamlet of the province of Quebec. And whether in the province of Quebec or in any of the other provinces, I will tell to the face of my hon, friend, who indulges in sneers at my expense, that let my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the Toof of my mouth if ever I sell my birthright and that of my fellow countrymen for a mess of pottage.
Sir, we had a right to expect that, on a' question of this importance, the two great traditional parties in this parliament would have given to the people of Canada an example of union. This is a matter of the gravest interest, and after the resolution which was adopted unanimously on the 29th March, 1909, one would have expected that we would have united on the principle of a Canadian navy. But the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Liberals have on this, as on other questions, to face the same old opposition. ' Too much ' my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) will shout to his faithful electors at Lachine, ' too much ' will he shout to the electors of Gaspe, when I suppose he will represent me as being a slave of the King and as having sold myself to His Excellency the Governor General for a knighthood; * too much ' will he shout in the province of Quebec. ' Not enough,' my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) will say in Ontario; * not enough ' will he shout in the English provinces of the Dominion. Sir, it is the privilege of the Liberal party to aim always at a happy medium and to steer through the shoals a middle course in questions of this nature. Of course, the loyalty of that party is always impeached when a policy of this kind is presented before the electors. This reminds me of what happened at the time of the French revolution when that famous lady, Madame Eoland, was brought to the guillotine. On her way, as she passed before the statue of liberty, she bowed reverentially, and turning to the people, exclaimed: O Liberty how many crimes are committed in thy name! Could we not with equal reason exclaim, when we hear those shrieks of loyalty from hon. gentlemen opposite: O Loyalty, what many crimes are committed in thy name! Sir, who would seriously impeach the loyalty of the leader of the Liberal party or that of the vast majority of Canadians, who to-day compose the reform party? Were we disloyal when in 1897, of our own free will, as the first act of the Liberal administration, we granted to Great Britain what is called the British preference? At the time of the

South African war, were we disloyal when, in spite of trying circumstances, we sent to South Africa the young men of this country to fight the battles of Greater Britain? Are we disloyal to-day when we are the first in the history of this Dominion to give His Majesty the King a navy, as the Conservative party of old gave Her Majesty the Queen an army? Mr. Speaker, let us not talk of loyalty, but let us practice loyalty. We are denounced as ultra loyal in the county of Jacques Cartier, and as ultra disloyal in the county represented by my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule). In the province of Quebec, already, my hon. friend and his allies have started meetings of indignation against what they are pleased to call the great treason of the Liberal leader. The Blue press, which has been quoted this evening by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), is stirring up the worst prejudices of our people against this policy. The leader of the Liberal party is represented as sacrificing his compatriots, the French Canadians, on the altar of Moloch, meetings have been organized and resolutions have been passed protesting against the navy. Sir, it is the same old story. At the time of the Boer war, these shouts and shrieks were heard, as they were again heard when the Autonomy Bill of 1905 was introduced. But, thank heaven, there is a majority in this country of men of common sense.
I shall not delve into old books, I shall not quote to the House what happened fifty or sixty years or a hundred years ago. The privilege of a reformer is to face every difficulty as it presents itself and it is the beauty of the British constitution, that while it is based on precedents, it adapts itself to every circumstance and difficulty. Sir, why a navy for Canada? Because it is a natural evolution of the country. Take the marvellous increase of our population- thanks to the wise policy of the_ Liberal party, thes population of Canada since 1896 has nearly doubled. Thanks to the Liberal party-thanks to Providence first and to the Liberal party afterwards.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There has been an enormous increase in our natural wealth. I have it from the hon. gentleman who presides over the Census Bureau, the Minister of Agriculture, that at the time of the next census, a year from now, the population of this Dominion will be nearer 8,000,000 than it will be 7,500,000. Our vast territories have become the refuge, the happy refuge, of thousands and hundreds of thousands of settlers. Do not our hon. friends opposite, who I verily believe are as patriotic as we are on this side of the House, not agree that it is good policy to instil
into the minds and hearts of the new settlers who come from the United States, the idea that this country should defend and protect herself? The financial position of this country is extremely sound. As was stated this afternoon by the Prime Minister, the revenue of this year has reached the high-water mark of over $100,000,000; surpluses have followed each other since 1897, since we established the British preference. Our total trade, which in 1896 was $249,000,000, has reached the enormous figure of $750,000,000. The savings banks deposits, which in 1896 were only $250,000,000 have reached in 1909 the sum of nearly $800,000,000. The production of western grain in 1900 was only 32,000,000 bushels; in 1909 it reached 330,000,000 bushels. The mineral production of this country has also far exceeded our expectations. So I am not amiss when I say that our population has doubled, that our wealth has trebled, that our trade and our industry have increased by leaps and bounds since 1806. To use the language of the Toronto * News,' I can say:
Unexampled prosperity has dawned upon this confederacy. Our foreign trade surpasses $700,000,000 annually, our railway mileage is enormous, our prairie lands are filling up rapidly, our financial institutions are strong and vigorous, our industries are growing enormously.
From an economic point of view the Dominion of Canada of 1896 is represented by the value of two Dominions of Canada. It is not, I suppose, contrary to any constitutional doctrine of which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is such a brilliant exponent, to say that Canada has become the leading overseas dominion of the British empire. We make and unmake our tariffs; we control our defences; we practically make our own treaties. Not later than the first of February last came in force the Franco-Canadian treaty, which was negotiated through the diplomacy of our own Canadian statesmen, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Sir, I can repeat the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister, who said in the presence of His Majesty the King in 1897: Canada is a nation within the empire. There was no question at the time as to whether or not the Prime Minister had used the words equivocally, whether he recognized the sovereignty or the suzerainty of the King, On this point let me say one word. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has been a professor of constitutional law. It so happens that in the same university I myself was a professor of the history of law, and I happen to know the difference between suzerainty and sovereignty. In England, in France, in Germany, the King is the suzerain- why? Because they were feudal countries. Under the feudal system, barons, mar-

quises and counts had become very powerful, until in France for example, the day came when Louis XIV. became the suzerain of all his grand vassals, the barons, marquises and counts. So it was in England and in Germany. It is silly indeed to pick a quarrel over the use of the word suzerain or the word sovereign. Sir, we are a nation within the empire, and why I pray, should we not have a navy of our own? Does any one dispute the right of this country to have a militia of her own? If there are objections to a Canadian navy, are there not also objections - to a Canadian militia? _ My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier excited the merriment of his friends opposite when he opened his remarks; but I must say that when he concluded it looked as if the other side of the House was rather gloomy. Let me say to my hon. friend that he has not played the game fair. He has represented the thousands and hundreds of thousands of readers of the daily press in the province of Quebec as an ignorant lot. He insinuates that we, on this side of the House, have been bluffing the electorate of the province of Quebec, and he has quoted partially from a leader published in ' Le Canada ' newspaper. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to translate tiiat leader. Not a word can be found in it that is a reproach to the man who wrote it. It is ably written, and to every word in it any man could subscribe. It is written in French, and my hon. friend translated it into English only partially. I hope that some of my friends who will speak on this question will read the translation of this article. It is headed ' Les Quatre Manieres de Voir,' ' The Four Different Views.' and explain the policy of the Liberal party, as voiced this afternoon by the leader of the government. The editor states that in case of an emergency it is in the power of the Canadian parliament to say whether or not the navy can be used by His Majesty the King. My hon. friend excited hilarity of that side of the House on the word ' may.' ' May,' he said with emphasis, the Canadian government ' may ' lend that tin-pot navy to the King of England. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was in the House some years ago when the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) introduced his Bill to revise the Militia Act. Did he play with the words used in that Bill? Had he scrutinized the various clauses of that very important Bill he would have read a clause quite similar to the clause referred to. Clause 69 of the Mmtia Act reads:
The Governor in Council may place the militia or any part thereof on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada for the defence thereof at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mark well: not the House of Commons but the traitors, who compose the cabinet. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we traitors' may, if we so choose, lend the militia of Canada to the King of Great Britain. Has my hon. friend read that Act? Did he move any amendment when it was proposed in the House of Commons? Did he notice it? Was he absent? I believe he was not present and judging by the language he used this evening, to say the least, he was deficient in his duty.
Sir, it is of this argument of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, as Tegards the words: ' They may lend the navy to the King of England ' that we shall hear in the present debate, particularly from my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), thundering denunciations, because forsooth the Canadian parliament is to meet and to deliberate whenever an emergency arises. But, Sir, this principle is in the Militia Act: parliament, according to clause 71, must meet when there is an emergency and when our militia is on active service. There are things which are said in the province of Quebec, and others in the province of Ontario and thus, various comments are made on the clauses of the Militia Act. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier referred to the heroes of 1837 and 1838. He appealed to the French Canadian members in the House af Commons, he, the descendant of one who was fighting against the patriots of 1837. In his historical reminis-censes, has the hon. gentleman forgotten that the father of the Militia Act was a great leader and a knight at that, of the French-Conservative party, Sir George Etienne'Cartier? Has he forgotten that Sir George Cartier was on the battlefields at St. Charles and St. Denis with the grandfather of the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who signed with his own blood the Magna Charta of not only the French Canadians but also of the English-speaking Canadians of this country? Sir, the Thirty Seveners as they call them in the county of York, did not fight only in the Queen's bush of Quebec, but fought also for the same cause not very far from Toronto. But this is not only a question of sentiment, it is above all a question of business and hard facts and I hasten to revert to hard facts and business. Why should we not have a navy as we have an army? En passant, it is well to remember, that our militia force is not the skeleton of an army. I have heard more praise to the Canadian army during my peregrinations abroad, and from higher authorities than my friend suspects, certainly more praise than I have heard falling from the lips of my hon. friends opposite. Who were the men who thus praised the

Canadian army? His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the old General, the hero of South Africa, Lord Roberts. I say there is a beginning to everything. My hon. friend quoted a French axiom a moment ago. Let me quote another:	' Rome ne
s'est pas bati en un jour.' ' Rome was not built in a day.' The Canauian militia was organized fifty years ago. It is now a fighting force. It is a credit not only to Canada but to the empire, and when the time of danger comes, the Canadian militia will give a good account of itself. Might I not prophesy the same happy results for a Canadian navy? Sir, speaking for my country, I do not shrink at being great. No, I do not shrink at being great. My hon. friend, a moment ago, quoted the words of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada in Quebec the other day. He did not say what he had in his mind; he simply gave expression to a few flighty, elastic, pliable thoughts. I know, Sir, what will be said. Nay, I know what is already being said in the province of Quebec by my hon. friend's friends, about His Excellency. He is represented, very courteously, very chivalrously, by my hon. friend's companions and knight errants, as the commercial traveller of the empire. Sir, His Excellency the Governor General took occasion the other day, speaking before the Canadian club of Quebec, to define what the word 'imperialism' implied. I was very pleased to be present to applaud, and to see many of the leading citizens of Quebec, Conservatives and Liberals applauding also and cheering His Excellency. Let me translate into English what His Excellency said on that occasion. It is a lesson which should have' been bead by my hon. friend for his own benefit, and, now that I translate it, it will be a lesson to all those who misrepresent the attitude of the Governor General of Canada:
Is there in the world a people more privileged than the people who inhabit the fine province of Quebec? Your laws, your language, are under the special protection of the British Crown. In return for so many privileges and advantages, the Crown exacts nothing from you except sentiments of loyalty. The word * imperialism ' does not imply intervention from England in the government of this country; the word ' imperialism ' symbolizes the power of each of the units of the empire and absolute liberty in each of these units.
Sir, speaking the language of the old Normans, which is still spoken in the British House of Commons, I say: J'assente. If that is the bogey represented by my hon. friend to the electors of Lachine and Jaequesi Cartier, I say: Happy electors of Lachine and Jacques Cartier, to be powerful as a unit of the empire, and also
absolutely free as a unit of that empire! Sir, have we not a sea-board to protect? Nay, we have two sea-boards to protect. We have also trade routes to look after. We have a sea-board on the Atlantic ocean with its prosperous and thriving cities; we have a sea-board on the western coast at Vancouver, at Victoria, at Prince Rupert, where, before many years have elapsed, maTts of commerce and industry will develop. Not to speak of as possible conflicts with the United States of America-for I may well echo to the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister of England, when, in a very recent debate he stated that, in his two-standard-power policy he never contemplated the possibility of conflict with the United States of America,-and neither do we contemplate the possibility of conflict with the great nation to the south. We would not, however, be true to ourselves, true to our traditions, if we did not exhibit to the Americans the same traits of courage, the same fighting qualities, that our ancestors have shown, should the hour of danger arise. We desire as a colony- nay, as a Dominion-we desire to be respected: let us begin by respecting ourselves and thus obtain the respect of the great neighbouring republic. But, Sir, not to speak of the United States of America, I say there is on the Pacific ocean a great power-two great powers. There is Japan, whose navy at the present hour a navy organized by a Quebecker, Sir Archibald Douglas-is second only to that of Great Britain. As the Prime Minister stated this afternoon, fortunately for us, England in her many blunders-if I should use the word of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-has secured a treaty of alliance with Japan. We have nothing to fear from Japan so long as that treaty lasts. But treaties do not last for ever, they are, so to speak, negotiable instruments: they change hands; and it is well to be prepared lest a change should take place. There is also a great power, China, which is looming large in the world's affairs, which sent, no longer ago than during the month of November last, a dozen picked naval officers to study in England the conditions of the British navy. Therefore, Sir, as I stated a moment ago, every one who does not shrink from thinking of his country being great, should think of our future and not cast aspersions on our efforts to build a navy. Mr. Speaker, I 'stated a moment ago, that we had trade routes to protect. I notice that some gentlemen are referring to resolutions which were adopted by the Grain Growers and the Grangers against the expenditure for a Canadian navy. Let me say this: I do nor wish to lecture the Grain Growers and the Grangers, but some facts should not be ignored. If there is one class of people in this country

who, in case of war, would require the protection of the_ Canadian navy, iti s the farming community. I speak from a purely material noint of view, because from the national point of view, I assume that we would all be happy to defend this country and to co-operate loyally with the imperial navy if need be. Let me give a few figures. In the calendar year 1908, the Canadian farmer sold his products outside of Canada to the extent of about $308,100,000. Briefly, if you took it in bulk to Great Britain in that year, we sold to the value of $97,400,000; to the United States, $3,200,000; to other countries, $7,350,000. In other words, the mother country took from us 90 ;2 per cent of all our agricultural exports. In view of these figures, does not the security of the British market mean something to us, and especially t>
our farming community? Great Britain takes from us nine-tenths of the products of our farms. Those who believe that the farmers will be led astray by the do-nothing policy, are strangely astray themselves. I know that the farmers of this country are intelligent enough, in case of danger, to defend the trade routes, so as to protect the cargoes of food supply conveyed from Canada to the mother country.
Now, what are the objections made to the naval policy of the government?
1.	It is stated in the province of Quebec by the friends of my hon. friend, that there is no need of a navy for Canada, because we are protected by the United States through the Monroe doctrine;
2.	That we have no obligations towards ' Great Britain;
3.	That the Prime Minister of Canada and his party have not kept their pledge on the question of militarism;
4.	That Canada will not control her navy; :
5.	That there should be a plebiscite be- 1
fore any policy is affirmed.	,
Let me answer briefly to the objections I have enumerated. It is contended in Que- < bee that we do not require any protection 1 because in case of war, we will be protected 1 by the Monroe doctrine; if we were attacked, j Uncle Sam would come to our rescue.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would my hon. friend men- I tion the name of anybody who has ad- < vanced that theory?	<


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read it, in the first 1 place, in the Blue press of the province of Quebec; in the next place, it was expounded the other evening, during a three hours' ! speech, by the ally of my hon. friend, the ex-member for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa. If that is the policy of the little Canadians, i how undignified that language is, especial- ; ly if it is endorsed by a gentleman in whose c veins runs blue blood; how undignified it is that we, a free people on this con- < Mr. LEMIEUX.
tinent, should dream of relying upon the United States for defence in case we were attacked. Mark well, Sir, those who invoke the Monroe doctrine claim that they are better Canadians than we are; they denounce us as traitors to our country and our constitution. What is the effect of the Monroe doctrine? Does it apply to Canada? Every one who has read history knows that between 1811 and 1823 the Spanish dependencies of South America and of Central America declared their independence. That was at the time of the congress of Vienna, quite an historical event, at the beginning of the last century, in Europe. Then, was formed among the large nations of the world what has been called in history, the Holy Alliance. It was feared in the United States that the Bourbon dynasty, :whieh had been ousted from its throne in Spain, might be represented in South America or Central America by one of its descendants. Then it was that President Monroe, backed by the diplomacy of Great Britain, through the strong hand of one of her best diplomats, Canning, issued the famous message which has since become historical. Let me quote from that message to see how it would apply to Canada:
The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favour of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that, of America. The difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it therefore to candour and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any position of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.
And then the President adds:
With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.
So, if the Monroe doctrine is the consolation of the so-called anti-militarist party, let me say to them that in case of the invasion of Canada by a foreign power, we could not rely on the help of the United States. There is nothing

in the message of a nature to guarantee to European sovereigns the maintenance of their American possessions intact against any possible attacks from the others in the event of a European war. There is no warrant is history and it is a simple distortion of the facts to pretend that we are in the least protected by the Monroe doctrine. The acceptance of that doctrine under such circumstances would be unworthy of any true patriotic Canadian. In case of war, say, between Germany and England, we would be belligerents according to international law, Monroe doctrine or no Monroe doctrine. Our young men would enlist, and Canada would be the chief source of food supply to the mother country as she partially is to-day. We all know that the food supply of a fighting nation is contraband of war, and therefore we would find that our ships would be seized or attacked and we could not rely upon the Monroe doctrine to protect these ships carrying the food supplies of Canada to the mother country. There is no warrant in history for the assumption that the Monroe doctrine protects us and it is, I repeat, unworthy of any true, patriotic Canadian to utter such a fallacy. It has been stated that we have no obligations towards Great Britain. My hon. friend said in so many words that what we have secured, we have secured through our own energy, through our own courage, through our own blood and through our own grit. I admit that our ancestors fought, but did they fight against Great Britain? My hon. friend referred a moment ago to 1837 and 1838. The patriots who rebelled in 1837 and 1838 did not fight Great Britain, or British institutions, or the British Crown. They rebelled against the Family Compact. They were only too prone and too happy to claim their privilege of British citizenship and if my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier will read one or two of the first paragraphs of the famous 92 resolutions presented to parliament by Papineau and Bedard he will see that the men of ' 37 and 38 ' were only claiming their rights as British citizens. I say, Sir. that we have obligations towards the motheT country, that we are interested primarily to see her in the future, as she has been during the last century, the mistress of the seas. We are interested primarily in maintaining her supremacy, because we know that that supremacy has been the means of vindicating throughout not only the British dominions, but throughout the civilized world, wherever there were small nations curbed by tyranny, the principles of right, of justice and liberty. We pay no tribute. We contribute nothing towards her navy. We enjoy absolute autonomy, and it is through that autonomy, and of our own free will, that we to-day undertake to
build this Canadian navy in order to help the mother country in first defending our own coasts and co-operating loyally with her in case of emergency. The Conservatives say that the Liberal party and the Prime Minister have altered their policy. They quote in the province of Quebec, one iine from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in 1902 in which he stated that this young country was not to be drawn into the vortex of militarism. To that expression of the Liberal* policy I assent as I assented a moment ago to the words spoken by His Excellency the Governor General. We are not a military party. We are a Canadian party. If we were for militarism we would accept the doctrine propounded by some of the hon. gentlemen opposite. We would throw our money into the British exchequer without counting, without discussing; we would send our men, without calling parliament, and without putting the regulations of our militia and of our navy under the control of the Canadian government. But, Sir, the Canadian constitution, give us, as British subjects, a salutary check-a check which we can impose even on His Majesty the King. Yes, Sir, that is no new doctrine. Let me quote from Lord Camden:
I will maintain it to my latest hour; taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or his representative.
That is sound British doctrine, the doctrine for which Hampden fought, but I suppose he was only a pedant according to my hon. friend. Hampden and Pym stood and fought for such a principle and it is embalmed and ingrained in the British constitution of to-day. Yes, parliament can impose a salutary check even on His Majesty the King. I am not disloyal, Mr. Speaker, in uttering such words. Let me read again from Lord Camden:
To fix the era when the Commons began is perilous and destructive; to fix it in Edward's or Henry's reign is owing to the idle dreams of some whimsical, ill-judging antiquaries; but this point is too important to be left to such wrong-headed people. When did the House of Commons begin? When, My Lords? It began with the constitution. There is not a blade of grass growing in the most obscure corner of this kingdom which is not, which was not ever, represented since the constitution began. There is not a blade of grass which when taxed was not taxed by consent of the proprietor.
Lord Camden must have been a very disloyal subject indeed, and I am surprised he did not leave his head on the block in those dark days of despotism. Happily, the doc-

trine he propounded is engraved in the British constitution.
We are told in the province of Quebec that this naval policy is a new idea, that it is being sprung on the electors of the Dominion. My hon. friend made that statement in the county of Jacques Cartier. Sir, I read the other day, on my return to Canada, with the greatest pleasure the very able speech-worthy of being called an essay-in which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) gave a synopsis of the various imperial conferences held in London since 1887. I read that speech carefully and would like to have it read by every youth in this country. I commend it not only to the young men of the English speaking provinces but to the young men in the province of Quebec. They will there learn that the idea of a Canadian navy is not a new one, that it is not a new fancy of the Prime Minister. They will see that as far back as 1887 the question was mooted at the imperial conference. It was not discussed at Ottawa in 1893, because, as stated by my hon. friend, that conference had been summoned, not by the British government, but by the colonies. But it came up very prominently at the conference of 1902, and in the light of that conference, those who say that this policy of a Canadian navy is a new one and that the people ought to be consulted regarding it, are singularly ignorant of the facts. Why, the policy embodied in the Bill we are now discussing, the very ideas expressed in that Bill, are to be found in the declaration made in the name of Canada during the imperial conference of 1902. I hope I am not detaining you too long


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But as I intend this speech of mine to be circulated among the French Canadians of the province of Quebec, I wish to make this quotation which is to be found in the appendix page 73 of the return for 1902:
The Canadian ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborne respecting a navy, and by Mr. St. John Brodrick respecting the army. The ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much frbm the expense involved, as from a belief that the acceptance of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial government. Canada values highly the measure of local independence which has been granted her from time to time by the imperial authorities, and which has been so productive of beneficial results, both as respects the material progress of the country and the strengthening of the ties that bind it to the motherland. But while, for these reasons, the Canadian ministers are obliged to withhold their assent to the propositions of the admiralty and the War Office, they fully ap-Mr. LEMIEUX.
preciate the duty of the Dominion, as it advances in population and wealth, to make more liberal outlay for these necessary preparations of self-defence which every country has to assume and hear.
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the-naval system of defence as well. On the sea coast of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early date a system may he devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion, the ministers repeat that while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purposes of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures should be so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which she now hears; and have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of the experienced imperial officers, so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self-government, which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.
Reading that state paper, left in the hands of the secretary of the imperial conference of 1902, one can find the very principle, the very theory of the Bill we are now discussing.
I say that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he declared to his electors, a few days before the session that the country had been taken by surprise, either had not read the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister in 1902 or laid himself open to that other reproach of having assented during the session following the imperial conference of 1902 to the policy then advocated by the Prime Minister.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have read very carefully not only that, but the different views expressed by the Prime Minister during the conference of 1907.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In this document, the right hon. the Prime Minister anticipated, so to speak, the legislation being presented to the House to-day. In 1907, he refused to he led by the Hon. Dr. Smart and by Mr. Jameson who were then propounding a militarist policy. The right hon. gentleman differed from them, but he adhered firmly to his declaration of 1902, and when the affairs of this country became more prosperous, when he found that the financial crisis and its effect had passed away, he came out boldly with the policy advocated in 1902. I say further that the resolution unanimously adopted on the 29th March, 1909, is based on that state

-paper. My hon. friend should blush before declaring war on the government, as he is doing in the province of Quebec, when he himself was here and agreed to that resolution. My hon. friend says and his friends in the province of Quebec contend that we should submit this question to a plebiscite. Sir, I have only one answer to make to my hon. friend, and it is the answer of the knight-errant of whom he spoke a moment ago. When there is arising in this country a question of duty, not only towards the Crown, but towards the native land, there is no need of a plebiscite. A knight-errant is impelled by a deep sentiment of loyalty and chivalry to accomplish his duty, and has not to consult the country, because he knows fully well that the country is at heart with him, just as the city of Ottawa was at heart with the government on Saturday last.


Mr. SPROULE.: Was not the argument the hon. gentleman advanced some time ago, when he read some remarks of Lord Camden, to the effect that nothing should be taken from the individual without his consent and that representation went with taxation, contrary to the argument he is presenting now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is generally fair, and I must pay him this compliment, that he is sincere and honest. There is no discrepancy between the two statements. A moment ago, in answer to the reproach which is being hurled at us in the province of Quebec, that the navy was at the beck and mercy and fancy of the imperial authorities, I said that it was not-that we were British subjects, possessed of rights and privileges; that we had a parliament, and that parliament would say whether our navy would serve the imperial ends or not. Then I quoted Lord Camden as my authority, and I believe that the principles laid down by him are at the very foundation of the British constitution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the hon. gentleman this? Provided we go on and carry out this policy, and are prepared to take part in all the controversies of Great Britain from year to year, shall we not he doing it in violation of the very principle the hon. gentleman lays down, because we have no representation in the British House of Commons, to say whether the wars are proper or improper according to our judgment, though we contribute to them?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will answer that question in a moment. But we are told by some of our hon. friends that our navy is not worthy of that name. It is the laughingstock of the Conservative press in the country. Do you believe, Sir, that Dreadnoughts or battleships alone are required by the British Admiralty? I do not claim to be an expert; far from it. But since this question has been before the country, I have taken the trouble to read a little of what has been said in this country and abroad by experts. What is the opinion of Sir Wm. White, who, as we all know was the chief naval instructor of the Admiralty of Great Britain until very lately. He made a speech not very long ago before the Royal Society of Arts in London, and what did he say? He said:
' Showing the flag even in small vessels' lias been and is no empty or merely ceremonial custom. It has done much to maintain British prestige, to promote and protect British commerce, and to make more real the recognition of British sea-power all over the world; while the small vessels employed on these services have furnished excellent schools of training and opportunities for gaining experience and lessons in direct responsibility by younger officers. There has been a tendency in recent years to minimise these results, and to treat as ' worse than useless ' the smaller classes of vessels which from time immemorial have been so engaged. It is satisfactory to note that -wiser counsels are again prevailing, and the necessity for employing vessels of many classes in an imperial navy is recognized.
This is the opinion, not of a humble parliamentarian like my hon. friend from East Grey or myself, but of an expert. He would not characterize the Canadian navy, with its eleven ships, as a tin-pot navy. He would say that it is a necessary adjunct to the British navy and a gTeat helper in time of war.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He says they are useful for training ships.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And also for the protection of British commerce I will quote further:
Every care ought to be taken to avoid inferiority in types and numbers of ships, and to provide ail classes required to make up modern battle fleets,-ships fit for the fighting line, cruisers, torpedo craft, submarines and special vessels used as colliers, store ships, repair ships, and for other subsidiary but important duties. Battle-fleets are essential to the maintenance of supremacy at sea, but it is necessary also to provide for the protection of British commerce and communications.	_	.
In addition to regularly built cruisers, lightly armed mercantile vessels possessing high speed and large coal supplies will certainly be used in future for commerce destruction. During the last two years a fresh start his been made in the construction of commerce-protecting cruisers of moderate size, and all who have the interests of the empire at heart must rejoice at this return to a saner policy, which has been justified by long experience.

The scheme for Canadian and Australian navies contemplates the building of a number of swift cruisers of this class for use in the approaches to great ports where trade routes converge and the chances of injury to merchant ships attain their maximum if an enemy possesses vessels suitable for employment in those regions.
This is the opinion of an expert and I am glad my hon. friend gave me an opportunity of further quoting what has been stated by so great a military authority on the British navy.
Now, shall I speak of the German scare? I think I need not refer to it. The British electorate have just answered the insinuations which were made on the platform in England to the effect that the German navy was every morning leaving the Baltic sea and ready to land on British soil and get possession of London itself.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not claimed that the British electorate got a whack at the Lords?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows better. He knows that in this election there were three issues, one as regards the Lords. It was a very strong issue which was somewhat obscured by my hon. friend's friends on the other side, by tariff reform and the German scare. Did not the great leader of the Conservative party in England, in the very last days of the election, have resort to some of the words used by a certain Socialist by the name of Blateh-ford? Yes, Sir, even Mr. Balfour himself stated in so many words that there was fear of a German invasion and that the British electorate should repulse that old enemy, the Eadical party in ^ England, because, forsooth, British institutions were not in safe hands. It is about the same story in England as it is in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: By what process does my hon. friend find out what caused the remaining majority of the Liberal party, which of these three things was it that brought it about and which of the three things was it that gave the Unionists so large a gain over them? I know he has been there and understands all that-he is the one who did the business.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1906, when the hon. gentleman with his well known eloquence went to England to help the cause of tariff reform, the Liberal party abnormally secured a majority of over 200. My hon. friend came back to Toronto and other issues were discussed in England and the parties took to their normal level in British politics. I am in earnest in what I am saying. My hon. friend knows as a matter of fact the majority the Liberal party secured in the election of 1906 was Mr. LEMIEUX.
abnormal, owing to circumstances that we know too well. At this last election the Liberal party came back to power with a working majority, with a substantial majority, but it is the aim of the Tory press in this country to distort the facts. Every day we hear of a coalition ministry. But Mr. Asquith is quietly resting on the continent, he is enjoying his villegiature there. He will come back in a few days. His majesty, the King, will open parliament, the budget will be adopted even by the Lords and the Liberal party, aye the Labour party which after all is only the vanguard bf the Liberal party, will continue to govern Great Britain. I am, I believe, just as much a Unionist, in the better sense of the word, as my hon. friend is. I am a true Unionist, and when I speak of a Liberal majority in Great Britain, whether that Liberal majority comes from the Eadical party, from the Whigs, from the Labour party, or from that island whence the ancestors of my hon. friend from Montreal Centre (Mr. Doherty) came, it is nevertheless a Liberal majority, it is a reform majority.


Mr. DOHEETY.: The hon. gentleman has appealed to me as being in some way able to speak for a certain portion of that majority. I desire to say most emphatically that so far as I know them, they form part of no Liberal and equally of no Conservative party in England.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman knows a great deal, but I can tell him that during the last parliament the Irish party voted on nearly every question with the Liberal party. They would be very ungrateful indeed if they did not vote with the successors of Gladstone, but they were not ungrateful. During the recent contest, after the speech delivered on the 12th of December last, by Mr. Asquith at Albert Hall in London, we received the echo of another speech delivered the day after by Mr. Eedmond, in which he pledged the support of his party to the Liberal majority in the House of Commons because he knows that with the Liberal party in England they will secure home rule for Ireland.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask my hon. friend-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, I did not speak for Ulster.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who was responsible for the German scare which he says the Unionists used so effectively during the elections?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will say that the German scare is the work of a very thrifty journalist by the name of Lord North-cliSe.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was started in the House of Commons by the present leader of the Reform party, Mr. Asquith himself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will answer my hon. friend by the words of Mr. Asquith and of Mr. McKenna, the present Lord of the Admiralty. I quote, from 'Public Opinion', Mr. McKenna's words:
At this moment, Great Britain has got seven Dreadnoughts in commission, Germany has got two. When Germany has four in commission, Great Britain will have ten: when Germany has five in commission, Great Britain will have twelve; when Germany has nine in commission, Great Britain will have fourteen; and when Germany has eleven in commission, Great Britain will have sixteen; and when Germany has thirteen in commission, Great Britain will have twenty.
And further:
The navy scare has not the slightest foundation in fact.
That is the statement of the first Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. McKenna. And what does Mr. Asquith say? He stated, at Birkenhead, on the 21st December last:
With regard to our defensive forces, the navy and the army, I do not hesitate to say that they never were in a more efficient, a better equipped or a more highly organized condition than they are to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what I was asking. What was this statement in the House of Commons when he was asking for the naval estimates?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not aware of that statement, but I take the statement made publicly on the platform by Mr. McKenna, the first Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Asquith, the prime minister, and Sir Edward Grey, the secretary for Foreign Affairs. Sir Edward Grey said:
The British navy is being maintained in a position to protect the country from any probable combination of fleets.
Again, the right hon. Reginald McKenna, first Lord of the Admiralty, said on January 5th last:
This navy scare is absurd and ridiculous. No attempt has been made to argue the question seriously. How can we reason with rumour or reply to shrieks?
Mr. McKenna may have used other language, but I quote his latest statements. I do not deny the statement alluded to by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), but we all know that this German scare exists only in the imagination of party politicians. It was started by the party press of Great Britain, controlled by Lord Northcliffe, and was written up during the elections - by the well-known socialist, Mf. Blachford, in the pay of a certain party
in Great Britain. But, Sir, who will ever believe that Britons are scared by a ' German terror? ' Sir, I am of French descent, but I know something of the history of England, and I say that no country in this world can abate the well-known and well-founded pride of British valour.
We are told that the building of this Canadian navy will give rise to graft, and that we in Canada are too ignorant to build a navy. The charge of graft is beneath contempt. Let the hon. gentleman who believes that Canadians are unable to build a navy go up from the bar of this chamber to the library, and he will see on the wall the following inscription:
In honour of the men by Whose enterprise, courage and skill,
The ' Royal William,'
The first vessel to cross the Atlantic by steam power, was wholly constructed in Canada and navigated to England in 1883.
I claim-and I know that my hon. friend from East Grey '(Mr. Sproule), after all, is too good a Canadian not to say-that if Canadian energy and enterprise in the city of Halifax in 1833 was able to accomplish this, the Canada of 1910 is able to construct the modest-I admit, but very efficient-navy which is in germ in the Bill presented to this House. Sir, I have the pride of my country. I do not belong to the racial majority and may no' have the same ideals as they have- But it seems to me there should be in this country common ideals on questions of this nature. If Canada has been able to build a Canadian Pacific railway, and if the enterprise of two men of the province of Ontario, Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, is duplicating that road in the Canadian Northern to-day; if the Canada of 1903 was able to remove, so to speak, further north, the boundaries of Canada by building another Transcontinental; if we are able to undertake the Hudson Bay railway, and to construct the Georgian Bay canal, it seems to me that it is not beyond our reach to build a Canadian navy. And we have in the maritime provinces, nay, we have in the old section of the province of Quebec, in the county which I have the honour with you, Mr. Speaker, to represent in this House, a thrifty and skilful people whose ancestors were all sailors, who were building ships, and the best ships of the empire, at the time of the ship-building industry in this country. May not we hope and expect that the descendants of these sailors and shipbuilders will be able to accomplish to-day what their forefathers were accomplishing sixty or seventy-five years ago?
But the experts of the British navy themselves are in favour of a Canadian-built navy. Sir William White, chief of naval construction of Great Britain, says this:

By many leading Canadians whose opinions are entitled to respect, it would be preferred to follow the course recently adopted by New Zealand, and to make a money ' grant-in-aid ' of British navy estimates, leaving the decision as to the use made of the money to the Admiralty, who would be free to construct what numbers and types of ships they thought proper, to arrange for manning them, and to employ them in whatever service they chose as units of the Koyal navy. This would be a simple plan, no doubt, would involve a minimum expenditure on construction, armament, manning and maintenance, and would secure early completion of these additions to the fleet. On the other hand the plan favoured by the Canadian government and (as I believe) supported by a preponderating opinion amongst the people of the Dominion is natural in the circumstances, has some distinct advantages, and tends to cultivate a national interest in the fleet, while it gives opportunities for the personal service of Canadian citizens in the naval defence of the empire. The government of the Australian Commonwealth is acting on lines similar to those favoured by the Canadian government, and has decided on the creation of its own navy before the Imperial Defence Conference of this year was aranged. In doing so Australia abandoned the plan of an annual cash payment (or subsidy) to British navy estimates, which had been in force since 1888.
I say that a Canadian built navy would be much more acceptable to the Canadian people than cash contributions to the British exchequer. The Canadian national sentiment would be much feebler if Canadian money was invisibly spent in England, instead of having a navy of our own, of having the ships under our own eyes, manned by our own people and built in our own yards. At first the navy would not be built as well as it would be in England, granted. The cost may be greater, granted again. But we must begin. I believe we will become a great nation, and we must arouse the pride of the Canadian people. If we were to argue, as some of my hon. friends argue on the other side of the House, we might bring back to this country the British garrisons. The British garrisons have departed, and we have assumed the care of Esquimalt and Halifax. We have now our own militia. Is it not better to form our own seamen instead of hiring, not Hessians, as in the days of old, but our sailors from the mother country, who, otherwise, would be of service to the motherland in the North sea and the British channel? Is it not better that we should have Canadian sailors on both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans? Shipbuilding should not be confined to England, it should be extended to Canada. That was the view taken by Lord Milner when he came to this country a few months ago. That is the view of the grand old Canadian statesman, Sir Charles Tupper, in a letter he addressed to the Canadian press a few months ago, wherein he ex-Mr. LEMIEUX.
pressed his hope that the leader of the opposition would remain faithful to the policy unanimously adopted in this House on the 29th of March, 1909. Let me also quote the words of a Conservative paper, a patriotic paper, I mean the Ottawa 'Evening Journal
Canadian navy built in Canada means the spending of the money in Canada, the establishment of shipyards and naval training schools in Canada, the building of ships in Canada, the employment of men in Canada, the purchase of material here, the encouragement of other Canadian industries. It_ means a stimulus to Canadian towns and cities, a new development of national self education and confidence, the avoidance of possible causes of friction with the mother country. The contribution policy means that Canadian taxes are spent in England, and they may become a source of friction and irritation, a source of dissatisfaction, here and there, as to the amount, and the way it should he expended. There will he no continuity to the system.
; These are all strong reasons for adopting the policy propounded this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman. We are reminded by some that ours is only a tin pot navy, whilst in the province of Quebec it is regarded as a luxury. Sir, I thought my hon. friends had more pride. I have here a list of independent countries, and self-governing colonies, whose population does not exceed 10,000,000 people, and is in many cases less than that, who have navies of their own:



NAVIES OF COUNTRIES HAVING LESS THAN 10 MILLION INHABITANTS.

[Stage Direction]
Argentina.-9 cruisers and armoured cruisers. gunboats and torpedo boats. Population,
7.000.	000, 6,000 men. Naval policy, $35,000,000. 3 Dreadnoughts under contract.
Brazil.-15 armoured cruisers, 5 dockyards.
Chile.-7 armoured cruisers, 3 Dreadnoughts under contract. Population, 3,750,000.
Columbia.-3 cruisers on the Atlantic; torpedo boats; 2 cruisers on the Pacific. Population, 2,500,000.
Costa Rica.-1 torpedo boat, 1 gunboat. Population, 350,000.
Denmark.-9 armoured criusers and monitors. Population, 2,500,000.
Equator.-1 torpedo boat, 1 transport, 250 men. Population, 1,250,000.
Greece.-3 armoured cruisers and 20 torpedo boats; 4,000 men. Population, 2,000,000
Haiti.-6 warships, 3rd class cruisers, gunboats. Population, 1,500,000.
Mexico.-10 gunboats, 1 training ship, 6 protected cruisers, 198 officers, 965 men. Population, 13,000,000.
Holland.-17 cruisers, 8,000 men. Population, 5,750,000.
Norway.-5 cruisers, 1,000 men. Population,
2.500.000.
Paraguay.-5 transports and coast defence ships. Population, 700,000.
Pern.-5 armoured cruisers, 2 cruisers. Population, 5,000,000.
Portugal.-8 armoured cruisers, 5,687 men; Population, 5,500,000.

San Domingo. - 1 gunboat. Population,
610,000.
Sweden.-15 armoured cruisers. Policy, fortification works to last twelve years. Population, 5,500,000.
Sir, if we were to follow the advice of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier we would have the province of Quebec in the position in which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), a few years ago, said England was: in a splendid isolation ; we would have the province of Quebec in this confederation, where all of the other English-speaking provinces on this question are one, although differing in details, we -would have the province of Quebec in a position of splendid isolation.
Mr. Speaker, I am against the splendid isolation of the French Canadian race. I say to my hon. friend and to his ally, the ex-member for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa, one of the most talented men that the French Canadian race ever produced, that in propounding this policy of splendid isolation for the French Canadians in this confederation of ours, they are not true to the traditions of their race. No, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier does not respond to the national traditions of the race which he and I represent. He does not even respond to the political traditions of the French Conservative party of old. Let me give a few glimpses of the history of the province of Quebec, My hon. friend seems to infer that we, in Quebec, are naturally against any movement in favour of either a militia or a navy. In 1759, when the last act took place of that sombre drama on the Plains of Abraham, my forefathers passed under another domination. Under the French regime our forefathers had not known what liberty and free institutions were. We were governed by a bureaucracy and there was no such thing as parliamentary institutions. But, as Aeneas came from Troy to Rome and brought with him his customs and his laws, so, the British and the Scotch grenadiers, who vanquished the French on the Plains of Abraham, brought with them, so to speak, the British constitution and all that it implies. We were left a few thousand French, led by the Roman Catholic clergy, and abandoned by the seigneurs, who at that time returned to France. We were left a minority of 60,000 people on the two shores of the St. Lawrence, almost lost in the Anglo-Saxon continent of North America. We would have been submerged if the British parliament qf 1774 had not, under the most generous impulse, given to the French Canadian Roman Catholic minority, its laws, its language, its customs and its religious freedom. Does not my hon. friend, whose allies are invoking the Monroe doctrine as a protection for us in case of attack, remember having read in the history of the thirteen colonies, that one of the grievances adduced by the revolutionists against the mother country was that very fact that the mother country had given the French Canadians and the Roman Catholics their religious freedom, their French laws and their national customs? In the light of history, would my hon. friend believe that if we were once launched on the American ocean, our laws, our schooh, our usages and customs would be protected by the United States Congress? Let him remember the history of Louisiana. There was in Louisiana a French minority. It had the civil laws of France as we have the civil laws of France embalmed in the Canadian statutes. It professed the Roman Catholic faith. [DOT] Let him go to Louisiana today; let the clergy; let the bishops of the province of Quebec go to Louisiana and what will they find? They will find many French names in the directories, but they will hear very little French spoken. They will see that while twenty or twenty-five years ago, French was taught in the schools, to-day there is only one language, and that is the English language. French laws were preserved. They are in their code, tut they are printed in English and before the courts they are cited in the English language only. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that we had nothing to care about British supremacy, that if perchance British supremacy was a bygone thing, what we had gained, we would still keep. I say to my hon. friend that his language does not voice the sentiment of the far-seeing men of his race, and of his province. It is, on the contrary, of the most vital interest to the French Canadian citizen, whether he be a layman or a priest, whether a priest or a bishop, to stand up for the maintenance of British supremacy in order to preserve the rights, the privileges and the franchises which were obtained from the British parliament in 1774. My hon. friend says that we owe nothing to British statesmanship. As a Liberal, as a Canadian, I cannot forget that it is due to Charles James Fox, to the great Pitt himself, that the Canadians of 1774 secured what I have called on many occasions, the Magna Charta of the province of Quebec. What we obtained in 1774 was secured again under the constitution of 1791 and a few illustrations will show that the role of the French Canadian clergy has always been one of grateful and loyal adhesion to the British Crown just on account of the privileges enjoyed under it. What did Mgr. Briand, Bishop of Quebec, say? In May, 1775, at the time of the American invasion, he used this language:
The singular favour and kindness with which we have been governed by his most
[Stage Direction]
Gracious Majesty King George the Third, since by the fortune of war we have been subject to his rule, the recent favours which he has just shown us in granting us the use of our own laws and the free exercise of our religion, and in allowing us to share in all the privileges and advantages of British subjects, should assuredly suffice to excite your gratitude and your zeal to sustain the interests of the Crown of Great Britain.
I may say to my hon. friend that Monseigneur Briand was a humble priest. He had seen this country passing from the French regime to the British regime, and he was full of the traditions of the past, but he had learned to appreciate what it meant for French Canadians to live under British institutions. He was not a sycophant or a jingo, He was a Canadian. He was not looking for honours or favour, for titles or knighthood, but he was simply voicing the sentiments of his people and expressing their gratitude to the British Crown. My hon. friend says we owe nothing to the British Crown, that we have wrested from Britain what privileges we possess. This is not exactly the language used by another distinguished prelate in the long line of French Canadian bishops. What did the Rev. Joseph Octave Plessis, afterwards bishop, and recognized as such by the British sovereign say? Sir, remember that in those days there were Catholic disabilities in England, but as far as Quebec was concerned those disabilities were wiped out by the British Crown, and the Roman Catholic church of Canada became practically an established church. What did this Catholic bishop of Quebec say? This is the language he used:
Our conquerors were looked upon with jealousy and suspicion, and inspired only apprehension. People could not persuade themselves that strangers to our soil, to pur language, our laws and usages, and our worship, would ever be capable of restoring to Canada what it had lost by a change of masters. Generous nation, which has strongly demonstrated how unfounded were those prejudices; industrious nation, which contributed to the development of those sources of wealth which existed in the bosom of the country; exemplary nation, which in times of troubles teaches to the world in what consists that liberty to which all men aspire and among whom so few know its just limits; kind-hearted nation, which has received with so much humanity, the most faithful subjects most cruelly driven from that kingdom to which we formerly belonged; beneficent nation, which every day gives to Canada new proofs of liberality. No, no, you are not our enemies, nor of our properties which are protected by your laws, nor of our holy religion which you respect.
Sir, let me quote again what Monseigneur Plessis said on September 16, 1907. Speaking to the French Catholics of Quebec he said:
Rodolphe Lemieux: You have understood that your interests were not apart from those of Great Britain.
Thus he was speaking against the policy of isolation propounded by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and by Mr. Bourassa. He continued:
You are convinced, as we are, that it is impossible to be a good Christian without being a loyal and faithful subject; that you would be unworthy the name of Catholics and Canadians, if, forgetting the rules of your holy religion and the examples of your ancestors, you should show disloyalty or even indifference when it is a question of doing your duty as subjects devoted to the interests of your sovereign and the defence of your country. You have not waited until this province should be menaced by an imminent invasion, or even until war was declared to give proofs of your zeal and of your good-will for the public service.
This language applies as much against the reliance on the Monroe doctrine as against the splendid isolation preached by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. Sir, what benefit could French Canadians expect. from annexation with the United States or from isolation in this confederation of ours? What would become of our language, our laws, our schools? As I said a moment ago, remember Louisiana! I repeat it again, my hon. friend does not represent the national aspirations of the province of Quebec in this matter. He does not even represent the French Conservative traditions. Sir George Cartier, whose name he mentioned, was the man who introduced in parliament the Militia Act, of 1862. The Bill brought about the defeat of the government. What did Sir George say:	)
But I must at the same time confess that the question upon which we fell-the motion of Tuesday last (20th May, 1862) was a severe blow to us; in fact, it defeated us as responsible advisers to His Excellency. If, however, that blow had been aimed against us only, we should not have expressed regret, but I cannot help saying I apprehend-I sincerely apprehend-that vote will be hereafter invoked by those-and they are numerous who are hostile to the institutions of Lower Canada, and particularly to the French Canadians. But I hope that the noble conduct of our clergy, and the manifestation of the population of Lower Canada last fall, will mitigate any aspersion unprincipled men may be disposed to cast upon us.
In 1867, what did Sir Geo. Cartier do? In order to impress his fellow countrymen with the necessity of joining hands with the English-speaking Canadians, he demanded from his colleague, Sir John Macdonald, the; portfolio of Militia. Why? Because he knew he could make that military policy popular with his own countrymen when they came to understand it. He

wanted the two races to be united in oTder to carry out the work of confederation.
It was necessary to prepare for the defence of the land, in the firm determination of the country to remain British. And so long as there was a British nation existing, the people of this dominion were resolved to remain a portion of it. He was certain that even if the expense were heavy for such a purpose, it would not be repudiated. He was almost ashamed to state before the great House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada that he required so little money to carry out so great an organization. (From the speech of March 31, 1868, before the House of Commons.)
On the first of May, 1868, when moving the House into Committee for the consideration of the resolutions respecting fortifications, Sir George Cartier said:
While it was conceded that Canada could always claim the aid, in emergency, of all the resources of the empire, it had been thought only just that the dominion should share the expenses necessary to make this assistance effectual. . . . If it be contended that such works are unproductive, it may be said in reply that Canada has now reached a stage of development, when following the example of other nations, it may oppose a barrier to invasion. By thus raising a barrier between Canada and its neighbours, Canada solemnly declares before the whole world that she desires to remain united to Great Britain. When the great fortifications previously mentionned, are built. English capitalists will be still more firmly convinced that their funds are secure in this country, and Canada will then become a field of profitable investments for British capital. Thus falls the objection to a measure which is nothing else but the very measure i.* o post'd by the imperial government itself. That objection that I foresaw, and which consists in saying that the country is going to spend large sums of money on unproductive works cannot stand.
What he said about fortifications and the Militia applies with greater force to the conditions with which we are confronted to-day. But Cartier spoke also about a Canadian navy. It must not be supposed that he was opposed to it. At the sitting of the 31st- of March, he intimated that this policy would be taken up later on. He said :
I do not contend that the present Bill provides for the organization of the naval militia. That is left to the Governor General in Council.
Speaking of that isolation policv, which is being preached by my hon. friend in the province of Quebec, may I not remind him of the language used by his former leader, Sir George Etienne Cartier:
Isolation can never lead to our national glory; that is to be found in effort and in fight. In days gone by, we arose in arms to resist despotism and tyrannv, and later on 97
generously to defend the flag of the motherland. Now in peaceful emulation and rivalry through the paths of business we strive with our fellow-countrymen for the first place. Any race of men having overcome so many difficulties, fought so many battles, and suffered with such constancy in resistance to monopoly and tyranny, must be a fighting race, able honourably to hold their own with any other.
Let us beware of belittling the minds of our fellow-countrymen by the narrow views we may ourselves take of political and social questions. The idea will perhaps be derided, but deep thinkers have held it to be true that the citizen of an independent nation is morally and intellectually greater than the inhabitant of a colony. His intellectual vision ranges over a broader expanse, he having to study graver questions and to deal with more serious interests.
Let us therefore avoid surrounding our nationality with the mental disabilities which exclude success and greatness. The sphere of our activity should be constantly enlarged, that we may become great and noble by the works of our children and our champions.
Confederation will extend that sphere, while also giving to our inner life, to our family life, a happiness and a joy to us hitherto unknown. We will be free and absolute masters in the administration of our own patrimony.
But I have already spoken at too great length, and I must crave the indulgence of the House while I offer a few more remarks. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, when concluding his speech the other day, referred to the rhetorical delusions of the Prime Minister of Canada. My hon. friend himself indulged in a few literary reminiscences. He spoke of Paul of Tarsus. He also quoted Byron, who, describing the agony of the Dacian gladiator dying in the arena at Rome, said:
He heard it, but he heeded not-his eyes Were with his heart, and that was far away;
He recked not of the life he lost nor prize, But where his rude but by the Danube lay, There were his young barbarians all at play, There was their Dacian mother-he, their sire,
Butchered to make a Roman holiday-
All this rush'd with his blood-shall he expire
And unavenged? Arise! ye Goths, and glut your ire!
In the province of Quebec-because this is for Quebec consumption-the Dacian gladiator, whose blood is oozing from him, butchered in the arena, is the French Canadian fighting for the British flag, and the young barbarians are supposedly our sons. We, the French Canadian members of the House are, of course, responsible for that state of things. Who are the Goths?
I suspect that in my hon. friend's mind, the Goths are the Yankees beyond the boundary who would, no doubt, invoke the

Monroe doctrine in case of aggression-
' arise, ye Goths, and glut your ire.' Mr. Speaker, is that patriotic language-language befitting a seigneur belonging to the great feudal aristocracy of lower Canada?
I cannot close my remarks without also indulging in some literary reminiscences. As I said a few moments ago, I had the good fortune of studying under my hon. friend, who was my professor of constitutional law at Laval university. From his lips I learned to love, admire and appreciate British institutions; and looking at my copy-book the other day, I found on one of the pages-the ink was dry-I am speaking alas! of nearly twenty years ago- the definition of the British constitution imparted by my hon. friend to his students. He used the words of Edmund Burke, that great luminary of the British parliament, who was one of those statesmen who defended Canadian liberty at Westminster in days gone by. My hon. friend, the member for Jacques Cartier waxed very eloquent when addressing his students in those days. In order that we might fully appreciate the value of British institutions, he concluded his lecture with the following definition:
If the standard of moderation be sought for, I will seek for it. Where? Not in their fancies nor in my own-I will seek for it where I know it is to be found, in the constitution I actually enjoy. Here, it says to an encroaching prerogative-Your sceptre has its length. You cannot add a hair to your head, or a gem to your crown, but what an eternal law has given to it.
Here, it says to an overweening peerage Your pride finds bank-there is a. bound to the raging of the sea. Our constitution is like our island, which uses and restrains its subject sea, in vain the waves roar. In Brat constitution I know, and exultingly I feel both that I am free and that I am not free dangerously to myself or to others. T know that no power on earth, acting as I ought to do can touch my life, my liberty, or my property. I have that inward and dignified consciousness of my own security and inde pendence which constitutes and which is the onlv thing which does constitute, the proud and comfortable sentiment of freedom m the human breast. I know' too that I cannot by royal favour.
Knighthoods,
Or by popular delusion,
Monk's speeches.
Or by oligarchical cabal, elevate myself above a certain very limited point so ns to endanger my own fall, or the ruin of my country. I know there is an order that keen things fast in their places; it is made to us, and we are made of it.
This is the clearest definition ever given of the British constitution and all that it conveys. I think my friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), my heart is Mr. LEMIEUX.
full of gratitude to him. He, with the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, in my younger days taught me to love and to revere British institutions. How amazed T am to find him speaking on a subject and advocating a policy which if it were carried through-but thank Heavens it will not be-would go against the very principles enunciated by him twenty years ago. The French Canadians in the province of Quebec are the proud possessors of all the advantages described in the words of Burke. They intend to maintain and to treasure those advantages and privileges by doing their duty like men and like patriots^ towards their country and towards their King. Doing their duty towards their King and t( wards their country, I claim, Sir, that they are also doing their duty tow'ards God Almighty.
On motion of Mr. Middlebro, the debate was adjourned.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The debate, I presume, goes on to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. To-morrow the Minister of Railways, who is very anxious to finish his estimates, as the Deputy Minister is leaving the service, will proceed with them. The debate will not be resumed until Tuesday.


William Stevens Fielding: To-morrow we might also take up the item for French relief.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 o'clock a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 4, 1910.