1910-03-10

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) for the relief of James Albert Green.-Mr. Prowse.
Bill (No. 164) respecting the Grand trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 158) for the relief of Ada Ann Green.-Mr. Nesbitt.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Hydrographic Survey in
connection with irrigation works Mr
Oliver.


Mr. VERVILLE:: 
Mr. NORTHRUP.: 6.	What is the salary of Cousineau and Brennan on the Lachine canal, their allowances, and what kind of work do they perform ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	The engineer reported that two armatures of the old Thompson and Houston arc light dynamos had been burnt out during the past season of navigation, and the amount expended for repairing them was about $500. The accident was not dne to the incompetency of Daley and Macey, but owing to the old and out of date system in use on the eastern section of the canal. It is contemplated, in the near future, to adopt the 3-phase alternating current system, which is now in use on the western end of the canal.
2.	On some occasions the lights were out, but on every such occasion the engineer endeavoured to fix the responsibility upon the guilty party.
3.	No, but a man named Lynch has been dismissed from the service for having left his post during the day time and allowing his generator to Tun without any one being in charge of it.
4.	Mr. Fitzpatrick is employed on the
Lachine canal as diver, but when not engaged in that capacity, he is called upon to assist other employees on the canal, viz.:	storemen, carpenters, machinists.
During the fiscal year 1908-9, he made 564 hours of overtime removing submerged obstructions from weir, gates, sluices, mitre sills, &c.
5.	During the fiscal year 1908-9, Mr. Dennis O'Brien received the sum of $665.75 for visiting the different works on the canal, whenever necessary, at least twice weekly.
6.	J. Brennan is employed as carbonman at $45 a month, and receives an allowance of $10 for transportation along the electric light line. J. Cousineau is employed as assistant lineman at the rate of $45 a month.


COMPANY PROMOTERS.
Mr. LEWIS:: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Justice been called to the recent revelations in the columns of ' Saturday Night,' of Toronto, regarding the manner in which the investing public lias been victimized by company promoters?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation which will safeguard the interests of the public as against the class of promoters referred to?
3.	Will the government introduce legislation to prohibit the use of public subscriptions for promotion expenses, or in some other form put an end to the system by which the moneys of innocent investors are allowed to be gathered in by unscrupulous promoters, and expended without benefit to the subscribers?

4.	With whom lies the responsibility for the prosecution of such individuals as have been exposed by ' Saturday Night,' as in the reported case of G. H. Munroe and other individuals of the same class?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Not otherwise than by seeing some of the articles referred to.
2 and 3. Some amendments to the Companies Act have been under consideration, but it is scarcely probable that legislation on the subject can be dealt with during the present session.
4.	The responsibility for the prosecution of offences against the criminal law rests upon the authorities of the province, who are charged with the duty of seeing to the administration of justice in the province.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY SLEEPING CARS.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Are the two sleeping cars now in course of construction for the Intercolonial railway, under the contract with the Silliker ( ar Company of Halifax, to be paid for out of capital account or out of current revenue account?
2.	If these cars are renewals and payable out of the revenue, why are they not being built by the railway authorities in the new shops equipped for construction work in Moncton ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Out of revenue equipment account, provided for out of revenue.
2.	Owing to the fact that repair work accumulated somewhat, awaiting the completion and equipment of the new shops, it was thought advisable to devote all the energy of the staff for the present to placing the existing rolling stock in first-class condition.


MAILS IN COUNTY OF FRONTENAC.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying the mail to and from Whitmount post office in the county of Frontenac?
2.	What other post offices are on his route?
3.	Is the service to Whitmount and the other post offices on the route a daily, triweekly or semi-weekly service?
4.	What is the annual revenue of each post office on this route and what is the remuneration of the mail carrier?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1 and 2. Whitmount post office is served on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays by Howard M. Wenborn, contractor for the mail service between Kingston and Willetsholme. The other offices served by this contractor are: Willetsholme, Pittsferry, Eric and Barriefield. The contractor is paid $400 per annum. Whitmount is also served on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, by Thomas Driscoll, contractor for the mail service between D'Arcy and Kingston, during the
time the ferry is in operation between Howe island and the main shore. The other offices served by this contractor are: D'Arcy, Howe Island, Eric and Barriefield. The contractor is paid $580 per annum.
3.	The service of Whitmount is daily when the ferry is in operation and triweekly the balance of the year. Eric and Barriefield receive a daily service and D'Arcy, Howe Island, Pittsferry, and Willetsholme three times a week.
4.	(a) D'Arcy, $12 revenue; Howe Island, $35 revenue; Whitmount, $36.08 revenue (11 months); Eric, $44 revenue; Barriefield, $251 revenue; Pittsferry, $53.70 revenue; Willetsholme, $61 revenue, (b) Included in answer to questions 1 and 2.


RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS.
Mr. SPROULE:: Referring to the report of the Civil Service Royal Commission, composed of J. M. Courtney; C.M.G., of Ottawa, Thos. Fyslie, Esq., of Montreal, and P. G. Bazin, Esq., of Quebec, which contains the following statement:- ' Your commission have now to draw attention to a deserving body of men who carry on their work at great hazard to themeslves, namely, the railway mail clerks. A railway mail clerk suffers many hardships in liis daily avocation. He is placed in a car next to the engine, although the vibration may be greater than it would be if the car were otherwise placed, yet the ceaseless strain in his daily work tends to the shattering of his nerves and leads to other physical defects. The commissioners recommend the the Railway Commissioners be authorized and requested to have plans prepared for proper standard mail cars to be placed on the several lines of railways in Canada,' has the government provided for carrying out that recommendation? If not, is it their intention to do so?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The department, at a time considerably previous to the recommendation -made by the commission in reference to mail cars, had approached the different railways ill regard to improving the character and size of the cars in which the railway mail work is performed. All new cars aTe now built under the supervision of a departmental officer, who is thoroughly conversant with the requirements of the service both as regards size and equipment. No car is built by the railway without first notifying the department, -so that they may receive the services of the above officer, and when finished, before being placed on the road, are inspected by such officer, and the department notified) as to whether such cars are suitable or not.


NEW DEPARTMENTAL BUILDING.
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1. Does the government intend to use Canadian stone in the construction of the new



government departmental building on Sussex street ?
2.	Have tbe architects been instructed by the minister to specify Canadian stone?
3.	If so, what kind of stone will be specified, sandstone, * limestone or granite?
i. Will the plans be prepared by the government architects, or others chosen outside the government service?
5.	When will tenders be called for the said departmental building on Sussex street?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: All these matters are under consideration.


THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed the-adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada.
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, any one who has observed the evolution of this Bill now before the House and has watched its history since it first saw the light on the 3rd of February last, must, I am sure, be convinced that at its conception some irate goddess was present to throw the apple of discord into Canadian politics. We have spent a considerable time in the discussion of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment, on the motion for the second reading of this Bill, and now that the decks have been cleared and both amendments disposed of, we are face to face with the Bill itself. I have no hesitation, Sir, in expressing my frank opinion that the measure at present before the House is one quite beyond the competency of this House to pass, and, I believe that if this House presumes to pass the present measure, and if the humblest township council in my constituency should the following day pass a by-law to repeal it, one enactment would be just as valid as the other, and each equally ridiculous. Of course it must be admitted that there are two views as to the position occupied by this House. On the one hand there is the view of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, as laid down by him in addressing the Ontario Club in Toronto on the 5th of Januarv last, and quoting from the ' Globe ' of the 6th of January, I find that the right hon. gentleman stated his views with regard to the powers of this parliament in the following language:
We are under tbe suzerainty of the King of England; we are his loyal subjects; we bow the knee to him, but the King of England lias no more rights over us than are allowed him by our own Canadian parliament.
I quite admit, Sir, that if that view of the law is correct, then this Act is beyond question within the competency of this parliament. But, there is another view of the law, and I venture to say that this other view is held by every judge, every lawyer, Mr. MARSHALL.
every statesman in the empire with the single exception of the Prime Minister of Canada. It would be idle for me to occupy time here to-day to try to convince the members of this House that we are legislating here exclusively under the powers conferred on us by an imperial enactment passed by the parliament of the motherland. That which gives can take away, and however improbable it may be and however unfortunate the results might be if the imperial parliament were to repeal the British North America Act, still it is idle for any of us to pretend for a moment that the imperial parliament has not that power. If there were any doubt on the subject, it would surely be settled by the history of such questions as our Copyright Act, with regard to which it was held that this House had no power to pass legislation which was repugnant to legislation passed by the imperial parliament. Our courts in Canada have again and again held to the same effect. While some hon. gentlemen may think there is magic in the words ' exclusive right ' in the British North America Act with regard to certain subjects of legislation conferred on this parliament, the courts of the land have held, and their decision has never been contested that when the word ' exclusive ' is used in the British North America Act, it merely means exclusive as between this Dominion and the provinces. A certain amount of power is given to the Dominion exclusively, and certain other powers are given to the provinces exclusively, but over and above the exclusive powers of both this Dominion and the provinces of Canada is the paramount power of the imperial parliament to legislate on any question on which it sees fit to legislate. If there were any shadow of a doubt on this point, it would be set at rest by the Imperial Act of 29 Victoria, the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which provides ;
Any colonial law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the provisions of any Act of parliament extending to the colony to' which such law may relate, or repugnant to any order or regulation made under authority of such Act of parliament, or having in the colony the force and effect of such Act, shall be read subject to such Act, order, or regulation, and shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely void and inoperative.
Without occupying further time on this point, I submit that it is perfectly clear that the position taken by the right hon. the First Minister at Toronto on the fifth of January last is one that he would hardly care to defend on the floor of this House.
Then, if the other view De taken, that we are subject to the legislative powers of the imperial parliament, we are subject and bound in the same way that it is bound, with regard to one of the great

sources of power, and that is the royal prerogative. There is sometimes a great deal said about the royal prerogative by those who, one is inclined to suspect, do not quite understand what it means. Those who have studied the subject know that the royal prerogative is not a matter of to-day nor of yesterday, but that in the dim and distant days of the past, before parliament was ever dreamed of, there was a mass of law, which, with the subsequent accretions, makes the common law of England to-day; and the executive officer who administered that law was the King, who thus acquired prerogatives; and to-day the King possesses every prerogative possessed by any King of England for the last thousand years, save and except so far as that has been limited by statutory legislation.
It may be said by some hon. gentlemen that we in this country have from time to time limited the royal prerogative, and so we have. We have limited it in the past and we can limit it in the future; but it depends altogether on what branch of the royal prerogative we propose to touch. The standard works on the royal prerogative point out that among the subjects to which it extends there are some which are local in England-for example, the power to pardon an offence. Similarly the exercise of the power of pardon in Canada is local, attached only to this country, and we have a right in the proper way to regulate the exercise of that prerogative-not by this House, but by the constitutional advisers of His Excellency in a manner with which this House has nothing to do. All that this House can do is to punish the constitutional advisers of His Excellency if they do wrong; but the power of pardon is altogether outside of the legislative branch of our system.
Then, there is another branch of the royal prerogative which extends throughout the whole empire, which is the basis of the empire, upon which it may be said that the empire rests. Surely it cannot be contended that this parliament has any power under the British North America Act to interefere with a prerogative which extends throughout the empire and is one of the foundation stones on which the empire itself rests. One has only to remember the situation of the King in olden days to see how this prerogative arose. The King lead his people to war, fought at the head of his people, often stained the battlefield with his blood, and consequently as the war-chief of the people acquired certain prerogatives, such as the right to make war, the right to make peace, the right to make treaties, the right to send ambassadors to other countries; and there is nothing in the statute-book of Great Britain, and there can be nothing in the statute-books of this country, giving us the right to interfere 162i
with any of these prerogatives of the King.
Then, the king had other prerogatives acquired as the great landlord of the country. Among these was the right of forfeiture and escheat. An escheat arising within the bounds of Canada might be held, as it has been held by our courts, to be a colonial matter, and the Crown, as represented by the Lieutenant Governor of a province, might exercise that right. But it has been held, in a case in which an estate in England, belonging to a man residing in New South Wales, who had committed a felony, was forfeited to the Crown, that the Crown, as represented by the authorities in England, was entitled to a portion of the estate. The man went to New South Wales, and while there committed a crime, and the question was, how was his estate to be escheated, if at all? But the courts held, that inasmuch as the royal prerogative was not confined to the soil of England, but extended to wherever the flag of England floated, forfeiture in New South Wales was as complete as it was in England. So that unless we take the position that this parliament has a right to deal with matters which appertain to the royal prerogative applied to imperial matters we have a right to say that this Bill is ultra vires.
How am I justified in saying that this Bill deals with matters which can only be dealt with by the royal prerogative? Simply because if you look at the statute-book of England, you will fail to find one word that limits or fetters the royal prerogative with regard to control of the navy. The army and navy formerly stood on the same footing. The people of England for centuries have had such an inherent dread of the danger of a standing army to their permanent liberties, that they have always kept control of the army by legislation, so that even the Mutiny Act had to be passed every year. But the navy has always been the idol of the people of England, for they have felt that they owe their supremacy on the seas to the navy, and they have been willing to leave the control of it in the hands of the sovereign. A thousand years ago the king's prerogative extended to the navy to such an extent that he could levy a tax for its support. The old Saxon 'Chronicle' of 1008 tells us that Ethelred taxed every 300 miles of land with the cost of a ship. Later, in the days of the tlantagenets, when a navy was required by Richard, we find that some of the vessels were built and paid for out of the royal purse, which in those days was practically for the public, though they had no control over it. Many of the vessels of the royal navy, in those days, were mercenaries, hired and paid for out of the royal purse alone, and parliament never pretended in any way to interfere.
In the reign of Edward III., the Lord
51X1

High Admiral of England was appointed, and he continued until 1708, until the death of Prince George of Denmark, the last High Admiral. But his place was taken by the board of commissioners with the same power, so that practically, with only the difference of a change of name, the Lord High Admiral continued from Edward III., 1700, until the present day. Even in the days of the Spanish Armada, when the Crown rallied the ships to protect the land, it was the royal power that acted, and although there were 170 ships in the royal fleet at that time, only some 34 were actually vessels of the royal navy. The others were hired and paid for out of the royal purse. Thus the royal prerogative continued all down the line.
Coming to modern days, we find that the Board of Admiralty in England controls the navy. Whatever the Lord High Admiral did in days gone by, he does still, and parliament in no way interferes, except to furnish the funds for maintaining the navy, and leaves the control of the navy, as it always has been, in the hands of the sovereign. If there were any doubt about that, an Act was passed, 28 Victoria, to make better provision for the naval defence of the empire, and any pretense which this Bill has to validity at all must be based on the Act, 29 Victoria, and the Act of 1909 of the imperial parliament, which recognizes and is founded upon this Defence Act of 1865. What is the imperial statute of 1865 with regard to navies being founded by colonies? It is provided in the third section as follows:
In any colony it shall be lawful for the proper legislative authority, with the approval of Her Majesty in Council, from time to time, to make provision for effecting at the expense of the colonies all or any of the purposes following:-First, for providing, maintaining and using a vessel or vessels of war

That seems to be the object of this Bill.
-subject to such conditions and for such purposes as Her Majesty in Council from time to time approves.
In this statute we have thus a clear and unmistakable expression of the opinion of the imperial parliament as to the rights which the colonies had regarding the founding of a navy. Then, in 1909, another Act was passed to amend the Act I have just read, entitled the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1865, and I presume it is a fair conclusion to draw that, if after the excitement of last year, if after all the imperial conferences on the subject of defence, if after the famous resolution of the 29th March, 1909, had been submitted to the imperial authorities-if after all these the imperial parliament saw fit to pass an Act to give certain powers to the colonies, it is a fair presumption that the colonies Mr. NORTHRHP.
would not have those powers if that Act had not passed. Otherwise, we must assume that the imperial parliament was ignorant of the laws they had adopted, and had passed a Colonial Defence Act for the purpose of giving the colonies powers they already possessed.
This Act of last year gives the colonies the power to provide that volunteers raised in the colonies shall form part of the royal naval volunteer reserve, so thaV the most important part of this Bill is clearly based on the imperial legislation of last session. I have contended that all along the line the sovereign, by his prerogative power is the commander of the navy. If we look at the British North America Act, clause 15, we find a significant expression used. The British North America Act does not profess to give any new powers to the King. It seems to follow in the footsteps of the famous statute of Charles II., which recognized the power the King already had; and so this section 15 of the British North America Act provides that the command of the navy shall continue in and be vested in the King. The clause is as follows:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and militia forces of and in Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
There is no pretense that when the Act was passed the imperial parliament conferred on her Majesty any powers she did not at that time possess, and therefore, by the careful choice of language, instead of declaring that the power is vested in the Queen, the clause expressly says that it is hereby declared to continue, and be vested in the Queen. But perhaps more significant language in connection with that legislation is this. If we look at the preliminary draft of the union of the British North America Act colonies, in which practically everything was provided foT with a few minor exceptions, we find the following:
The command in chief of all armed forces raised in the united colony, or in any province, for service by land or by water, shall be vested in Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors.
So that this country apparently, in the first instance, had made a provision to give Her Majesty the command in chief of all our forces. But when the Bill came before the statesmen of the motherland, they struck out the clause conveying the idea that any new powers were conferred on Her Majesty, and they determined on a clause which said that the command shall continue to be, and is vested in the Queen. I do not wish to elaborate on that subject, but it does seem to me that when we find in England a total absence from legislation-because the only statute that will be found relating to the navy along this line at all is the famous statute of Charles

II., but that does not profess to confer any powers, because it is merely a declaratory statute declaring what the land of England always has been, and what I submit, it has been from that day to this-when we find a total absence of any legislation conferring new powers on the King, we may take it for granted that the command in chief of the navy was always vested in him. Perhaps a little light may be shed on this, if we look at the proceedings in a neighbouring colony. In Australia there was a movement to found a navy just as in this country. Without taking up time in going through the preliminary steps up to 1902,
I may say that hon. members in this House are aware that in the imperial conference of 1902 the proposal was made that Australia should, as it were, go into partnership with the motherland in founding a navy, and the first step taken was this. An agreement was made between the office of the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand, and that agreement was subject to ratification by the Commonwealth parliament, and it came before the Commonwealth parliament, and is embodied in the statute which I hold in my- hand-a statute passed subsequent to the Colonial Conference Act, which provides that a colony can build, equip and maintain vessels subject to such conditions as Her Majesty in Council might approve. What did the Australian parliament do? I shall only read the preamble of their Act:
Having recognized the importance of sea power in the control which it gives over-sea communications, the necessity of a single navy under one authority, by which alone concerted action can be assured, and the advantages which will be derived from developing the sea power of Australia and New Zealand, have resolved to conclude for this purpose an agreement as follows:-
And that is the agreement under which Australia proceeded to found her navy.
The Australian Naval Defence Act was passed in the same session-statute 20 of 1903. There is a clause in that Act which has been referred to several times as showing that what the Australians have done is the same as we have proposed to do under this Bill-that is, in case of war, parliament has control of the vessels. Why, Sir, the clause in that Act does not relate to vessels at all, but relates to the forces. It provides that when tho forces aTe called out, parliament must be notified. Here is the section:
53. In time of war, the Governor General may, subject to the provisions of this Act, place the defence force or any part thereof under the orders of the commander of any portion of the King's regular forces or the King's regular naval forces as the case may be.
The interpretation clause of the Act provides that the defence forces do not include vessels at all, but only men who have been enlisted, and who are serving in the Australian forces-not in reference to the navy itself, but merely a provision as to what they can do with the forces they have enlisted. Then, last session, the session of 1909, the parliament of Australia passed another defence Act, which is in addition to the one I have read which was amended in 1904. The defence Act of last session contains no provision of any kind about the ships, but only explains the powers of the government with regard to enlistment, training and discipline, after the men are enlisted. In that Bill, relating to naval and military defence, there is not a word about the navy. But another Bill was brought before the House, the Colonial Loan Bill, and that provides for the raising of a large sum of money-if I remember rightly $17,000,000. Under this Bill it is provided that the money is to be expended along the line of an agreement made last year between Australia and the imperial authorities. Now, if we look at the blue-book of last year, we shall find what the line taken there was as to the agreement between the colonies, and the motherland. After providing for the fleet unit, and other matters it says:
Further, as it is a sine qua non that successful action in time of war depends upon the 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 would include Canada, I presume.
-that in time of war the loyal naval forces should come under the general directions of the admiralty.
And so, Sir, the money which the Australian government has asked the people to borrow to establish their navy is to be spent along the lines of an agreement with the admiralty the words of which I have just read. Thus we find no authority from the sister colony to justify us in our contention that it is right and proper for Canada to have a navy of her own, which will help the imperial authorities in time of war, or which may decline to fight or run away and hide as parliament may decide.
I think I have shown that there is grave doubt as to the power ot this parliament to pass this legislation. And if there is a shadow of doubt, I submit, it is the duty of the government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, that there may be no possibility of conflict between us, and the motherland on so important a question. It

is well known that the unfortunate rebellion which led to the loss of the thirteen colonies of America arose over the subject of defence. I can understand how delicate a position the home authorities would be placed in, if the navy which is provided for in this Bill were to be called into use for the purposes of the empire. I can understand the tremendous sensibility there would be on the part of the imperial authorities if they had to consider the vetoing of such an Act, even if they thought it improperly passed, for fear they might in that way weaken the ties which exist between us, and the motherland. Therefore, I think I am justified in asking the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to submit the matter to the Supreme Court of this country, that it may be decided beyond peradventure that we have the right to do what no other colony has attempted to do, and what, unless this Bill is saved by some agreement between the government and the King in Council of which this House has no knowledge, is in contravention of the terms of the Colonial Defence Act of 1865.
Having said so much on the question of jurisdiction, another question naturally arises when one considers this Act-and I am, in the first place, looking at it as it presents itself to a person at first blush on the arguments used in its support when it was presented. So far as I am aware, none of the hon. members who have spoken on the Bill have touched the point I now wish to raise. On that point we in this country are in a position which is not altogether pleasant or satisfactory-the question -of naturalization. I have here the Naturalization Act and also the Imperial Naturalization Act of 1870. But I suppose there is no doubt in the mind of anybody that the law is as I am about to state it-that Canada has no more power to naturalize a man and make him a British subject, except within the bounds of Canada itself, than has the city council of Ottawa. That is a serious matter, and yet the fact is beyond peradventure. A German comes here bringing his son with him and settles in the county of my hon. friend (Mr. Clare), who spoke so well yesterday, a county represented in part also by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). Father and son become attached to this land and fulfil the conditions of our naturalization laws. If, in an unhappy hour, that which we hope may never occur, should occur and war should break out between Great Britain and Germany, then should these men volunteer in the Canadian navy and be unhappily captured by the German fleet, -what would be their position-when put upon trial for their lives, not as belligerents, hut as traitors? There is no question about it. They may come to Canada and be naturalized so far Mr. NORTHRUP.
as men. can be naturalized under our laws, but the only rights given under our laws are such as can be conferred within the bounds of Canada. It is true, the imperial authorities, as a matter of courtesy, of grace-purely a matter of courtesy and grace-are in the habit of issuing passports to Canadian citizens, whether they be such by birth or naturalization, under which they have the support of Great Britain in every part of the world-except, so far as foreign-born citizens are concerned, the land of their birth. That is, the very place where the man who comes here wants to be protected is the place where he cannot be protected. Would it be fair to have a Canadian navy under such conditions that, if we were at war and any man of foreign birth-for the same would apply in the case of the United States as I have just suggested in the case of Germany-were to serve in that navy, it would be under the conditions I have stated? Are we prepared to have a navy under such conditions that when the proclamation is issued for men to serve in it, we must say ' except Germans,' 'except Frenchmen,' except American '-in fact, limiting it to 'Canadians born? Yet, unless we are prepared to do that, is it right for the government to propose to set afloat a navy under such conditions that a man of foreign birth desiring to enlist and do his duty to the country of his adoption, must fight not as a belligerent, but as a traitor with the rope around his neck? I think that if one-tenth of the' assiduity applied to other things had been applied by the government to obtaining for us in Canada the same rights that they have in Great Britain -with regard to these foreigners we should have obtained those rights before now. For it is well known that every country the world over considers that when a subject is born in that land he is a subject to the day of his death, and his son after him also; and the reason for the difference in the, rights of a German, for instance settling in Canada or England, is that the status of a German coming to England, and being naturalized, possessing all the rights of a British subject, and protected in those rights by the British government, is wholly owing to treaty. Are we to expect foreigners coming to this country to have a love for this country, to have an affection for this country and a respect for this country, when we ask them to fight on our navy in the position of felons with a rope about their necks? I believe that at this moment the people of this country recognize that the greatest problem we have before us is to assimilate the great population flowing into our northwest. We all recognize that no other country has ever had to face so difficult a problem as to take these im-

mense hordes of people from different countries, born under different flags, coming into Canada and to assimilate them and make true Canadians of them; and I venture to say that the.' best way to make true Canadians of them is to raise their Tesipect for Canadian citizenship and make them desire to possess it. But if we must admit that the Canadian naturalized foreigner is on a distinctly inferior position to the United States naturalized foreigner, then I am afraid we can hardly expect from these new-comers that respect for our country, that respect for Canadian citizenship, and that respect for the privileges of a British subject of this great empire, that we would love to instill into -him. I hope the government will take this matter into consideration and impress it on the imperial authorities. If I understand aright Germany has given the same right to Great Britain that she has accorded to the United States, and the only trouble is that the power which extends this right of naturalizing subjects requires a residence of five years, in the adopted country, and iwe have not been willing to extend the term of residence in Canada to five years, and until we do that we shall be deprived of this boon. I think that even if the appalling result were reached that at the next election we should find that some of these aliens were unable to vote, even that would be compensated for by the fact that by the next election they would toe full fledged British subjects with all the rights of any other British subject who lives under the flag.
Now, I will proceed to make a few remarks on the Bill introduced by the right hon. gentleman. I listened carefully to the right hon. gentleman's speech, I have since studied it very carefully, and while I admire its eloquence, while I could even be -moved in -some passages by its pathos, I must_ confess that even if I take a little more time of the House than some hon. gentlemen might be willing to accord me, I am only following in the foot-steps of the right hon. gentleman who in 26 columns of the Hansard', had only nine and a quarter that even remotely referred to any subject that -could relate to the Canadian Naval Bill. What were the reasons given by the government for this Bill? Only three reasons can be found. I challenge any hon. gentleman to read the speech and find more than three reasons why this House should support the Bill. The first reason was that this House is already committed to the principle of the Bill by the resolution passed on the 29th of March, 1909. The second is that this Bill is carrying out the reform policy which has -been laid before the people of this country in the last eight years and
that this Reform government has been carrying out ever since; and the third is that the spirit of autonomy, which in some way floats about and appears to harass some of our members, compels us to pass this Bill. Beyond these three reasons, I challenge any hon. gentleman to find a reason advanced by the right hon. gentleman in moving this Bill, or any mandate from the people suddenly to plunge this country, not merely into an enormous expense-though that is the least objection- but to put this country in the position of entirely altering its relationship with the motherland and with the rest of the empire. And when we find gentlemen standing up in this House and deliberately telling this House that they support this Bill because it is the last step towards independence, I think we who are opposed to the Bill are justified in regarding it with very grave suspicion.
Now, as to the resolution of the 29th of March, of which we have heard so much, I am afraid that in what I have to say I may be standing alone, differing from both sides of the House. But I wish to speak impartially, I wish to speak intelligently, and I hope that hon. gentlemen will do me the justice of listening carefully to the point I wish to make. In this famous resolution there are four clauses. As to three of them I will say nothing, because I am not aware that any member of this House to-day differs from the sentiments -expressed in three of the clauses. But the one which the government relies upon as a justification for this Naval Bill is the one to which I would like to call attention, and I would ask members of this House to consider, not as a matter of politics at all, for there are no politics in the view I am taking of it now, but merely as a matter of the intelligent use of the English language. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen to read that clause and tell me what it means. It evidently is not perfectly clear, it is not a lucid clause, because the right hon. gentleman considers it means one thing, and the leader of the opposition considers it means an entirely different thing; and when we find two gentlemen of their ability agreeing that it is at all events susceptible of two meanings, there is some justification for going a step further and saying that if it does not mean what the right hon. gentleman says, nor what the leader of the opposition says, then it does not mean anything under heaven that anybody can see. That may seem a preposterous statement, but it is the simplest thing to prove, if people would only come down from the consideration of matters beyond the jurisdiction of this House to a few words in an English sentence. We will try and see what it does mean. This is the clause:

This House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service.
I will stop there for a moment. Now, is there any doubt about the meaning of that? This House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service. That might have two meanings. The words ' Canadian naval service ' might refer only to this naval militia, which is to be a part Of this Bill, or it might include vessels as well as militia. But when we go further in the clause and find that it is to be along the lines of the admiralty plan, then these words must mean that the House will approve of the necessary expenditure to promote -the speedy organization of a Canadian navy; and I think that is a fair rendering of these words. Now let us read further:
A Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy.
These words are clear enough, surely ' In co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy.' Now, no navy can co-operate with itself, no navy can' be in close relationship to itself; therefore it is clear that these words signify a Canadian navy as distinct from the imperial navy. I think there is no question that is the fair meaning of the words; inasmuch as no navy can co-operate with itself, there must be two navies. We have two navies, one imperial, under imperial control, and the other under Canadian control. What comes next?
In co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference.
Let us see what were the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference. If we look at the blue-book of the imperial conference held in 1907, which was the last one when this resolution was passed, at pages 129 and 130, we will find what the idea of the imperial conference was. Lord Tweedmouth laid down his views:
I have here drawn up a short statement of v.hat may be called the general principle with which the admiralty desire to meet the representatives of the self-governing dominions of the King beyond the seas.
His Majesty's government recognize the natural desire of the self-governing colonies to have a more particular share in providing the naval defence force of the empire-
And observe this:
-and, so long as the condition of unity of command and direction of the fleet is maintained, they are ready to consider a modification of the existing arrangements to meet the views of the various colonies.


William Barton Northrup: So long as the condition of unity of command and direction of the fleet is maintained. We have our two navies provided for, the imperial navy and the Canadian navy along the lines laid down by the admiralty, and the admiralty lines are that there must be one navy, because there must be unity of command and a common direction. So, we have the navy carefully provided for, and in order that it might have meant something, I think it would have been well if the resolution had gone a little farther and said that the navy should always sail due north by due south. It would have been just as reasonable as the kind of language that appears there, because those twx>
clauses are absolutely contradictory of each other, and it will be absolutely impossible to carry them into effect. There are a few more words which will perhaps help us. I have not the slightest doubt that they had a great deal of weight with hon. gentlemen opposite and with the country. In the resolution of the 29th March, 1909, there are the concluding words. This is a navy which was to be under Canadian control and subject to unity of command and the direction of the admiralty, and in addition we find in the resolution which was passed last year that it is to be:
In full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the w orld.
Are not these words enough to bring tears to one's eyes? They would, if they meant anything, but like the rest of the clause they do not mean anything. Suppose His imperial Majesty the Kaiser of Germany were reading this resolution of the 29th March, would he not be quite willing to subscribe to it? He might- say that he was in full sympathy with the declaration that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce. He might not want the commerce of Great Britain to ;be secure, but he could assent to the proposition that the supremacy of the navy of Great Britain is essential to the security of her commerce. He would agree as every one does that the navy is essential to the safety of the empire. If he did not want the peace of the world, if the peace of the world that he wanted, was a peace spelled in a little different way, he might take the words in this general high-flown proposition to mean just as much, and no more, as those which are to be found in the rest of this clause. So, we find the government in this position: They have this resolution passed by this House, and they go over to the old country and tell the authorities there that they are going to have a navy based upon that resolution, which being an absolutely mean-

ingless resolution, leaves them in a position to do nothing or to do anything as they see fit.
One word more as to this resolution of the 29th March. I was one of those who were not present in the House on that night, and I have never considered myself bound by that resolution, not that I care particularly, because the other three clauses are absolutely unobjectionable. I do not think anybody would dissent from them, while this clause I have just quoted is absolutely meaningless. If it had undertaken.to endorse the principle of A, B, C, D, and so on to the end of the alphabet, it would have been just as effective. This resolution was brought up on the 29t,h March, which was a private members' day. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) introduced this resolution on a private members' day, at a time which many hon. members of this House did not think was altogether the proper time for that debate. It was within his rights as a private member to introduce it if he saw fit. But, in introducing it, he was careful to explain that this was a subject which should be kept outside of party politics. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) assented to that proposition. He, too, was qnite willing that this question should be kept outside of party politics, as was said to be the case in England. Those who differed from him, those who wished to see a different kind of resolution adopted by the Canadian parliament, thought it would be a most unfortunate time to divide the opinion of this House, the German scare being then on the horizon, and when individuals were discussing a motion brought in by individuals upon a subject which was declared not to be political, but outside of party politics, it was thought wiser to allow those gentlemen to settle their motion in any way they liked, and those gentlemen only who were in the House when that motion was passed would be -bound by it. To show the soundness of that position, let me give you this illustration. Would any hon. gentleman sitting behind the right hon. leader of the government, or sitting behind my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, be prepared to put his conscience into the hands of his leader and say to his leader: I agree to any proposition that you may agree to in the absence either of a convention or a caucus? Would any hon. gentleman place his conscience so fully in his leader's hands that he would accept and vote for any proposition no matter what it was about, that his leader should assent to? There would be very few members of this House who would be prepared to go as far as that. Unless a member is prepared to go to that length he could not possibly have any justification for
saying that any member who was not present when that resolution was assented to should be bound by it. Late that evening the hon. gentleman who spoke last on the other side of the House, in the exercise of his legal rights, and I am finding no fault with him, addressed the House in the French language. Without the least disrespect to the hon. gentleman who so spoke, because he had a perfectly legal right to take the course that he did take, it is hardly reasonable to expect that an hon. gentleman who did not understand that language which was spoken after eleven o'clock at' night should be listening to words that were wholly foreign to his ears. Therefore, as a matter of fact, on this occasion, practically all the members were outside of the Chamber believing that they could do no possible good if they were in the House. Suddenly the bell sounds, the House is adjourned and it is announced that the resolution is agreed to. The fact is that a large number of the members of this House had no more to do with that resolution than the Shah of Persia, because they neither discussed nor assented to it. So much for the first ground taken by the government that this Bill should be carried because it is in pursuance of the resolution of the 29th March. Then, the next ground taken by the right bon. leader of the government was that this Bill was in pursuance of the policy which was laid down by the present government eight years ago and faithfully adhered to ever since. Not only had it been adhered to for some years, but the suggestion was made to the House that Robert Baldwin, and Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine were in some way or other interested in this policy, as it had been the policy of the party ever since its formation, and those who followed then were bound to assist in carrying through this Bill. As a matter of fact this has not been the policy of the government for eight years. Eight years ago these conferences commenced by the invitation which came from Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, then colonial secretary, to Lord Minto at that time Governor General of Canada. Similar invitations were sent to the other colonial dominions beyond the seas and they were cheerfully assented to by all these dominions except Canada. Canada sent a reply, which I shall not take the time to read unless my version of it is disputed, that Canada was getting along very comfortably, that there were no questions to discuss except trade_ questions, and it would be idle to spend time in discussing the problem of defence, as the colonies could not possibly agree. Then, again in 1902, the right hon. the leader of the government undertook to send a Canadian representative to England^ to discuss the question, but this certainly


Dr. SMARTT.: I think it is a great pity we do not pass something. We have done so much ill the way of pious affirmation, that I am anxious we should do something of a practical character.	.


Sir WILPRID LAURIER.: It can be passed if there is a majority. For my part I must vote against it.


Sir JOSEPH WARD.: To do any good we would require to be unanimous about it.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: Yes, I suppose so.


Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL.: It is not much good to have a resolution at all if we cannot be unanimous.


The CHAIRMAN.: I think we had better not proceed any further just now.


Sir   W ILFRID LAURIER@: Wh, of the different dominions beyond the seas, have tried

to be unanimous up to the present time. I am sorry to say this is a question upon which we could not be unanimous. Therefore, Dr. Smartt can move it if he chooses or withdraw it, but if he presses it I should have to vote against it.
And so this government comes before this House to-day with a naval defence scheme which 'they say jis the honest, faithful policy they have adopted and carried out for eight years, is the very government that in the year 1907 voted against any contribution even in a form that would be agreed upon by the local legislatures. And, Mr. Speaker, if we go back a little further we will find the impression made on the authorities of the motherland by the representatives of the Dominion of Canada. I submit it to the members of this House, who, however we may differ in our political oninions, should at least be equally possessed of self respect and pride, and I would like to ask the members of this House if there is a man on either side of the House who can feel his cheek flushed with honest, loyal, just pride when he hears the opinion of the Dominion of Canada expressed by Lord Tweedmouth at page 420 of the conference report, 1907. Lord Tweedmouth said:
_ There is at present no proposition from Canada to make any change at all.
We were not doing anything, we never had done anything, we were the only one of all the over-seas dominions that had not done anything, and 3trange to say all these that had been doing something were ready to add to what they had been doing, even down to little Newfoundland, but Canada was the only colony which wished to do nothing in the future, just as she had done in the past. Lord Tweedmouth continued:
But I think it is proposed that matters shall go oa very much as they have gone on-
And here is where Canada shines:
-except that the Canadian representatives announce that they are anxious to do all that they can to expand the interests of the navy throughout the dominion, and in that way think that they will be really giving a great help to the empire as a whole.
That was to be the contribution of Canada to the upkeep of the navy; that was to be the contribution of Canada towards the supremacy of the greatest empire the world has ever seen and which every one recognizes depends for its existence on the navy. The contribution of the largest and the richest and up to late days the proudest of all the over seas dominions was that we were anxious to do all we could to expand the interest of the navy throughout the Dominion. I sincerely hope that the right hon. gentleman will not any longer
continue the policy which he says he has followed for the last eight years. If this which I have just read is to be the result of the impression as to his policy made on the minds of statesmen in other parts of the empire, then the sooner the right hon. gentleman changes his policy the better. In 1909, another conference was held, but I shall say nothing about that further than to mention that in this conference the delegates from the various parts of the empire found that the same difficulty existed which then existed in 1902. The papers are not as voluminous concerning this conference, for instead of giving us a shorthand report of the conference of 1909 as in 1907 and 1902, only a summary is given, and one can quite understand that the statesmen at the head of the empire, knowing that countless millions of youths were growing up in different parts of the empire whose minds they wished to be filled with patriotic loyal sentiments as they grew up, prefered that no more literature of the stamp of the report of the 1907 conference should be put in the hands of these British youth3. But this does appear from the 1909 conference: that while all the other dominions were all willing to do something, and Australia was taking steps to furnish the unit that was desired by the British admiralty, there were two things agreed upon by the admiralty and insisted on again and again and again, viz.: if you are going to build a navy start with your Dreadnought and Indomitable, because they are the only' ships that by themselves are of any use, the others being to support them, and for a different purpose altogether-while the admiralty insisted on a Dreadnought or an Indomitable being the nucleus of a navy, and while they insisted on unity of command, and that the admiralty must have control, Canada refused both of the essentials that the admiralty requested. And so to-day we stand, with this Bill, in the humilating position of being compelled to admit that the admiralty has not asked us for one single thing along the lines of naval development which we have given them, and that as a matter of fact we have given them the very things they do not want. The right hon. gentleman will hardly claim it, I think, as a faithful honest following out of the policy he says he has pursued for the last eight years, and if it is, in view of what we have seen I would be inclined to think that the sooner we drop that policy and adopt a new one the better.
But, the right hon. gentleman seemed to enthuse his supporters with the recollection that the spirits of Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine were looking down upon them. And who were Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine? They were, I should have thought about the last men in this

world or the world beyond that the right hon. gentleman would refer to. The memory of these two statesmen, in the opinion of gentlemen on this side of the House, is held in Teverence, and I cannot do better than to quote the opinion of Robert Baldwin given by Sir John Ac. Macdonald who certainly was head of the Conservative party in his day. and who, when Robert Baldwin retired from public life-and there could be no question that he was trying.to get rid of an opponent.-offered him the chief justiceship of the Court of Common Pleas in the province of Ontario, and spoke of him as ' that loyal honest-minded soul Robert Baldwin, of whom I always love to speak '. That is the opinion held of Robert Baldwin by Sir John A. Macdonald, and Louis Lafontaine was a worthy colleague of Robert Baldwin. And what became of them? They were the leaders of the Reform party of that day, and the grandfather of the hon. gentleman who fills the position of Minister of Labour, having returned from a temporary, but I believe necessary sojourn in the adjoining republic, and being elected to the legislature, one of his first- acts was to bring in a measure to abolish the Court of Chancery, which had been founded by Robert Baldwin, and, which was the apple of his eye. That resolution was supported by twenty-seven out of thirty votes from Upper Canada, with the result that Robert Baldwin seeing his own friends would not support him resigned his office before the next election, and was followed by Lafontaine, and when at the next election Baldwin went back to the very constituency of North York, which is apparently a preserve of the government, because the present Minister of Justice, and the late Postmaster General both sat for it, Robert Baldwin was ignominously defeated by the electors of North York, and a man named Wartman, an ignorant Grit who could hardly sign his own name was elected. The right hon. gentleman has reason to be proud of Baldwin and Lafontaine, because two nobler men than they never lived in this Dominion; but, Sir, it comes with ill grace from the head of the party which drove Baldwin and Lafontaine from public life to appeal to his supporters to endorse such a measure as this on the ground that it is an honest carrying out of the policy of Baldwin and Lafontaine.
Then the right hon. gentleman spoke on the subject of autonomy. I do not intend to occupy much time on that subject, because it has been pretty well threshed out by other speakers. But there is one view of the subject which, as far as I am aware, lias not yet been presented, and it is this. The right hon. gentleman asked what is the spirit that inspires the Liberal party? He even referred to the rebellion of 1837, and asked what was it that quelled it? He ' Mr. NORTIIRU P.
said it was the spirit of autonomy. Practically everything good that has ever come to this country ever since has come by means of autonomy. It did not seem to enter his mind that if autonomy is such a vast good to this country, there ought to be a little gratitude to the source from which it came. Did the right hon. gentleman consider who gave us autonomy? We did not win it for ourselves. We did not discover this country and capture it. We merely came and enjoyed what others had worked for and won; and all this boasted autonomy comes from the head of the empire. If the boon of autonomy is so great, surely there ought to be a little gratitude on the part of the recipients of so great a boon to the source from which it came.
At this time the question is not a question of fear of war, for war is actually raging between Great Britain and Germany. When we find by to-day's telegrams that the imperial expenditure for the navy this year will be $203,000,000, an increase of $27,000,000 over last year, and that 2,000 more men will be added to the navy. When we find the Germans with feverish haste building warships; it is idle to talk about an emergency or a crisis or a war that, is coming. The war is on at the present time. I do not know that the case can be put in better words than these:
War is deprecated. But as a matter of fact war is in progress. The conflict in shipbuilding is war. If the mother country were engaged in a deadly conflict, Canadians could not get across the ocean fast enough to the aid of the motherland. But we must remember that our aid is needed now just as much as if a physical instead of a ship-building war were on. It is Canada's duty from every point of view, from our affection for the land of our fathers, and for our own self-interest, to take prompt and practical action.
And that language, which I am sure will receive the approval of every hon. member of this House, is from the Toronto ' Globe,' of the 24th of March, 1909. It is just as well that we should consider the exact situation at the present time. I for one have the most profound respect for the ruler of Germany. I regard him as one of the ablest statesmen in the world to-day, and I do not believe that a truer patriot lives than the Kaiser. I respect him for his love of his country, and his determination to do all he can for it. But Germany is circumscribed on every hand. When we realize that her population is increasing by about a million a year, while the greater part of the world is to-day in the occupation of other nations, that Great Britain controls most of the desirable parts of the world, that the United States by its Monroe doctrine excludes Germany from the whole of South America, you can depend upon it that sooner or later Germany, the ' greatest land power in the world-and we

cannot blame her for it-must have overseas outlet for her surplus population, and markets for her enlarging trade, and that means that she must have a navy. If at the time of ths Boer war the German navy had been as great as Britain's, does any one suppose that the result of that war would have been what it was? But she had not the control of the sea, and could not send an army to South Africa. Germany knows that as a matter of self-preservation she must have so strong a navy that no other navy in the world can control it; and everybody knows that little Britain owes her ascendency to her supremacy on the seas, and that the day she loses that supremacy she becomes a second-class power, and that day Canada will be obliged to leave her, whether she wishes it or not, for either independence or annexation to the United States. When we find that Great Britain is straining every nerve in the present existing war, and that Germany is straining every nerve in the present existing war, when we know that if a conflict began to-morrow, and we had not done something already to assist the empire, we could do nothing; when we know that the vessels that we propose to build would be useless at such a time, should not every Canadian recognize that, whether we believe this or that to be the wiser policy, the authorities in the old land who are on the spot are surely better judges than we? And would it not be better, even if we erred, for us to do what at all times to come would be a source of pride, and satisfaction to us, even if the money were wasted, than to do something now that under any circumstances can be of no possible benefit either to ourselves or to the motherland? The right hon. gentleman has spoken of the proper conception of the empire. He described it in his speech as ' vessels from all parts of the empire rushing on a common foe.' That description appeals to every one; but when you descend from poetry to prose, from theory to fact, what is the meaning of this phrase? What is the meaning of a Canadian navy rushing on a common foe? Your torpedo boats cannot leave the coasts which they are intended to defend, your unarmoured cruisers could not fight, because no civilized country fights with them. They can only be used either as scouts for Dreadnoughts, and you have no Dreadnoughts, or,to pTey on the undefended merchantmen of the enemy. Is it not a proud reflection that we are building a navy that cannot be called on to fight, and that must either run to cover or go abroad as pirates, cruise up and down the trade routes, and when they find some unprotected merchantman of the enemy, seize it and bring it in as a prize? Surely Canada is not so needy that she has to build her railways and her canals
with money obtained in any such way. The right hon. gentleman made one reference that amused me at the time, although it had nothing to do with the question before the House.
The right hon. gentleman went back to the days of Peter the Hermit to find an illustration of the disorganization in which he says His Majesty's loyal opposition exists in this country to-day. He depicted the followers of Peter the Hermit as having been in a disorganized state, and consequently mowed down by the enemy. But who were the followers of Peter the Hermit? Every one who has read history knows that they were honest, sincere men, who set out with the most laudable object of wresting the sacred sepulchre from the hands of the infidels. They were honest, sincere men, animated by a most praiseworthy motive, but they were overthrown and defeated because they came in contact with organized troops of bandits who plundered and slaughtered them. That is the historical fact, and it is not my simile but that of the right hon. gentleman, when he compared his followers to those organized bandits.
The right hon. gentleman said that he was neither an imperialist nor an anti-imperialist, but a Canadian first and last and all the time; and in that sentiment, I am entirely in accord with my right hon. friend. I am a Canadian, too, first and last and all the time; but I cannot forget the fact that Canada is a part of the British empire, so that it is impossible for me to be a Canadian without being a British subject. Therefore, when I say that I am a Canadian, I declare at the same time that I am a British subject; and one of the greatest grounds of my pride in being a Canadian is that at the same time I am a subject of Britain. The right hon. gentleman says he is not an imperialist nor is he an anti-imperialist. But is it possible for any Canadian to be neither the one nor the other? If you are a Canadian, you must surely wish that Canada should either continue to be a part of the British empire or not. If you wish to continue a part of the empire and to contribute to its growth and success, you are an imperialist; but if you do not wish that empire to grow and prosper, and if you do not wish to continue a part of it, you are an anti-imperialist. You must be either the one or the other, and no amount of high flown sentiment will alter that fact. I am not finding fault with any man who believes that the destiny of this country is annexation or independence, or anything else; but I do say that no man can be a Canadian and not be an imperialist or an anti-imperialist. He must wish either to remain in the empire or to be out of it. It is just as well to remember that when Great Britain lost her American colonies, the whole difficulty arose over the

question of defence. History is philosophy teaching by experience; and although some hon. gentlemen in this House have spoken about matters of history and British diplomacy from the standpoints of books published a number of years ago, it must be remembered that history has been entirely re-written within the last ten or fifteen years, and to-day we have the strongest proofs that at the time of the American revolution nine-tenths of the wrongs were committed by the revolting colonies. It is proved that although the motherland was not always wise, careful and prudent, she was a long-suffering, patient mother after all. And on the other hand, American historians, in their later books, admit that the difficulties with the American colonies took their rise when Britain became the owner of Canada. When Canada was owned by France, the American colonies were afraid of the French power and aggression, but the day that Canada became a part of Britain they at once prepared to secure their own independence. So that it was eventually to the removal of this dread of French aggression that the American revolt was due.
A similar misconception has heretofore existed with regard to diplomatic questions, and any hon. member who will read the latest works on the subject will find, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) said in Toronto a week or ten days ago, that British diplomacy has been, if not invariably, on the whole most successful. On the whole, British diplomacy has been exercised with wisdom and success for the benefit of Canada. Any one who will take the trouble to study history cannot- fail to recognize that Canada would have been thousands of miles from the Pacific ocean to-day had it not been for the might of Great Britain and the dread of its war power.	,
Without occupying the time of the House longer, I would like to say that it seems to me that when a Bill such as this comes before us, and there is doubt as to its constitutionality, it would be wise to defer action until the opinion of the highest court in the land is taken. Can there be any doubt that before many years this difficulty between Great Britain and Germany must be settled. Germany must conquer Britain or Britain must conquer Germany, or a truce must be had between the two. No one wants to go on grinding the people indefinitely by taxation for war purposes. When the proper time comes we can decide intelligently what is best to do in the interests both of Canada and the empire. But of all times this is the most inopportune, when the plans of war vessels are changing more rapidly and more frequently than ever before. We had better wait a few years until a definite Mr. NORTHRUP.
policy has been arrived at in these matters, and we will be in a position to take a course which will have some character of permanency. We could do our duty much more effectively both to this country and to the motherland if, our government would be willing to consult the imperial authorities and see if some plan cannot be discovered which would meet the views and exigencies of both countries. We are told that it would not be wise for us to send our money to the old country to be spent there on a navy over which we would have no control. I sympathizes deep-, ly with that view, but it seems to me that the best course would be for this government to meet the imperial authorities who are anxious for the co-operation of the colonies-for they well know that the future of Britain depends on the colonies- and try to agree on some plan. I am not prepared to suggest any plan, but if the statesmen whose duty it is to overcome difficulties-the statesmen of the Australian colonies, and Canada, and the British Isles, and wherever the Union Jack floats -if they would sit down at a common board, determined to devise some scheme by which all parts of the empire would share in the burden, and not impose the whole burden on the motherland, I am satisfied that a practical result would follow.
I say, Sir, that I have that respect for the statesmen of this country, and for the statesmen of the colonies in general, and of the motherland, to believe that such a scheme could soon be worked out. And I venture to say that if such a scheme could be worked out even now with this emergency before us, an object lesson would be given to the world that the nation that strikes Britain must reckon with the forces of the greatest empire the world has ever seen. It will be worth while to have it known that, not only the men and treasures of the British islands, but the men and treasures of this Canada, which is one of the most richly endowed countries on the face of the earth, and the men and treasures of the other parts of the empire, are also at the service of the empire-not the British empire in the narrow sense, but the empire of all of us, an empire in which all are joint partners, and in whose affairs all take part-to maintain the security that is essential to progress. I have confidence in the right hon. Prime Minister that, sitting at the board with other representatives of the empire, such a scheme could be worked out before they rose.
Mr. Speaker, in amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read the second time, I move:
That the word ' now ' he struck out, and the words be added at the end of the motion,
' this day six months.1


Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: 

had mountains of information. The right [DOT]hon. gentleman states that it will cost $11,000,000 for this navy, with 331 peri cent added if it is constructed in Canada, but the people of this country have learned to place very little faith in estimates which he may give. The right hon. gentleman told this House in 1903 that the Transcontinental railway would not cost us more than $13,000,000, although his Minister of Finance stated that it would cost $28,000,000, and in order that he might mislead the people of Canada he prepared campaign literature stating that it would only take $13,000,000 of the peoples' money to construct that railway. This pamphlet which I have in my hand was circulated in every home throughout the Dominion, "my own home amongst others, and if you will look at page ten you will find $13,000,000 given as the right hon. gentleman's estimates of the cost of this National Transcontinental railway. But, Sir, we find to-day that this railway will cost $250,000,000, and if we take the right lion, gentleman's guess that-the navy will cost $11,000,000 and work it out on the same basis as his estimate for the Transcontinental railway, then the people of Canada may expect that the navy will cost about $220,000,000, exclusive of maintenance. And, as to the time it will take to build the navy, we know that it will take ten years to build the Transcontinental instead of the five years which the Prime Minister said it would take, and therefore on the same basis it will take 12 years to construct the navy. And, Sir, before that navy is constructed it will be obsolete, utterly worthless as an instrument of offence or defence; and fit only for consignment to the scrap heap. Then, the right hon. gentleman told the people of Toronto recently that it was easy to criticise a government but it was hard to construct, and that although the Tories criticised his government it was a government of construction. Well, I need not go into the history of the two political parties in this country, but I may say there is just about as much sense in that statement1 as there is in the other celebrated statement of the Prime Minister who told us the other day that when England is at war Canada will be at war, but it does not follow that when England is at war Canada is at war. Let me point out briefly the record of this government so far as constructive ability is concerned. They undertook the construction of a great Transcontinental railway, and we all know what scandals have surrounded that; they undertook the construction of the Quebec bridge and after they expended over $6,000,000 of the people's money on it it fell into the St. Lawrence. What great con-Mr. STAPLES.
structors they are? They have constructed other things.


Mr. LENNOX.: The Laurier tower.


William D. Staples: Yes, they constructed the Laurier tower and a gentle zephyr from the south blew the whole thing away, and it tumbled down. What a great constructive government this is? Now, Sir,, this government has decided to go its own way irrespective of the other colonies of the empire, and to take its own time to work out a scheme of naval defence. They have decided to construct two navies, one-on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific, and it will be no more possible for those; navies to unite than it was for the Russian navy to unite before the days of their humiliation when they had one fleet on the Baltic and another on the Pacific. At all events, this government has decided to construct two navies, and I have no doubt they will adopt the suggestion of the Toronto 'Globe' and call the Pacific coast navy the 'HorneJ,' and the Atlantic coast navy the 'Wasp'. And having their navies constructed let us consider for a moment what their fighting power will be. I question very much if the 'Wasp' would be capable of capturing Captain Bernier on the Arctic. I am inclined to think that if Captain Bernier had his fleet well armed and manned with Esquimaux males and .females that the Minister of War with his fleet would not be able to capture them. Does any one suppose that the sting of the 'Wasp' would be sufficient to penetrate the armour of Captain Bernier's ship? The fact is that this navy will be an enormously costly affair and will be of no use to Canada or to the empire. Now,, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal about loyalty in this debate, and while it has been hinted that some of the leaders of the government are disloyal, the only way I can judge of that is by their utterances, and having read the speeches of the Prime Minister and some of his supporters I certainly think there is a note of disloyalty in them. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) stated that the mass of the people of the province of Quebec are not disloyal, but hon. gentlemen on the other side have endeavoured to misconstrue his words and they have alleged, wrongfully I submit, that the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) has stated that the people of Quebec were disloyal.
I have never had the pleasure or honour of living in the province of Quebec,, but I have met many of the people of that province, and I have yet to find from one of them one disloyal utterance, outside of the expressions of the leaders who sit on the other side of the House. In the constituency, which I have the honour of representing there are many good French

Canadians, who are good and loyal citizens. There are also French men and women who have come direct from France, and they have made good and loyal citizens of that western country. Let me give you an instance of the loyalty of these people. A couple of years ago they were holding a celebration in a town, I think on the 14th day of June, and at that celebration the French flag was flown. I had no objection to that, because at the same time the Union Jack was flying, and in its proper place. One of the young Frenchmen who had not yet learned what the Union Jack meant, who had not learned that it stood for liberty of language, and liberty of conscience undertook to haul it down. What was the re' suit? No sooner had he laid hands on it than the presiding priest of the parish took it from him, put it in its proper place again and challenged him or any other person to lay hands upon it again. I have no doubt that the right hon. gentleman, when it becomes necessary for him again to appeal to the people of this country, will, as he always does, in opening his campaign, go down to the province of Quebec. He loves to go there and speak to his own people. I do not find fault with him for that, even if he goes so far as to remind them that the same blood that flows in their veins runs in his. Perhaps he will appeal to them in similar language to what he did when he opened the last campaign, when he told them that he was anxious to be returned to power in order that he might have a chance to complete his great work, when he would be content to say with the prophet of old : 'Lord, now let thy servant depart in peace'. That was an appeal that might melt any heart of stone. But when the time comes-and I hope it may be long distant-when the right hon. gentleman will be called from this wicked world to soar aloft and enjoy that peace which passes all understanding, but I fear that when he climbs the golden stairs and knocks on the door of St. Peter, there will be a little detention. I fear that when the great book is opened, which contains a record of the sins of omission and the sins of commission of all men. there will be some pointed questions put to the right hon. gentleman. He will no doubt be told that he was the Prime Minister of Canada who told the people of Canada that he would build them a Transcontinental railway for $13,000,000, whereas it cost them $250,000,000. He will be told that he was the Prime Minister of Canada who promised the people that if he were elected to power in 1896, he would wipe off the statute boobs the protective tariff which was bleeding the people white. He will be asked, are you the late Prime Minister 1631
of Canada who undertook to construct s, great public utility, which, after $6,000.000 of the people's money was put into it, fell with a crash to the bottom of the St. Lawrence, taking with it not only ~the people's money, but some 128 souls. I fear he will be also asked the question: Are you the Prime Minister of Canada who undertook to put the capstone on the. great works you were so anxious to finish, in the shape of an independent and separate navy which would probably be the means of breaking up the greatest empire of the world, which has done more to extend civilization and Christianity than any other empire that ever existed? He may also be asked: Are you the Prime Minister of Canada who thought of changing the design of the flag that would float over that fleet-the flag that has given liberty to all parts of the world? But, Mr. Speaker, is it not too late. I say to the Prime Minister that there is yet time for absolution, there is yet time for repentance. Let him begin now by taking 'this iniquitous and dangerous Bill and tearing it asunder. Let him not be contented with giving it a six months' hoist, but let him hoist it to the four winds of the earth. I have heard in this debate that there is some doubt as to which flag shall float over the navy which this government intends to construct, I for one, a Canadian bom, and a son of Canadian-born parents, will stand for the Union Jack-no other flag will do. The right hen. gentleman may have in his mind a flag of more modern design; he may have in his mind a flag with stars and bars, [DOT] which as beautiful maybe; but the flag that has waved a thousand years is good enough for me. These are not my words, Mr. Speaker, but they express my sentiments, and they are good enough for toe.	.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I should have spoken earlier in this debate; but as I am only now recov- [DOT] ering from a somewhat prolonged cold, I have had to defer what I had to say. Moreover, -what I have to say may not be acceptable to either side of this House.
I cannot approve of the amendment which has just been submitted to the House for giving the Bill the six months' hoist, nor could I have voted for the amendments that were voted on yesterday proposing to send this question to the people. 1 believe absolutely in the responsibility of parliament, and it is up to this parliament and to the government to make the fullest and amplest provision for the defence of the country. The question of the safety of the nation or of the empire is of the first, importance, and cannot in any sense be removed from parliament and
514S

sent to the people. The men who made the parliament of England as we know it, men like Pitt, Fox, Canning, were seized of this principle, that the responsibility for the defence of the country and the empire rested on parliament and could not be taken from parliament and sent to any other quarter. I believe in such a thing as a referendum on a constitutional issue, but never yet in British history has the proposition been made that parliament should abandon the defence of the country to the opinion of the people. Holding this view, I must say that parliament is seized of this question, and, under the circumstances, must act. And, for the same reason, I cannot vote for the amendment which has just been submitted. The responsibility is on this parliament to deal with the defence of the country now-not at a future time.
I believe that the foundation of national greatness, the permanence of any nation and the influence its people may have upon the history of the world, absolutely depend, and have through the ages depended upon sea power. Pericles and Themistocles, who -were the two first and greatest statesmen of Athens, more than four hundred vears before Christ, saw this solution of the problem of national greatness. When that little city of Athens was emerging into influence throughout the then world, and its spirit of democracy spreading, these great men realized that nations became great as they became strong in regard to sea power. They had only small ships, the little triremes of those days, but these statesmen saw that sea power was the basis of national greatness. Themistocles said: 'Give me a navy, and I can be in any place to-morrow, but with an army I can only be in one place '. And so we find it in the course of history. This was true of the Italian cities of the middle ages, it was true of the Dutch republic, it was true of Great Britain, and. coming down to our own day, the rise of Germany is abso .lutely based on the possession and development of sea power. The nation that neglects the development of sea power makes a great mistake and soon must crumble and decay. If Canada is ever to become a community of first class importance, if she is to hold her own on this North American continent, she must develop sea power And we are especially fitted for that development. Not for a moment do I, as a Canadian, propose that we should give up our right to develop our own sea power, or ask, or subsidize some one else to defend us, or to supply for our benefit power at sea. This we must do for ourselves. We have the opportunity before us to dominate this great North American continent, but, if we hope to do it, it must be because -we develop our sea power. We occupy what I call the intercontinental way 'Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
between Europe and Asia. The great track of commerce to-day is across the Atlantic, across America, and across the Pacific, and the maintenance of sea power on both oceans is essential. The possession of sea power is a national necessity to the people of the United States, and they are now spending millions upon it. But the United States is mainly concerned in the ipainten-ance of sea power on the Pacific as against Japan. We are all beginning to see now, especially as the construction of the Panama canal goes on, and a great new route of trade is about to open, that sea power is an essential thing to any nation. I have especially contended that the Canadian people, who have aspirations as high and far-reaching as any other people, will never realize these aspirations unless they develop and maintain power on the sea. We come of peoples who have been identified with sea power. I have heard that a good deal of objection has been raised in the province of Quebec to the proposal to build a navy. But my observation leads me to believe that, if the people of Quebec are strong in certain directions, it is because they are descendants of those Breton fishermen and sailors who first discovered Canada, and are prepared to-day to maintain their integrity as Canadians on this continent by exercising that sea power that they inherited from their fathers. Not only is sea power, as I said, an essential, but it is growing and more and more a necessity in connection with a nation. As I pointed out, that which makes Germany a menace to the English sneaking empire is that Germany has at last recognized the importance of sea power and intends to have it. And I do not see how Germany can be denied the exercise of the greatest power in this respect that she can attain. She knows that she cannot expand otherwise, and following the example of other great nations, especially the example of England, she is developing sea power, until to-day she is the greatest force in the world. And she has developed her sea power within a dozen years. Germany amounted to nothing as a naval power twelve years ago, but in twelve short years she has become a great sea power, and in three years more she expects to be equal to England in this respect, and then to assert her right to expansion. I pointed out how rapidly Japan had come to the front because she had developed sea power. Today she has practically told the people of America, and especially the people of the United States-and is ready to tell the countries of Europe: If you, especially the people of America, intend to assert the principle that America is a white man's country, then you must recognize the supremacy of the yellow man, and especially of the Japanese, in Asia, and this we are able to assert because we made up a navy,

we have trained our sailors, we have built up our country, and we rely upon sea power before anything else.
Now, if this is the teaching of history, how does it affect us? Simply in this way: If we wish to succeed in America, if we wish to be in the empire, and to assist in holding that great fabric together for what it can do for humanity, we must join with England in maintaining sea-power

 and sea-power of the highest kind, and sea-power at home. I believe that is the verdict and determination of the Canadian people. Give them an intelligent leadership, and they will respond and assert the doctrine of sea-power, and will be prepared to make any sacrifice to maintain it in connection with the empire. Not only do I believe in sea-power in connection with the empire, but I believe that an essential part in the development of sea-power consists in building ships in your own country; and I take the credit of having been one of the very first in this House to assert the idea that it was time Canada should begin to build her own ships. I went so far as to say that I believed in bounties on shipbuilding. We want to build ships for our great trade on the Atlantic, and the Pacific. If we can build great transcontinental railways, we can provide great fleets to operate in connection with them on both seas, and what we require is to build those ships in our own country, and thus develop our sea-power. But we must make a start, we require dockyards, and other adjuncts to that business, and it is because the proposition before the House is a move in this direction that I cannot support the motion to give it a six months' hoist or to say that it is a question which should be submitted to the people. It is high time that we should start a shipbuilding industry, and in some way work it out. If you want to become a sea-power, you must not only find a way to build your own ships, and provide your own docks, but you must also train your own people to become seamen; and thank God, we have the best supply of material to man a fleet that can be found any where on the globe. And if we can build the ships-and I lay the responsibility on the government-we can begin to train our sailors to man them. We can, and we could furnish seamen to man a portion of the British fleet. As Canadians it is out duty not to talk so much about constitutional issues, whatever they may be, and not to evade our responsibility as a parliament, but to begin to train and develop our seafaring population so that, if need should arise, we could turn over to England at least 5,000 men competent to assist in manning the British fleet, and if necessary, furnish 10,000 to 20,000 men m the hour of danger. Let us take our share of responsibility; let us do our part in developing our possibilities as a sea-power.
I want to refer for a moment to the real situation in England. I believe that peril does more or less exist to-day, and I believe that the best remedy to the present situation in England is reflected in an article in the London ' Saturday Review ' of three or four weeks ago. The German admiral, who has been attending the German Navy League, delivered an address before one of the meetings of that league, and in that address he tried to draw the sting out of what was a legitimate inference to be drawn from one of the speaker's claim. He claimed that-here is what the ' Spectator ' says:
Grand Admiral Von Roster ended Jhis speech by declaring that the Germans did not think of having a navy equal in size to the English. IV hat they wanted was a force sufficient to protect them against all conceivable attacks. Their programme was to carry out the navy law in all its parts.
The true significance of this remark is very pertinently set forth by the correspondent of the ' Times.' He points out that the president of the navy league and his colleagues have repeatedly explained that this means a great deal more than appears in the ordinary words of the German naval programme. If the minimizing speech of the president of the navy league is construed without sentiment, it appears to us that what the navy league in reality means by a navy strong enough to protect Germany from all attacks is a navy challenging our command of the sea, and if necessary of winning it from us in a naval conflict.
That is what Germany is after to-day. She is bent on the creation and development of a navy able to challenge and wrest from Britain the supremacy of the sea. That is the German policy, but that, they are not able yet to accomplish, as the ' Spectator ' points out. The ' Spectator ' further points out that if England were to adopt what is called the Bismarekian policy, if she were to take advantage of Germany's present weakness, and not wait until she has, in three or four years, perfected her navy, she would strike at once. The ' Spectator ' says that is what the Germans would do in a similar case. I am going to read two more paragraphs which really give the situation:
In raising the question which, as we have said, haunts a certain number of German minds, i.e., that we may do the so-called common sense thing and not wait for German naval preparations to be complete-we admit that we are touching delicate, nay, dangerous ground. We should, therefore, like to take this opportunity of stating once more that we are certain that the British people would never be induced to adopt what we may call the Bismarekian plan of insisting that the struggle for sea-power shall take place while the Germans are notoriously so much weaker than we are. But even if we thought it would be possible to induce the British public, which we are sure it is not, to change their minds in this respect, and to attack the Ger-

mans before their navy is complete, we should refuse absolutely to advocate that course. The best proof we can give of the sincerity of dur words is the fact that we, and what is far more important, all other responsible advocates of a supreme navy in this country are
ledged to the alternative policy-the policy of so greatly increasing our own armaments that Germany will not be able to catch us up.
What is the policy which Englishmen are trying to carry out, and which I want to see our country adopt? This is the policy which England has in view:
The policy of so greatly increasing our own armaments that Germany will not be able to catch us up, and that our present relative supremacy will be maintained. If that is [DOT]done there can never be any valid reason for precipitating a war.
Here is something for the peace at any price men to consider:
If, however, we advocate a Bismarckian policy for Britain, it would not be necessary to ask for more Dreadnoughts to be laid down. We should have a far shorter and easier, and apparently cheaper, way of dealing with the German navy. It is because we are one and all determined to have nothing to do with a Bismarckian policy that we insist that our shipbuilding programme must be greatly enlarged. We want to deal with the German competition, not by the short way, the war way, the way of attacking her while she is relatively weak, hut by the longer way and *he peaceful way of so greatly increasing our i.wn armaments that she will have to abandon the struggle and a conflict will be avoided.
To summarize the matter again, and it cannot be summarized too often, there are two ways of securing that command of the sea which all Britons are agreed must be secured to us. One is by destroying the German fleet before it has attained dimensions sufficiently great to put our sea-power in jeopardy. The other way, and the way all sane British imperialists and defenders of our sea-power advocate, is a scheme of naval construction so large as to neutralize, and more than neutralize, German competition, and to maintain our present relative position of supremacy. All friends of peace and of the maintenance of existing relations with Germany should rally, then, to the cause of a supreme navy, and should make it clear that it is in this way, and in this way only, that we intend to deal with and defeat German rivalry. The policy of disarmament by agreement, as Admiral Von Koester shows, is purely chimerical.
That is the policy Englishmen are working out to-day, to keep ahead of Germany and maintain and increase their sea power. When Germany comes to see that this i3 the determination of England, and when she comes to see that Canada, and the other dominions of the empire, are one with her in maintaining that position, and in keeping ahead, Germany will finally have to abandon her design of competing with Great Britain for naval supremacy ; and nothing will have such an effect on the German nation as a clear cut declara-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
tion from the Canadian people, and from the Australian people, that they are with the empire, and for the maintenance oE the empire, and that in Canada at least we believe in sea-power, that we intend to develop sea-power, and in that way to strengthen the empire, and make German competition for supremacy hopeless. In that way only I believe will British supremacy be maintained and war averted. It is because I believe in Canada being able to assist in the defence of the empire by developing her sea-power, that I cannot afford to take the position that we ought to do nothing. We ought to do everything, and my only contention is that we are not doing enough. I would like to see a Canadian Dreadnought, or two Canadian Dreadnoughts on our coasts. But, if that is not to be, then let us make a start tomorrow, or next day, on something. But I do wish to see a start made. I wish to see a declaration going out to the world that the Canadian parliament assumes to the full its responsibility for the defence of the empire, and, without consulting the people by a plebiscite, that we in this House intend to lead our people in the maintenance of British supremacy. Therefore my regret that the Bill is so weak. I say that we are not spending enough money, that we are not building Dreadnoughts. But we. are asserting that Canada is willing and ready to make sacrifices. As has been stated in the House here to-day, we see that the British war budget now amounts to over $200,000,000, an enormous increase on only the last year. That is a heavy expense; but people who wish to maintain their position have got to spend their money, and we might as well spend our money in strengthening the naval force of our country, in making sailors of our Canadian hoys, in having a naval college, in training seamen for the British navy.
Now, a word or two in connection with this German scare. After hearing what the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) said this afternoon, I do not see how Great Britain can continue to restrain Germany in her desire to expand. A way must be found in Europe to allow the German people to expand without coming into conflict with other nations. I hope that way will be found, and if it is found the situation will be eased considerably. But in the meantime it is our duty to develop some kind of a navy in this country to develop Canadian sea-power, to school our sailors so that they may be of use, almost immediately, to the British navy, to organize a navy of our own, to have a shipbuilding establishment of our own, to have a naval college of our own. Above all, let us say that we not only believe in the empire, but we are determined to remain associated with the empire, and

to that end, that we are determined to develop sea-power of our own on this continent, that we are determined to consecrate all our energies to maintain British supremacy, to keep Britain ahead of every competitor, so that she may remain what she i3 to-day, the guardian and the protecting influence of civilization in its onward march throughout the world.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. G. WALLACE (Centre York).: Mr. Speaker, while this question of such great importance to the Dominion of Canada is under discussion I wish to take this opportunity of voicing my sentiments on behalf of the county which I represent. I was sent here as the representative of the people of Centre York, probably one of the most important counties in Canada, to voice their sentiments on every question that comes before parliament. During the progress of the debate I have listened attentively to nearly every hon. member on both sides of the House who has spoken upon the naval question. I agree to a certain extent with the sentiments expressed by members on both sides of the House. I do not wish to make a claim that I represent the only loyal constituency in Canada, because I certainly do not, but I represent a constituency which, I think, is as loyal, and patriotic, and as devoted to the British empire as any other portion of this Dominion. Elected on these principles, and as I had not the opportunity of expressing my views on the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Navy Bill brought down by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I desire to avail myself of the present opportunity of placing my views upon this question before the House. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) this afternoon, and I regret to say that I think it is my duty to differ from him on this question. On a good many questions I entirely agree with him, but, as I understand his sentiments, he would vote against the six months' hoist proposed by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), and I feel it is my duty, as a representative of one of the great agricultural constituencies of Canada, to dissent from the position which he has taken. I understood the hon. member for South York to say that he would vote against the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). In voting for that amendment I feel that I represent the views of my constituents. While I have no mandate from the people to express my views on the navy question, because at the time of my election there was no navy question before the people, I feel that when any question comes before parliament I should be prepared to take the full responsibility of such action as I consider the circumstances warrant. I believe that there is an emergency at the present time, and that Canada should endeavour to do something to safeguard the interests of the British empire. This will not be done by the creation of a Canadian navy. The Bill introduced by the Prime Minister is entitled an Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada. This force is divided, as the Prime Minister said, into the permanent corps, reserve force, and volunteer force. The Militia Act, in a general way, was followed except in this particular that the Militia Act provides that every man between eighteen and sixty years of age, is liable to military service, while under the Naval Bill, as I understand it, no person is liable to service on sea. It provides for entirely voluntary enrolment. The Bill, though a very important measure, is very meagre with respect to information. We got very little information from the Prime Minister as to what the government really intend to do on this question. He told us that the terms of engagement would be determined by the Governor in Council, and that commissions would be issued in the, name of His Majesty. The Bill declares that:
(a) ' Active service,' as applied to a person in the naval forces, means service or duty during an emergency;
(d) ' emergency ' means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended.
That is one clause that I wish to direct the attention of the House to. Emergency means war, real or apprehended. I think that is right, but I remember very distinctly that in October, 1899, it was brought very forcibly to the knowledge of the government, during the South African crisis, that there was war real or apprehended. I remember distinctly the sentiment expressed at that time by the Prime Minister. I remember the Prime Minister, as quoted in the Toronto ' Globe,' saying :	That the government had nothing to do with Britain's wars. The government did not intend to do anything in regard to the South African war, a very few days before the soldiers were enrolled in Canada. But the sentiment of the people at that time was entirely with Great Britain, as it is to-day, and it was in favour of Canada sending a contingent to South Africa. I did not wish to bring this matter before the House, but it was brought up by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). He quoted the opinion of a gentleman on the navy question who was in the first- contingent. In October, 1899, I had the honour of applying for a commission in the militia force

of Canada. I was one of the first men to apply for a commission in the Canadian contingent to South Africa. Unfortunately more men applied for commissions than could be taken with the force, and there was no room for me. I went to South Africa as a private for which I claim no credit, because,I only did what any loyal Canadian .would do. But, I take second place to no man in regard to my loyalty to the British empire, and in saying that I do not say that any other man is disloyal. I went there and tried to do my duty.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) quoted a very eminent authority as to why we should have a defence force for Canada, and while that authority may be very competent from a military point of view, I do not think it -would be held to be equally so from a naval standpoint. Canada can turn out probably as good soldiers as there are in the world, but I doubt very much if our sailors can equal' those of the British Isles who, I may say, are sailors by instinct. I have no mandate from my constituency to vote in favour of a Canadian navy, but I do think that I would be acting according to their wishes if on an occasion like this, when as I believe there is an emergency, I should support an effort by Canada to render some substantial assistance to the navy of Britain. I believe that if the government, at the present juncture, decided to send over two Dreadnoughts, which would be of some real assistance to the British empire, they would be supported by the people of every province in Canada. I would do anything in my power for the maintenance of British connection, but I honestly believe that the Bill introduced by the Prime Minister for the creation of a Canadian navy, as we have been told by the member for Nicolet and other hon. gentlemen on the other side, is solely with the object, not of helping the British navy, but of building up a fleet in Canada which would be useful to us whenever we should become independent. I believe that the creation of this navy is the first attempt since 1867 to sever the ties which bind us to the British empire, and in that view I am absolutely opposed to it. We all should be loyal to Canada, and any man who is loyal to Canada is loyal to the British empire. Believing as I do, and as gentlemen on the other side of the House have informed us, that this Canadian navy is a step in the direction of separation from the empire, I shall have nothing to do with it. I have no mandate from my people to vote for an enormous expenditure such as is here proposed. I have seen hon. gentlemen opposite vote for huge expenditures regardless of the returns which the country will receive from them, but I do not believe it to he the duty of a member of parliament to Mr. WALLACE.
take such a course unless with the en-dorsation of his constituents. We have seen members on the other side of the House vote for the Newmarket canal, a useless undertaking which will entail a large outlay; we have seen them vote for the National Transcontinental railway, the expenditure on which will be millions more than the government said it would be, and we see them now ready to vote away millions for a Canadian navy which will be absolutely of no use to Great Britain in time of trouble. I certainly know that my strong desire is to represent British sentiment, and feeling as I do on that score, I believe that the best way to help the British empire in the present crisis is for Canada to send an immediate gift in cash, or its equivalent in effective fighting ships. I believe, Sir, that the sentiment of this country demands that we shall assist Britain in her hour of need.. I believe that if this Canadian navy is not built now, the sentiment of the people of Canada will demand that something more beneficial to the empire shall be done, and I, therefore, have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: This debate has been dragging its weary length so long that I feel it would be unpardonable for me to take up the time of the House at any great length. I will put my views, and as far as I understand them the views of my constituents, in as few words as possible, and let it go at that. I would not speak at all were it not that I consider this a very serious step which is being taken by the representatives of the Canadian people assembled in this parliament. We are now establishing a precedent which will be referred to in years to come, and looking at it from that standpoint, I believe it to be the important duty that any member in this House who has strong feelings on the question should put them on record. Having considered the question very carefully, I find that I cannot support the Bill before the House. A great deal has been said on the government side of the House as to some change of sentiment that has taken place among members of the opposition, and charges have been made on the other hand that the government have not carried out the policy laid down by the House in the resolution of last March. Well, I do not attach a great deal of importance to such arguments, because, if the government, with the increased opportunities that have been theirs during the year that has passed, have thought it better to change from the resolution of last March, and if they think that the Bill they have introduced

is more expressive of public sentiment in this country than the resolution, then they would be justified in changing. If, on the other hand, the opposition should have the opportunity of ascertaining the public sentiment of the country, would they not be justified in bringing their views up to date, and crystallizing them in a resolution of the House? I find that the government have changed from the resolution of last March in some very important particulars. That resolution made particular provision for Canada coming to the assistance of the empire in the case of an emergency, and, if I understand aright the Bill before the Chair, that has been eliminated. I think there was nothing in the resolution of last March that would lead the members of this House to believe that there was to be any removal from British control of whatever naval arrangements we might make. But by the Bill now before us the control is to be entirely vested in the government of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Wright: Hon. gentlemen say, 'hear, hear.' They are very pleased, apparently to have removed from the Canadian navy British control or the power of the British people to have anything to say. In that I do not find myself in very hearty accord with hon. gentlemen opposite. Some of them have gone so far as to express the conviction that this is the last step in the separation of Canada from the empire, and they make no bones of expressing their satisfaction that we have reached that stage.
Now, Sir, this question naturally divides itself into two propositions: our duty to the empire as a permanent policy, and our duty to the empire in case of emergency. If there is no emergency, we are not called upon at the present time to do anything along that line. If there is no emergency, then there is no need of our being in a hurry to adopt a naval policy. We should take a year or two, and that would not be too long for any government, to take the matter up thoroughly, to go into every phase of the question, to ascertain Canada's capabilities in building a navy, to look thoroughly into the cost, to ascertain the kind of ships we ought to build, and, having a well thought out scheme, have it put in the form of a Bill and brought before this House. Then the government might appeal to the country on that, and, if sustained, they would be perfectly justified in going on with the measure. That to my mind would be the proper constitutional procedure. But I am thoroughly convinced, as thoroughly convinced as I have ever been in regard to anything in my life, that there is an emergency at the present time. I believe
Germany means mischief to the British empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite have seen fit to belittle our anxiety in this matter. They have quoted statements of British statesmen uttered in the heat of an election, when they were trying to placate the electors of Great Britain and to keep them quiet until the elections were over. We on this side of the House in turn have quoted the utterances of these very same men, uttered a few months previous, when there was no election on, and when they would be much more likely to express their real opinions. Now, we know that there has been a great deal of talk back and forth with regard to the attitude of Germany; but out of all the fog and mist of words, there is one outstanding reality, terrible in its reality, towering up above like the peaks of the Rockies, something that cannot be gainsaid; that is, the fact of the terrible anxiety of the German people to outbuild Great Britain in naval construction. There is no man who has been able to gainsay that, and no member of this House has been able to give any reasonable explanation of this attitude on the part of Germany unless it means a purpose to go to war with Great Britain. We have had various explanations given in this House. One ingenious gentleman tells us that it is to overawe the United States into abrogating the Monroe doctrine in order that Germany may establish a colony in Brazil. In regard to that, I want to point to this fact, that if that is the end Germany has in view, she already has a navy sufficient for the purpose. So that there is no necessity for Germany enlarging her navy for any of the purposes that have been mentioned in this House, except that of going to war with Great Britain. I would point, too. to the fact that Great Britain approached Germany not very long ago with a proposition aimed at stopping this mad waste of public money in the race for naval supremacy; but Germany, I will not say contemptuously, but at any rate very abruptly, turned that proposition down with the statement that Germany was able to mind her own business. There is no shadow of doubt that we can escape war by only one method, that is by Great Britain maintaining her supremacy in naval construction. If that is true -and I believe from the bottom of my heart that it is true-what is the duty of Canada in the premises? Is it to commence building a little navy, which will take ten or fifteen years to attain sufficient importance to be of any effect, even in protecting our own commerce? Have the government gone thoroughly into the question of what it means to build a navy-of all the machinery that is requisite, of all the time that it will take to build and equip and man the ships, to put the guns

and everything else that appertains to a navy in such order as to be of any practical use? In my humble judgment it will take twenty years at least to do that, and by that time it will be a matter of indifference to Great Britain whether Canada has a navy or not. If we are to view this question only from the standpoint of Canada, with the evident intention of cutting the tie that binds us to the motherland, then of what use>
will this navy be . to Canada? If we sever our connection with the motherland, what would we do in attempting to protect Canada from any first class nation, such as the United States or Germany? We could not for a moment hope to compete with people of that kind. We might just as well be without a navy if we are going to rely upon our own resources. If I felt that we could build a navy in the next two or three years that would be of practical benefit and assistance to the British navy I would hold up both hands in favour of doing so. But I do not believe we can, nor do I think that hon. gentlemen in this House believe that is possible.
I would point out further that Germany, in her position, has no need of a navy. She has the strongest army in the world to-day, she is almost entirely inland, perfectly immune from attack from the sea, so that all the navies of the earth could not attack her with any success. The navy which she is building, therefore, since it is not required for defence, must be for the purpose of aggression. I would further point out that Great Britain is absolutely dependent upon her navy for her very existence. She is dependent upon it for the food supplies of her people, as, in case of war, those supplies could be cut off, if by any chance her naval power suffered a reverse. That being the case we have this condition of things. We have Germany strong enough to protect her own country against attack from any power in the world, and Great Britain all powerful by sea to protect her own coasts and her own people. In my judgment that is an admirable condition of affairs. That gives a counterpoise in the world power which makes for peace; but the moment you see the greatest strength of both the army and navy in one power, I care not what power, that nation will become arrogant and try to dictate to other nations, and thus inevitably bring on war. Looking at the question from every standpoint, it seems to me tnat there is only one way in which we can preserve peace, and that is by maintaining the supremacy of the British navy. But what. ever step may be taken by Canada, none ' should be taken which would divest the King and hi3 representatives of the full control of the navy. But what position would we be in under the policy of this Mr. WEIGHT (Muskoka).
government? The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told us that when England was at war Canada was at war, and in the next breath he said that when England was at war Canada might not be at war. Let me point out that the late wars of Great Britain, such as the South African war, were entirely upon land. In the South African war, the British navy took no part and we were consequently immune from attack. But on account of the British navy not being called into play, the opinion prevails among some people in Canada that we are entirely immune, and that it is a matter of indifference to us whether Great Britain goes to war or not. But should Great Britain go to war with Germany, and should Germany send over one of her great battleships to attack Halifax, how would we meet that attack? Would we nail a copy of ' Hansard ' to the coast line and order the German vessels back to sea on the ground that we had nothing to do with Great Britain's wars? Or would the right hon. the Prime Minister go down there, and bring into play that great eloquence of his in order to induce the German commander to sail away because Canada was no part of the British empire? I can safely say that such a proceeding would be highly ludicrous. When Great Britain is at war Canada is at war in the real sense and subject to attack by any foe of Great Britain; and no fine strung theories of the government can alter that fact.
We find some people apparently assuming that we are under no obligation to the motherland. Let me point out that for hundreds of years Great Britain had been laying the foundations for the peace of Canada, a3 well as other parts of her empire. There is not a privilege which the Canadian people enjoy to-day which has not been secured to us by the expenditure of the blood and treasure of the motherland, and we would he ingrate, indeed, to refuse to-day to give practical assistance to the parent state, and her other oversea dominions. In my opinion we ought to come to her assistance in some practical way. Hon. gentlemen opposite have asked of what practical use would two Dreadnoughts be to the empire. But will any man say that they might not save the situation in the case of war between Germany and Britain? We are told that there is no danger, that Great Britain has a larger number of boats afloat than Germany, that she has a larger tonnage in her navy; but these things count for very little when we consider the fact that a great amount of the tonnage is absolutely obsolete for war purposes to-day, and that we can only depend on such vessels as are up to date when we consider the question of our supremacy as a world-power. I think it would be cheaper for the people of Can-

ada, considered from every standpoint, to do our duty as a people in the existing crisis. If we want to bring about peace, we could do nothing better than give a notification to any possible enemy of Britain that all of her colonies, without exception, stand on all fours in their desire to go to her assistance. We have had no practical answer from the government as to what could be possibly accomplished by the navy they propose to build. As regards the protection of our trade and commerce, it would be absolutely valueless against attack. Such being the case, does it not look like an absolute waste of money to launch an enterprise of this kind?
If, as I have said, there is no emergency, what would be wrong in consulting the people of this Dominion? I want to point out that when this resolution was discussed in this House in March, 1909, the people of Canada had no opportunity of making themselves heard in regard to the matter. And even the people's representatives here, in Canada had very little opportunity to consider the question in all its bearings. And I say again thatjf the government intend to go on with the construction of a navy, two or three years would not be too much time to allow for the thorough discussion of the question, with a - view to preparing a well digested scheme in keeping with our needs and capabilities. If it is going to cost Canada two dollars to build here what would cost one dollar if built in the motherland, it seems to me it would he better to order our battleships. If this expenditure upon a navy is going to help our merchant marine, if the government have some scheme by which these vessels would carry our commerce throughout the world, yet be so constructed that they could be speedily converted into war vessels, something might be done in that direction. But, apparently, the government have not the slightest idea of what they are going to do in regard to that matter. They have very little idea of the cost. They make a guess, but it is a mere guess-and we have had some experience in the past as to the accuracy of forecasts that these hon. gentlemen make of the cost of enterprises they launch in this House. Thus, we are absolutely at sea in regard to the cost of the navy we are to construct. That being the case, it seems to me it would be no harm to take a little more time, to go into the matter more thoroughly and make sure that our plan is in accordance with public opinion.
Now, I have taken up the time I had set for myself. There were some other phases of the question I thought I might well discuss, but I feel that it would be unpardonable to do so, therefore I close my remarks. It seems to be the motto of the government to have one suzerain, as they call it,
to have one or two flags (two seems to be the favourite idea) to float over the navy, and a divided people. We on this side of the House stand for one King, one country, one navy, one people-united we stand, divided we fall.


Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to offer an apology for dealing with this important subject even at this stage of the debate. I have no sympathy with the attempt made by members opposite and also by the Liberal press to cut short the discussion of this most important question. The government delayed the introduction of the Bill for more than two months after the opening of the session, and practically no information as to details in connection with the Bill was given for yet another month. As this discussion proceeds, it becomes more and more apparent that the whole question is fraught with consequences of the greatest moment to the whole future of Canada and the empire. This House will not be doing its duty if it attempts to stifle full discussion of the question. Nearly every day's speeches have brought valuable suggestions or have thrown some light upon the sentiment of the country, and everything points to the correctness of the stand which the opposition have taken, that more time should be given to the country to study the question, and no permanent policy developed until the people thoroughly understand it. Meantime, to save Canadian honour, an emergency contribution should be offered to the British government for the immediate construction of ships. I am rising to support this amendment for the following reasons:
1.	The essential features of the Bill provide for an independent Canadian navy which shall take no part in, nor rally to, the defence of other parts of the empire, unless specially authorized to do so by the government of the day.
2.	That, even if authorized to fight by the government in power, it can render no assistance to the empire in a fleet engagement, and would have to confine its energy to protecting commerce, close to Canadian shores and then only when no superior ship of the enemy was in the neighbourhood.
3.	It provides for defence from a thoroughly local standpoint which Lord Sel-bome, when First Lord of the Admiralty, declared to be a policy which simply invited disaster.
4.	That the power given to the government of the day to remain neutral in case of Great Britain being engaged in a naval war includes necessarily the power to haul down the flag and declare the independence of Canada without giving parliament the chance to pronounce upon the subject.

As I do not wish to appear as simply condemning these proposals, poor as they are, to take a step in the direction of naval defence without having an alternative policy to propose, let me say that what I would suggest by way of permanent policy is that negotiations should at once be entered into with the mother country and other parts of the empire looking to the establishment of an imperial council, having under its control foreign policy and imperial defence, in which' the various parts of the empire should have representation according to their means and contributions towards imperial defence and diplomacy.
I need say little in regard to my first proposition. The government have made it thoroughly clear that the navy is to be independent of the imperial authorities and absolutely at the disposal of the Dominion government who may or may not, in their discretion, place it on duty during war or invasion. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told us it shall go to no war unless sent by the Governor in Council, but the Bill seems to provide that it shall not even defend itself unless authorized by that body. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) tried to explain it the other day. Perhaps he is right as to the intention of the Bill. This is what he said:
AVe should keep Canada in this position, that if ever Great Britain should engage in a war of which we did not approve, the justice and righteousness of which we were not convinced of, this country should stand aloof as we have done on other occasions, and act the part of a looker-on.
I will not waste time in asking what kind of inquiry will he made by the government into the justice of the war- whether evidence will be taken, or whether they will decide without knowing all the facts. What I will point out is the responsibility of the position in which they will be placed. Some parallels have been drawn with regard to the militia and the navy. There is no real parallel.


Mr. NESBITT.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) is reading his speech, and that is against the rules.


Mr. FIELDING.: I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) will not press' the point, because many members on both sides have done the same.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the leader of the House does not wish the point .pressed,
I have no desire to press it. At the same time, it is against the rules.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. gentleman evidently does not want the discussion cut dwon. I am willing to speak from notes, but if I


Richard Stuart Lake: do so I shall probably take double the time I otherwise would in putting my case before the House. Nearly every hon. member I have seen speaking on the other side, has practically read his speech, and in that way he has contributed to a certain extent to the curtailment of the debate. However, I am under the rules of the House.
If Great Britain is at war then, and the government, under the Militia Act, decides not to send troops, they simply do nothing, conditions remain as they were, except, of course, in the case of an invasion of Canadian soil. On the other hand, if the government decides that the navy shall not participate in a war, they cannot sit still and do nothing, because the navy is on the high seas and flying the British flag, and liable to attack by an enemy wherever it is found. They must take action. What action can they possibly take? Shall they haul up the ships and disband the crews? That will not save them. There can be only one possible way of evading war, and that would be to haul down the British flag and substitute a neutral one. That is the only way to evade participation in war with a naval power. Our great commercial marine, too, would have to haul down the L'nion Jack and fly a neutral flag. There is this essential difference between the two cases. If the cabinet decides not to participate in hostilities outside Canada, under the Militia Act, they do nothing; if they make the decision under the Naval Bill, they have to do something, they have to take action, they have to haul down the flag. But curiously enough this latter action is not subject to the summoning of parliament. On the other hand, if, under the Naval Bill, they decide to leave things as they are and automatically to adopt the theory that if Britain is at war we are at war, then they have to summon parliament to endorse their action, even for allowing the naval forces of the Dominion to defend the country from invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in this cold blooded idea of holding an inquiry into the justice of Britain's action. Great Britain has treated us far differently. Let me read a few words spoken by Lord Tweed-mouth in 1907, as to the attitude of Great Britain towards her colonies.
We want you to give us all the assistance that 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 lieln 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.
Let me quote also from some remarks of the Duke of Newcastle on the 10th of December, 1862:
The fact known to all the world that war with Canada means war with England-not

in Canada only, bnt upon every sea and upon the shores wherever situated, of the aggressive power itself.
Those are very generous words, Mr. Speaker. Can we afford to be less generous to the mother country than the mother country has been to us? If we will not help the empire will the empire help us? We have received the assistance of the empire on many occasions, the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) mentioned a few, and there would have been many more when we should have been in trouble but for the fact known to the world that the Britsh fleet was behind us. I believe in the policy announced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) in the House on the 28th of February, when he said:
My nolicy as a British subject is to jump into the breach and go to the aid of my fellow British subject wherever on this earth he is. and discuss the righteousness of his cause afterwards.
That is an honest and manly policy, which I believe will appeal to the great mass of the people of this country. When it ceases to be the policy of the British empire, then the empire will shortly cease to exist.
Let me now deal for a few moments with my second point, that is, the adequacy of the government's programme. What do they propose to do? To provide for the completion in five years' time of four unarmoured cruisers and six torpedo boat destroyers, and in the meantime to commence the education of officers and men in training ships to be purchased from the admiralty, and in a naval college which is to be erected in the future. In support of these proposals the government pretend that they are acting in accordance with the wishes of the admiralty, and along the lines suggested at the last imperial conference. This is true in neither case, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, we now have the report of the defence conference, which was withheld from us in November last when the Prime Minister was so anxious to discuss this question, and we can demonstrate from that report that the wishes of the admiralty were far from being followed, while from previous blue-books we know that a system of purely local defence has always been condemned by them. The views of the admiralty are set forth in a carefully prepared memo dated the 20th July, 1909. In that memo it was stated in the most explicit manner that a direct contribution to the British navy would be the most effectual aid to the problem of naval defence, and that the best results would be obtained by all parts of the empire contributing according to their needs and resources to the maintenance of a single navy, with unity of command and unity of training. Recognizing that this might not be acceptable to all the dominions, they suggested that the next best measure to be taken was that any dominion government desirous of creating a navy should form a distinct fleet unit which, while under local control in time of peace, would be capable of being used in its component parts in time of war. The admiralty then set forth in detail what the unit should consist of, and what its subsidiary services were to be, and they made no other suggestion at all except in regard to matters of detail. This fleet unit was to be headed by an armoured cruiser of the Indomitable class and of the Dreadnought type. They further positively stated that the Dreadnought cruiser was the essential part of a fleet unit, and should be the first vessel to be built. But the Canadian representatives positively refused to meet the wishes of the admiralty in regard to either of these suggestions. Subsequently, on the Canadians stating that they were only prepared to spend a sum of money less than that required to build a fleet unit, the admiralty were good enough to advise them as to how they could spend the money to the best advantage, and that was the only proposal of the admiralty which the government has carried out. This is what has been christened the tin-pot navy, a term which has become widely known throughout Canada. The government have already departed from the advice of the admiralty even with regard to this tin-pot navy-I call it so to distinguish it from that proposed by the admiralty-they have departed even from the policy which they agreed to adopt in connection with it, and have purchased a 13-year old cruiser instead of building a new one of the Boadicea class, and in making this announcement to the House they proudly told us that they had effected a saving of $475,000. If they begin with savings of this nature how are they likely to go on and build the rest even of the fleet they have proposed? The situation then stands thus: The admiralty made two alternative proposals, the acceptance of either of which would have given a substantial addition to the fighting strength of the empire within two years, and our government has refused both proposals, and propose to construct in five years time a small group of ships designed only for commerce protection, should Great Britain retain command of the sea, and of no value, whatever to the fighting strength of the empire, and valueless to Canada if the command of the sea passes from British hands. This is quite clear from the utterances of successive lords of the admiralty since 1902. We are proposing to do the very thing they have specifically warned us against as likely to entail disastrous consequences, treating naval defence as a local question.
51G3

I believe it to be one of the first principles of war, both on sea and land, to seek out the main force of the enemy wherever it is to be found and beat it. Once this is done, the rest is merely a matter of time; one by one the smaller squadrons and ships will fall into your hands. The advent of the Dreadnought type of warship has made it practically certain that the naval supremacy of the future will be determined by superiority in these ships. Canada is to have none of them. The government proposals still leave her dependent for her protection upon the bounty of the mother country, the bounty of Australia and New Zealand. Is this an enviable position, and can it be acceptable to a self-respecting people like the Canadians? I repeat the navy to be created under this Bill will be of no effective service to the empire and of no use to Canada without the backing of the imperial fleet. To meet our immediate obligations in regard to some contribution to the fleet, upon which-we in common with all other parts of the empire rely for the protection of our commerce, the safety of our country from invasion, and the peaceful development of the country, the leader of the opposition proposed that,we should place at the disposal of the imperial authorities a sum nearly equal to the cost of the fleet unit and its first year's maintenance, to be used by them in the purchase of Dreadnought cruisers, or in such a way as would add most to the efficiency of the impeial navy. That proposition has been rejected by this House, and I earnestly trust now that the provinces may take the matter up and individually offer contributions. I believe they would if this Bill is out of the way.
There is no question whatever as to the reality of the nervousness of the British government in regard to the present situation. Acts speak louder than wrords. As pointed out in a * Times ' article, read the other day by the Minister of Militia, the British fleet during the last four years has been drawn in from all quarters of the world and concentrated in home waters. And now that the elections are over and the government returned, they are laying dovTn the contingent Dreadnoughts sanctioned last year and asking for a large increase in the navy estimates. I noticed in to-day's paper that the naval estimates brought down in the British House of Commons are $27,000,000 more than they were last year, and the estimates last year were higher than they had ever been before. Even the papers which support the government in the old country, even the [DOT]' Morning Chronicle,' the strongest Liberal paper in the old country, predicts that next year's estimates will be even larger as the inevitable price of British freedom. Sir, we see that Mr. LAKE.
the mother country is being absolutely ruined by the necessary preparations for the maintenance of the freedom of the British empire. Are we to sit down and do absolutely nothing in this country for the next five years? It is a disgrace to this Dominion if we do so. I do not wish to disparage in the least the magnificent array of warships in the British navy or the splendid men who man them, and I believe the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Lewis) is wrong in saying they are short of men. I believe that there is no difficulty in getting men, but that it is ships that they are short of. The building of Dreadnoughts has revolutionized naval warfare, and times are changing. Not much more than a year ago the premier of Great Britain declared that his naval programme would make Britain ten per cent more powerful than any two other naval powers combined. Within six months, he was compelled to own that it would be all she could do to keep ahead of Germany alone, while within two or three years, she will be. inferior to more than one possible combination of powers against her.
Mr. Speaker, if the British empire is true to itself there is no danger. If the dependencies of the empire will contribute to naval defence proportionately to their wealth, or as they would have to do if they were independent states, we should be invincible and could pursue our progress and development in peace and security. I believe this is an insurance we must and should take in the interest of Canadian producers and Canadian commerce.
And now, let me take up the essential features of the Bill that provide for an| independent Canadian navy-a navy which is to take part in no wrar unless the government of the day allow it to do so by order in council, it is these features that I am unalterably opposed to and on account of which I propose to vote against the second reading on the ground that they are ill-advised and dangerous, and that any permanent policy of this nature should first be submitted to the people for their approval or otherwise. As has been said-over and over again during this debate the refusal of the government to allow our navy to take part in any naval war in which' the empire was engaged would be tantamount to a declaration of independence. The flag would have to be hauled down and neutrality declared, the empire deserted.
It means that this Act is to give the government which happens to be in power at the moment the right to declare the independence of Canada and the people would have no power through their representatives to prevent them. For while pow'er is given and indeed the obligation imposed by the Bill that if the navy is

allowed to take part in the war .parliament must be summoned. There is no provision on the other hand for the summoning of parliament, if the government of the day declares the neutrality of the fleet. I have already pointed out that government speakers have drawn a parallel between the provisions of the Militia Act and this Bill in regard to the power of the Governor in Council to place the. militia on active service either in Canada or out of Canada-and the similar power of the Governor in Council over the fleet. Of course the status of a militia force and a navy are absolutely and entirely different from each other. But, I would like to point out in addition that the fine hand of the premier is to be seen in this provision of the Militia Act just the same as it is in the Navy Act. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) stated this provision had been in the statute-book for 40 years and was placed there by the Conservatives. I am surprised that an hon. member who thought it necessary to keep assuring the House how accurate he always is, should have made such a misstatement.
If he had looked up the Acts he would have seen that in the old Militia Acts of 1868 and 1883 this power was absolutely vested in Her Majesty. It was only when this government amended the Act in 1904 that they took the power away from the King and usurped it themselves, just as they now propose to do with the navy which is an infinitely more dangerous matter.
Let me quote the two Acts so as to make it absolutely certain. Militia Act 1904, clause 70:
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.
Clause 72:
In time of war, when the militia is called out for active service to serve conjointly with His Majesty's regular forces, His Majesty may place in command thereof a senior general officer of his regular army.
Then let us take the Militia Acts of 1868 and 1883. They are practically the *same word for word. I think one insignificant word only is altered. Clause 61:
Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for active service either within or without the Dominion, at any time, when it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
That Act did not even say that it was to be done for the defence of Canada.
These words were inserted in 1904. The clause goes on:	:
And the militiamen when so called out for actual service, shall continue to serve for at least one year from the date of their being called out for actual service, if required to do so, or for any longer period which Her Majesty may appoint.
Again:
Whenever the militia or any part thereof are called out for actual service by reason of war, invasion, or insurrection, Her Majesty may place them under the orders of the commander of her regular forces in Canada.
So, while there is very little difference between this Bill and the Milita Act of 1904 in this regard, it should be remembered that it was this government who set the precedent and interfered with the prerogative, as far as they were able to do so, of His Majesty in 1904. I may mention also that, by some gentlemen who spoke upon the other side of the House, this very fact was actually pointed to as a considerable step towards separation from the empire. Now, Sir, I am prepared to hold the Prime Minister responsible for the difficulty in getting the approval of the people in so many quarters to a proposal to grant assistance to the empire If the right hon. gentleman has an affection for the empire he has taken a very curious way of showing it. He has never repudiated his advocacy of separation from the empire which he preached in and out of Canada, he has always tried to convey the impression that he is engaged in a constant struggle to maintain our autonomy, and he has never ceased to criticise and vilify most unjustly British diplomacy. I was much struck by the remarks of the member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) as to the Prime Minister's connection with the Alaskan Boundary Commission, and that hon. member pointed out that the Prime Minister, acting for the governmnet, actually himself nominated all the members of that tribunal; but he did not say, which is a fact, that the Prime Minister nominated these members against the positive advice of the British foreign office, who advised him that he ought to nominate another class of representatives, and not jurists of repute, as these gentlemen were supposed to be. under the treaty. So that the Prime Minister himself was responsible for the finding of that commission, because there is no doubt whatever that the tribunal would not have made any finding if the right hon. gentleman had followed the advice which was given to him by the British foreign office. Therefore I feel that it is -I do not know that I can use a strong enough word and be within the rules of this House-I was going to say it is con-

temptible on the part of any man who is responsible for such a condition as that to come back afterwards and throw the whole blame upon the British government. Now, Sir, the Prime Minister's teaching in regard to imperialism has made it most difficult to get some of his compatriots to provide for any naval defence at all. He has told them that imperialism would involve us in the vortex of European militarism. Now, what is the meaning of imperialism. I think, the Prime Minister himself, in moving the resolution on the 29th of March last, gave about as good a definition of imperialism as you could find anywhere, when he used these words:
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 hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and the honour of the empire.
That, Sir, is my idea of imperialism. The member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) expressed the same idea a few days ago, when he said:
The imperialist is a man who while doing all his duty to his own country always remembers that his country is part of an empire into which it was born and in which he desires it to remain.
I have consulted a number of authorities in regard to imperialism, and I find that all of them come down to pretty well the same idea as to what imperialism means. Now, why, after moving such a resolution, does the Prime Minister say that he does not intend to be an imperialist, nor does he pretend to be an anti-imperialist. Has he gone back upon that part of the resolution as he has gone back upon all the amendments which he agreed to incorporate in that resolution when he got the members of the opposition to agree to it on the 29th of March last? That is what he has done. That part of the resolution is all so many vain words so far as he is concerned. It is always difficult to understand what the Prime Minister's real intentions are, because he makes so many contradictory statements as to his actual position. Can this mean that after all his protests, he takes no interest whatever in the British empire? It seems to me that is the only meaning that can be attached to his words. Many years ago in this House, the right hon. gentleman condemned the idea, to use his own words, ' of welding together a gigantic British empire on the face of the earth,' and on that occasion he stated that he thought the conception of individual British communities was a grander idea. Is this still his idea, and is he still at the bottom of his heart in favour of separation from the British empire and of independence as he was in 1892? I have no doubt whatever Mr. LAKE.
in my own mind that the difficulties which exist to-day in doing anything effective for the common defence of Canada and the empire is due mainly to the influence of the Prime Minister in the province of Quebec. The right hon. gentleman has lately gone a step further in his independence ideas, and he has tried to propagate the gospel even in Ontario. Some attention has been given to his speech in Toronto on the 5th of January last, and I propose to put on ' Hansard ' his own version of what he said, and which will be found in answer to a question on the 24th of January last ('Hansard,' page 2357).
We are under the suzerainty of the King of England. We are his loyal subjects. We bow the knee to him, but the King of England has no more rights over us than are allowed him by our Canadian parliament.
I do not intend to discuss the statement that the King has no more power in Canada than the parliament chooses to give him, because that point was most effectually dealt with by the member for West Elgin. I do intend, however, to refer for a moment to the use of the word 'suzerain,' because I believe the Prime Minister used it advisedly and deliberately and with an ulterior motive. It is, of course, in its original meaning a word signifying the relation of a fedual lord to his vassals, and we constantly come across it in books which deal with the old fedual system. It is a word, however, that since the year 1891 has had a special significance in English ears. It was used by Mr. Gladstone to describe the special relationship for which he was responsible between the Queen of England and the Transvaal when peace was concluded after the Boer victory at Majuba Hill. I can well remember the discussion which took place in the English newspapers as to the meaning of the new relationship under which the Transvaal republic recognized the suzerainty of the Queen. Mr. Gladstone explained it on the 25th of July, 1881, as follows:
After all that had occurred it became necessary that there should be some plan fixed and agreed upon between us, so that they (the Transvaal) should know what obligations they were under to us, and that we should have no powers except such as were well understood by them. That is the plan which we have actually adopted. I apprehend that the term which has been adopted, ' suzerainty of the Queen/ is intended to signify that certain portions of sovereignty are reserved, and are expressly reserved: but that all that is not reserved is given up. That is the meaning which, I think, we ourselves should attach to the term. What are those portions of sovereignty? The portions of sovereignty that we d'esire to reserve are, first, those which relate to the relations between the Transvaal community and foreign countries- the whole care of the foreign relations of the


ID, 1910
[Stage Direction]
Boers. Those foreign relations are not altogether unknown to the Boers in their brief independent existence. They had communications with various countries of Europe, with various considerable countries of Europe-but the whole of these relations in the future will remain in the hands of the Queen. But what was still more important was that we should reserve sufficient power to make provision for the interests of the natives, and tins reservation of foreign relations was a most important one as regards the interests
r ' natives, because a very large portion of the native interests of the country involve the natives beyond the frontier of the Transvaal, &c.
Those are the only two reservations of sovereignty which Mr. Gladstone declared were retained in the condition of "suzerainty which the Transvaal agreed to, so that there having been a considerable discussion on the subject I am surprised that the Prime Minister-a man who takes an interest in everything that is going on in the empire-did not remember that discussion when he used the word 'suzerainty.* It will be remembered that under these conditions which I have just quoted in Mr. Gladstone's words, the Transvaal was an independent republic, flew an independent flag, and British subjects within its borders were aliens. The Prime Minister, on the 3rd of February in this House made an explanation of his use of the word 'suzerainty.' and he said:
I do not pretend to be a master of the En°-. hsh language, but I think I know something ot it, and I have always understood that if mere is any difference between * sovereignty 9 and suzerainty ' it is merely a shadow, and V.lat lt; ,1.s use(* by men of great eminence in-t	as aT*Pb'itig to the same condition
ot things.
The Prime Minister is much too modest I should imagine that there are few men m the House who are such masters of the English language as he is; there are few men more careful to use the exact word to convey the idea than the Prime Minister. According to his statement on the 3rd of February, after the matter had been discussed and the word criticised the Prime Minister still professed and believed that there is only a shade of difference between the two words. He might have satisfied himself by looking up the interpretation of the term by legal authorities, or even bv looking at the ordinary dictionaries. 1 have a suspicion that he did look at the dictionaries for I find in the Century Dietionary the reference to the lady in Quentin Durward. Would it not have been more candid if he had given us the definition which immediately preceded the quotation which gave the meaning as 'Sovereign but not supreme.'
But would you be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to learn that the Prime Minister once discussed in this very House the question of
'suzerainty,' as applied to the Transvaal republic? Let me quote what he said on the 31st of July, 1899, 'Hansard,' page 8992:-
The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I beg to interrupt the regular course of the business, in order to offer certain resolutions which I believe the state of things now existing in a distant country under the suzerainty of Her Majesty seems to render appropriate. Every one will agree with me that the development of the British tiupi re has now reached such a condition and degree of consolidation that no part of it can affect to be indifferent to anything that may be going on in any other part, and, assuredly, we cannot be indifferent to the condition of things existing in the Transvaal state, which, it must be remembered, though ail independent and self-governing country, is under the suzerainty of Her Majesty. Some 80,000 of Her Majesty's subjects have been allowed to become residents of that country, to purchase lands there, to open mines, to develop trade, to establish industries and to build up cities, yet are denied almost every kind of participation in its administration. They are subjected to discriminating and heavy taxation, and yet are denied any kind of representation, and although forced to bear their full share of citizenship, are denied the rights and privileges and liberties of citizens.
Later on, he said:-
It must not be forgotten either, when we come to deal with this question, that Her Majesty is the suzerain of the Transvaal republic, and became so with the full consent of the people of the Transvaal. It must not be forgotten that, at a time when the Dutch population of the Transvaal was in dire distress, .when they were threatened almost with annihilation by their neighbours, when they were threatened with something like civil war among themselves, they appealed for British interference, and, after a series of events, which there is no use going into at this moment, a treaty of peace was concluded between the people of the Transvaal and Her Majesty, by which, on the one hand, while the independence of the Transvaal was recognized, on the other hand the suzerain power of Her Majesty was fully recognized and admitted. The least, then, 'that can be expected is that the subject of the suzerain power should not only be not subjected to any kind of oppression, but be given also rights equal to those enjoyed by the citizens of the Transvaal republic.
I desire you to note the distinction between His Majesty's subjects and the citizens of the republic. I might perhaps also quote the resolution moved by the right hon. gentleman, as follows:-
1. Resolved, that this House has viewed with regret the complications which have arisen in the Transvaal republic, of which Her Majesty is suzerain, from the refusal to accord to Her Majesty's subjects now settled in that region any adequate participation in its government.

[Stage Direction]
2.	Resolved, that this House has learned with still greater regret that the conditions of things there existing has resulted in intolerable oppression, and has produced great and dangerous excitement among several classes of Her Majesty's subjects in her South African possessions.
3.	Resolved, that this House, representing a people which has largely succeeded, by the adoption of the principle of conceding equal political rights to every portion of the population, in harmonizing estrangements and in pioducing general content with the existing system of government, desires to express its sympathy with the efforts of Her Majesty s imperial authorities to obtain for the subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in the Transvaal, such measure of justice and political recognization as may be found necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and liberties.
And yet the Prime Minister told us the other day that: ' I have always understood that if there is any difference between sovereignty and suzerainty, it is merely a shadow. I leave it to the House to do-cide between the two statements, and to say whether the Prime Minister used the word suzerainty designedly or not. There i3 this further point to be remembered: that the Transvaal was independent, and had its own flag. If we are under the suzerainty rather than the sovereignty of the King, we would have to have our own flag. I believe this was in the mind of the Prime Minister. It is the logical sequence of the position taken in regard to the proposed navy. The Prime Minister 3ays it is to remain neutral until the government decide whether it is to take part in any war in which Great Britain is engaged. How can any ships on the high seas, flying the Union Jack remain neutral in the presence of a power at war with His Britannic Majesty? It is impossible. The next proposal we shall undoubtedly have from the Prime Minister is that to carry out the intention of this Bill it is necessary that some other flag than the Union Jack should fly over the proposed navy. I have already seen the proposal in a paper supporting the government naval policy. It says:
This is another stride forward in the development of our nationality. A Canadian army, a Canadian navy, a Canadian gold coinage. This is an admirable trio. Shortly we will have a real Canadian flag, which will be more suitable than the plain Union Jack and more acceptable to the much-speaking people. I
I wonder whether the new Canadian flag will have the same talismanic influence in Europe to which the Prime Minister referred as the Union Jack! I fear not! The first war in which the empire is engaged in which the Canadian navy refuses to take a part in, inevitabably means the hauling down of the Union Jack from our ships, and the declaration of our neutrality, or in-Mr. LAKE.
independence. It mean3 the same thing. But let me say to the Prime Minister, you may legislate a man out of his civil rights, you may legislate him out of his personal liberty, but you cannot by Act of parliament deprive him of his allegiance. You cannot take his flag from him. That is a personal matter, a matter of his conscience. If you try to take that from him by force, he will fight, and he has a right to fight.
In the earlier part of the debate the opinion, expressed on this side of the House, that the Prime Minister still desired ultimate separation from the empire, and the independence of Canada, and that his naval proposals were based on this desire, caused much excitement among his supporters. They expressed great indignation because his speeches on the subject were quoted and commented on. The continuation of the debate, however, has proved that he has a considerable following of Liberals in this House who advocate candidly separation. Most of the references to the subject have been more or less veiled, but there have been some very frank expressions of opinion. The member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte) was the chief spokesman, and 1 shall endeavour to offer a somewhat free translation of the words used by him last week:
It ill-becomes politicians of many years' experience, who have seen unfold before them the great events and the political changes which are now relegated to the history o,f our country, who have seen the nation grow, and who know its vigour and its immense resources, it is neither patriotic nor loyal on the part of these men to clog the full development of our political organization, and to pretend that we should always remain under the protection of the English flag. But. thank God, I am convinced it will not be thus, and the creation of a military fleet is, in my humble opinion, the last step towards independence.
It is this point of view especially, and I should say exclusively, that I take in giving my adhesion to the Liberal policy of the moment. I speak from the Canadian point of view, and I think that this manner of regarding (facing) the question is also that of the voters in my county, and I do not think I exaggerate in saying that it is that of the great majority in the province of Quebec.
Later on, he said:
In concluding. I wish to clearly declare the motives which urge me to vote in favour of the present measure; they are, first of all, the great confidence which I have in the policy so surely directed by my right honourable chief; secondly, the constitutional conditions in which our country is placed in regard to England; and thirdly, and above all, the interest which I hear to my country, and my conviction that the establishment of a war-navy will be the last step towards a political state more nerfect and more in conformity with our national aspirations-independence. But I desire this independence only inasmuch as we could attaiu it with the good-will and

' entente cordiale ' of England, to whom, I am happy to acknowledge, we owe that which we are to-day, and in whose favour I am proud to proclaim myself a loyal and devoted subject.
I call special attention to the statement made that he believed the majority of the people of Quebec were in accord with his point of view, and also that he gave as his reason for supporting the Bill that he considered it the final step towards independence. I presume from what has been said in the House that the doctrine of separation from the empire and independence for Canada is being widely preached. Moreover, the fact that perhaps the best known and ablest advocate of separation, Mr. J.
S.	Ewart, is employed in a most prominent position in the conduct of our fisheries case before the Hague tribunal gives him the endorsation of the Liberal party, and gives weight to his propaganda. I propose, therefore, to offer a few comments on the probable effects of independence, following the lines taken in the earliest part of this debate by the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General, the other evening, gave a list of independent countries with a population of less than 10,000,000, who have navies of their own. It was headed by the Argentine Republic-a country much the same size as the organized portion of Canada, but with a slightly smaller population. There they have a naval programme calling for an expenditure-I am using the Postmaster General's figures-of $35,000,000, with three Dreadnoughts under construction and universal military service imposed on the population. In every one of the countries in that list, with the exception of the Negro republics of Hayti and St._ Domingo, and possibly Peru, they have universal military service or conscription. Roughly speaking, it may be said that it is only in (.the British empire and the United States that universal military service or conscrpition has not to be enforced as tile price of independence. If Canada were to become independent to-morrow, the only possible guarantee of its liberties would be the immediate enforcement of universal military service upon our population. Independence would undoubtedly carry militarism with it. That is the experience of all other states-why not with us?
Let me mention another price that would have to be paid for independence. During the South African war, it will he remembered that Canadian securities were placed on the trustee list in England. In moving for the requisite legislation in this House the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made the statement that the enhanced value of Canadian securities that would accrue thereby would more than cover the whole cost to Canada of that war. I would like 1644
to impress that fact on the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean), who said that Great Britain had done nothing for Canada for which she had not received' full value. If, instead of being an integral portion of the British empire, Canada was to become a republic, her securities would undoubtedly at once have to be removed from the British trustee list, and as a weak and struggling republic, her credit would undoubtedly drop, and I do not think I should be far astray in saying the annual cost to this country on that score alone would amount to four or five millions a year. But the Postmaster General did not confine himself to a comparison of independent countries, he devoted some time to an argument against dependence on the Monroe doctrine and its inevitable result- absorption into the United States. I don't think any one can doubt hut that union with the United States would mean for Quebec just what the Postmaster General suggested-the loss of their language, their laws, their schools, their usages and customs. It would also mean that Canada would have to contribute its share to the naval and military and pension expenditure of the union. In 1908 that share would have amounted to $37,000,000. In 1909, a large reduction was made in the vote, but even then our contribution, according to population, would have amounted to about $29,000,000. Surely it would be better if only from this point of view alone, to do our share towards the maintenance of an imperial navy? It would not cost us one-third as much as absorption into the union.
I have already spoken at far greater length than I had intended, but I wish to say one thing more in support of my contention for an imperial council. In my opinion the time has come when some definite action should be taken for the closer knitting together in a political union of the different parts of the empire. The policy of each over-sea dominion providing their own navies and keeping them, even in peace time, under their own control, is unsatisfactory, while in war time, if such provisions as those in this Bill are enacted, it becomes dangerous. If we had one imperial council upon which all the dependencies of the empire had a due share of representation, and which controlled the two subjects of foreign policy and defence, it would be possible for all the dominions to contribute to one imperial navy without in any way infringing upon any rights of self-government. This is no new matter. It was put in definite form by Mr. Chamberlain at the imperial conference of 1902, as follows:
His Majesty's government while they could welcome any approval which might he made to a more definite and a closer union, feel that it is not for them to press this upon
[DOT]5175
[Stage Direction]
you. The demand if it comes and when it comes, must come from the colonies. _ If it comes, it will be enthusiastically received in this country. ...	.	.
I would refer to an expression in an eloquent speech of-the Premier of the Dominion of Canada-an expression which lias called forth much appreciation in this country, although I believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has himself explained that it was not quite correctly understood. But the expression was ' If you want our aid call us to your councils/
'We do want your aid/ 'whenever you make the request to us be assured we shall gladly call you to our councils. If you are prepared at any time to take any share, any proportionate share in the burdens of the empire, we are prepared to meet you with any proposal for giving to you a correspond ing voice in the policy of the empire/
Three years ago an article appeared in the London 'Standard,' at the time of the imperial conference, which I would like to quote. It is as follows:
We, of the old country, to put the matter quite' plainly, have not the smallest desire to keep the distant shires of the empire in leading strings; we do not wish to hinder-we | would rather help-their advance to nationhood. But we will not attempt to force them to take their places as fully-grown members of the family until they demonstrate, of their own free-will, their desire to do so. We wish to see an Imperial Witan created; we wish to see an imperial navy ride the seas; but, until the five nations offer willingly, we will bear cheerfully the burden of their defence and the exacting task of endeavouring to adjust foreign relations with regard at once to the interests of the imperial whole and the susceptibilities of its component parts.
And let me also point to the fact that when the United States brought in their dependencies they gave them representation in congress. There are representatives sitting in the congress of the United States to-day from Porto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii. Why should it not be possible for our statesmen to devise some similar arrangement for the component parts of the British empire? These difficulties about the Navy Bill convince me that the time has come when we should make a step forward and act on Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion. And Canada, the premier colony of the empire, should lead the way.
Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying which, I presume, you have heard. 'Whom to know is to love.' If there is any man in this House who awakens that feeling in the hearts of hon. members on either side it is our good friend the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). He is frail in body at present, but he is in this House the lone German representing a Canadian constituency, and loyal to the core. When Mr. LAKE.
he was speaking last night, I know, your sympathies were with him as were those of all his other fellow - members. You could see, Sir, that he was labouring against the frailities of his body, labouring to voice in this House his opinions against the policy brought forward by this government, and also, in some measure, against the policy of his party and voiced by his political leader. You could not help, no hon. member of this House could help, but feel strong sympathy for him. Frail in body, great in courage, he stood here declaring his opinions. And you could not but feel, as every member felt, when an hon. member of this House got up and offered factious interruption, that he was doing something that was not'right for any member of this House to do. For the first time in my life I felt ashamed of the fact that Scotch blood runs in my veins when I heard that 2x4 Scotch proposition get up and abuse my hon. friend from South Waterloo. It reminded me of the fact that some of the Scotch are the descendants of sheep stealers and cattle lifters. But when I heard the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. M. Y. McLean) I could not help but think that even at that he was a degenerate son of the race.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think that expression is beyond the limits of debate.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there is no man in this House who is so ready and willing to abide by your decision as I am, and I will at once absolutely take back the word, if you will permit me the pleasure of the reminiscence of having said it.
To come to the subject that is before the House I am afraid that, to some extent, I shall have to infringe on the rules, the infraction of which was so strongly objected to by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) for the reason that I have not taken the time to properly get my views on this subject into shape to present to the House. In saying that, I want to say, further, that if there is any hon. gentlemen in this House who ought to speak by the book and read his speeches to do his common sense justice, it is the hon. member for North Oxford. In offering a few remarks on the subject before the House, I shall have to do what many Liberals in this House have not done-take the same stand to-night that I took this time last year. To emphasize that, I ask your permission to refer to what I said in this House on April 26 last, as reported in 'Hansard':
I listened to the splendid logical argument laid before this House on the matter of imperial defence or aid to imperial defence delivered by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). It was found fault with by the bon. gentleman who leads the House.

Why? Because it was not concrete. That is the fault he found with it and what did he giro us? He gave us verbiage, which means nothing. Why, Sir, it is time for this House to realize that the whole world is looking to Canada in this particular matter. I say the whole world and I mean it. Why these little Japanese, with their civilization 4,000 years older than ours in some matters of esthetics and the arts, have cmne to realize in the last few years that painting and ornamental work of that kind doos not brinj? tliom anythin0' thev have become ambitious to take a position in the world, and have taken a position by defeating great Russia. The fact that they defeated Russia has stimulated them to further aspirations, there is no doubt about that, they are looking around for fresh worlds to conquer, they are watching to see what Canada is going to do, when the motherland is calling. Then there is Russia, she is watching as we all know, to see if anything will befall the navy of Great Britain. If anything occurs to the navy of Great Britain, I am of the opinion that the next day Russia will be marching across the borders into northern India. Germany is watching to see what Canada will do. Why ? Because she has an idea that if she can only beat England on the sea she has the supremacy of the world. She is watching to see if Great Britain has her a*: 'ier back, s'le watching to see whether the Germans, who have come out here by thousands, are ready to support loyally the country of their choice and their adoption.
Iranee is watching for the same reason that all the minor powers in Europe are watching, watching on account of her commerce for one reason, because she knows that the naval power of Great Britain Ins stood for the safe commerce of the world, has stood for the safe commerce of all the smaller countries, knows that the navy of Great Britain has not been maintained and brought to its present standard because Gieat Britain desired to go out to conquer new worlds, but simply because Great Britain believed that as long as she held the supremacy of the seas, the commerce of all kinds from the smallest nation to the greatest nation was safe. France is looking to this colony to see what it will do. France does not forget that on this side of the Atlantic are the descendants of Frenchmen in their thousands, she looks to them to see whether the old French chivalry, the loyalty to the flag which protects them, is dead in the descendants of the men who came over from beauteous France. She is looking to see if chivalry died in this country when fell Montcalm.
I think further that we ought to remember that in Great Britain there are hundreds of thousands, nay millions of people, who for all those decades have been paying ' with a smile ' for the protection of Canada as well as other colonies, they have been paying their taxes, and it lias been hard to pay them, with a smile, because they know it is Great Britain's colony, it was the daughter of the great mother, whom they were helping to protect. Those people are looking to us to see whether we are going to respond to the call, if we are not going to show that we were ready to help our brothers across
the seas in bearing the burden they have to bear on our account. All through Canada, the people have been looking to see if anything definite is going to be done. Every board of trade from the Atlantic to the Pacific has been passing resolutions to that end, to have Canada show herself, show her hand, show her willingness to come out in the open and say:	We are with the mother
country. Send the message to Great Britain, ' you can call on us for what you want and we are behind you.'
I was more than surprised to hear the hon. gentleman from Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith)-	*
But I wont say here what I said of him. then, because he has made two somersaults since then. I referred also to the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Gong-don), and went on to say:
Knowing the people of the north country as I do, I declare that his sentiments as expressed In this House are not the sentiments of the men who have gone into that north country and taken their lives in their hands from day to day. I hope the First Minister will reconsider his reply of two or three days ago with regard to aid in the matter of Dreadnoughts. I hope he will consider that even although he cannot trust me to back him up in many of the things he does, there is one thing in which I and every Conservative would support him, loyally and enthusiastically, that is, if he -would coma to this House and give us a part in saying what we will do for the mother country and for the empire. Had he been here, I would have taken pleasure in telling him that it is my opinion that this is the hour and he is the man, and all Canada is looking to him.
Those were my sentiments expressed in this House last year, and I regret exceedingly that I must take back the last sentence in which I stated that this was the hour and he was the man.	The hour is
here, but the man is not.	While I am
only a humble member of the Conservative party and a follower of the hon. the leader of the opposition, I feel now as I felt then, that I was voicing the opinion of the Conservatives in this House. They would have been glad Sir, to have a part in doing something substantial for the empire at that time. If the First Minister would bring forward a policy now that would be in the slightest degree an available help to the empire, he would not have a stauncher supporter in this House than myself. But last night, when the exigencies of the occasion demanded that I should vote with him, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that never in mv life did I do anything that so crated against my feelings as to support him in any respect whatever, pertaining to his naval policy. He has brought down a little old naval scheme, and an abortion at that, and not only an abortion, but an abortion tainted, to my mind, with disloyalty and


Mr. E. ROY.: You know your side of the House better than our side.


Mr CAMPBELL.: I will speak to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roy), who has just spoken.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: I may say to the hon. gentleman that I have no patronage at ail Tn my constituency.


Glenlyon Campbell: I presume the hon. gentleman is representing a constituency up where the ' Arctic ' went among the Esquimaux.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: My constituency has been represented here for twelve years by a Conservative.


Glenlyon Campbell: No public buildings, and no barrel to carry them through the next elections, because without a barrel, none of them would come back here on such policies as Lumsden charges of over-classification, saw-dust piles that are called wharfs, Newmarket canals without any water in them, pot-boy palaces at Kingston, an expenditure of $112,000 for eight little cottages for the bung-starters who are to occupy them. And yet, they call upon this House to support a naval policy like that, a naval policy that they do not dare to submit to the people. If it is possible to say ' and worse still,' I will say it; and, worse still, they propose to put this navy under the management of a department of this government that under a very superficial investigation at the hands of Judge Cassels, not very long ago, w'as adjudged to be reeking with graft, crookedness and lack of conscience. That is where they are going to put this navy. It is scandalous. I am surprised that even a Liberal would stand for it-a department that has been in charge of the buoys that were set out at various places Along our coast. After a buoy broke loose at the Old Proprietor reef on the Bay of Fundy it took this department that you are going to give your navy to, ten months to get that buoy back in place, and during that time, owing to their absolute criminal negligence-and it was nothing else-forty valuable lives were lost, as was so realistically depicted in this House by the hon. member for St, John (Mr. Daniel) last year. Shame on your department. What will a department do with a navy that cannot manage a little old buoy? You have heard the slogan on the other side of the line. ' Remember the " Maine." You know what that text meant on the other side of the line. But, Sir, I would say to the decent Liberals, and there are lots of them

	'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. BARKER.: They are not here tonight.


Glenlyon Campbell: Yes, they are; they are warped politically, hut they are decent if you can ever get at their consciences. There is the trouble. I want the decent Liberals in this House when they are asked to vote for this navy to remember that it is going to cost millions and millions of dollars, not only to them, but to their children and their grand children, for all time and eternity. There is not get away from that. And, I will give them a slogan to remember it by- instead of ' Remember the "Maine" ', let the cry be: ' Remember the "Minnie M." ' with its stories of ballot boxes, and debauchery, and blackguardism; ' remember the "Arctic" ', another of your fleet with its stores of booze, drugs of all kinds unmentionable, and ladies spring hat3 for the Esquimo four hundred. Remember these things boys. Remember the ' Montcalm with its stores of cut glass and silverware bought from party friends at prices, three and four and five and six times more than they were worth. Remember these things when you go to vote, and remembering them beware of the navy. It seems to give gentlemen on the other side of the House a kind of nightmare when any one says ' emergency And I do not wonder at that because the First Minister for example, and the Minister of Militia and Defence mu3t remember when they hear that word the emergency rations that they sent to our boys in South Africa, and that is a sore spot with them. The hon. member for Pictou in his speech the other day gave to this House the sentiments of a South African veteran, and I do not think I can do better than quote from a friend of mine who was right at the front in South Africa, and who knows what he was talking about. He says:
I think the arrangement with the Dominion was, hut I am not sure that they supplied the rations and clothing that went with the men and horses, and the imperial government was to pay the Dominion the amount they charged, but you can find out, for sure, yourself.
The 2nd, 3rd 4tli. 5th and 6th Regiments C. M. Hides, and 10th Field Hospital were organized, paid, equipped and maintained throughout at the sole expense of the imperial government. It did not cost Canada one iota, not even the price of a bottle of ink for the orderly room. Wickwire was Sir Frederick Borden's purchasing agent at Halifax for these, charging the whole to the imperial government, and Oh, my, poor imperial government, they ought to give her four Dreadnoughts, and they would still owe her money.
Now in the case of the 1st C.M.R., we were to receive three shillings a day for a private soldier (and pay went up according to rank), but deducted from that was one shilling and two pence we received from the imperial purse, making a private get the handsome allowance of one shilling and ten pence a day from Canada. T*< comparison our comrades,



Canadian, and especially in the leader of a party, who made such statements. ' Let Laurier finish his work,' was the cry all over Canada at the last elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Glenlyon Campbell: What was his work? Are hon. gentlemen crying 'hear, hear', because the right hon. gentleman said that the goal of his ambition was the independence of Canada? If that is his work, I will have none of it, but am against him first, last and all the time. But even if you could confine those idiosyncrasies, as our hon. friends opposite are pleased to term them, to the Prime Minister that would not be quite so bad because you could get rid of him, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has a similar record. In 1886 that hon. gentleman stumped his own province of Nova Scotia with the war cry of separation from the Dominion. When premier of that province he moved a resolution on the 5th May, 1886, declaring for separation, yet hon. gentlemen opposite will get up and say that- it is shameful the way in which we decry their ministers. Sir, that is not where the shame belongs. It belongs to the ministers who have said those things which give us an opportunity to show them in their true light, and sorrv we are to have such an opportunity. We are ashamed for Canada that we can throw those utterances in the teeth of - these men. On that occasion to which I have referred, telegrams were read on the same platform at the Champs de Mars, where the Prime Minister made the statement I have quoted, from the worst enemies of the British empire, the Fenians, attacking the empire. And on that platform, where these telegrams were read, the right hon. gentleman, who now leads this government, and who is the wTet nurse of this navy, got up and said that had he been on the plains of Saskatchewan at the time of the rebellion of 1885, he would have shouldered a musket on behalf of the rebels. I was out there with many other hon. gentlemen in this House, not because I blamed so much those poor, ignorant half-breeds, but because I realized that were the rebellion allowed to go on, it would mean that the defenceless women and children of Canada, scattered throughout the northwest, would be at the mercy of the Indians, who would have risen in all their numbers and might. I was out there in the fight for my country, taking my chances with the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie), the hon. member for Victoria (Alta.) (Mr. White), and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) and others Mr. CAMPBELL.
-fighting for what? Fighting for the solidarity of the empire, fighting for our flag, fighting for the women and children of Canada all through that country; and yet we had this hon. gentleman, who is the leader of the Liberal party, getting up among the people of Montreal and saying that had he been out in that country he would have shouldered his rifle and fought against us. The term 'United Empire Loyalist ' is one to be proud of, it is one almost too great for us to aspire to, but we were united empire loyalists in heart. What was the right hon. gentleman? What would you call that kind of loyalists who would go out and fight for the rebels? I would give them a new name and call them the E, U, or entirely unique loyalists. That was not the kind of loyalty we had in our minds and hearts. Had the right hon. gentleman been out there he would have been able to carry out hisi aspirations and join hands with those unfortunate rebels. And if he was a better sharp shooter then than when he madei a shot at the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific, he might have' got myiself, be-, cause I was out there taking chances and, I would not now be able to give him my opinion. Or he might have got my hon. from from Victoria (Mr. White) who was there taking chances in upholding the solidarity of the empire. That is the, kind of loyalty I like, but the E. U. loyalty is a brand I never will approve. _ Down in the east you know the history of that rebellion from the point of view of this part of the country. You know that regiments went out there from Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, taking their lives in their hands, to fight for the unity of the empire. But there is a chapter of that rebellion which has never been written, and I would recommend the Prime Minister to get busy and write it before the men who can tell the truth about it are all dead. The chapter I refer to is this. As you know, that rebellion started in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert. Prince Albert people were poor in 1885, they had no way of getting money. The poor half breeds in that country had grievances against the government. They made demand after demand to this government and their demands were refused or neglected. The white people-some of the white people-of that district interested themselves with the half breeds, went to their meetings, incited them to rebellion, talked rebellion, talked secession. After a certain time they got up a subscription. What for? The half breeds had no money to subscribe. Some of the white settlers of that country did subscribe to send two delegates down to Milk river, Montana, and ask poor Riel, who was living down there in peace and quietness, teaching school, to come up and

agitate for them. He came up. He was a powerful speaker, a born orator, one of the greatest men to address a French audience that I ever heard. He could sway them as I move my hands. Whatever feeling or sentiment he wanted to put into them he put into them. The white people saw that the flames they had kindled were beyond their power to control, and they backed out like the cowards they were, and let the half breeds bear the brunt. There Is the story of the half breed rebellion.


Mr. HUGHES.: What was the object? Scrip?


Glenlyon Campbell: Of course. These gentlemen who incited that rebellion, who sent Isbister and Lepine to Milk river, Montana, and brought Riel up, backed out like cowards, I say. And they went scot free; they were able to hide their misdeeds evidently did hide them-from the ken of the government. But poor Riel had to suffer the brunt of it; he had to die a felon's death on the gallows, the poor tool of men who, perhaps, should have been in his place.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE.: A time of good government!


Glenlyon Campbell: I appreciate what the hon. member (Mr. J. P. Turcotte) said. It helps me out. Referring to the First Minister's remarks about shouldering his musket, I want to say further that those remarks had an ulterior meaning even in the right hon. gentleman's own mind, and I will trv to show it to you. Some years after he made that statement, he was running an election. He wanted to be certain of a seat-he had a seat, I presume, in Quebec, as he has now, but he wanted to run for two seats, so that he would be sure of being elected-in all the length and breadth of Canada, what seat did he pick out? The very seat I speak of, where that rebellion had been, where many of the French-speaking people were poor, illiterate half breeds, men who had never had the chance of an education, whose form of life did not call for education, for they were hunters, trappers, and engaged in other occupations of that kind. His opponent was James Mackay. He was a native of that part of the country, as I am, and he was one of the best scouts that Canada had in her service fighting for Queen and flag in 1885. He was known to every man in that riding. And he was an able man, for he has now become K. C. and is looked upon by his friends and by everybody as a very able, honest, decent fellow. When the election came on, what literature was sent to those poor people? None whatever, but Grit party heelers went through the country. They would go to a poor half-breed and say:	' Who are
you going to vote for, Jim?' The answer
naturally was:	'For Jim Mackay.' Then
the heeler would say: ' You can't vote for him; he was fighting you; he was killing your people like rabbits in 1885. You can't vote for him. Vote for Laurier, he was the leader of the Liberal party who was not afraid to say in Montreal that he would have come to help you to fight if he could have got there.' And Laurier was elected. United Empire loyalty again, I say. It did not die out even with that in the western country. I have mixed up in elections in that country ever since 1892, and I have never known a campaign yet where there was a French half-breed electorate but the Liberal party heelers have repeated the same thing:	'You can't vote for Campbell; he
was fighting against your people; vote for the Laurier candidate,- because Laurier would have helped you to fight if he could.' United Empire loyalty-I call it a bad strain of loyalty to teach the poor half-breed in my opinion. Why, the Liberal party in Manitoba even carried that E. U. entirely unique loyalty into the local politics of the province. When Mr. Roblin introduced what is called the ' flag policy,' when, in that country, having a cosmopolitan race of people, he tried to pass legislation to have the flag hung before the door of every school house of Manitoba, every Liberal in the legislature voted against it, and did everything in his power against it. Still, they say that they are loyal. Loyal? Entirely unique loyalty, to my mind.
Now, there is another matter that I will refer to very briefly. The debate is almost over


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear, Oh, oh.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will not detain the House very long. I regret if I am hurting the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, though this debate is almost over, we have not had any declaration from the ministry as to the kind of flag is going to fly over this tin-pot navy. I think we should have had such a declaration. I do not know whether it will come with good grace from me to make a suggestion, and I do not know that any suggestion I offer to the minister will be followed. But I suggest that they get a large white flag, with a yellow streak across it. That would signify that it was a fleet, made, as the Prime Minister suggests, to elude pursuit-ready, aye, ready, to fulfil the purpose of the construction of such a navy at all times. I do not know whether the First Minister will accept that suggestion, but I offer it to him in a free spirit.	_
There is just one more point I would like to mention. I am a farmer, and this question strikes me as to be best illustrated in this way: The father of a large family has an estate of a few thousand acres. He gives his son a holding of 160 acres some-

where in the middle of his property. He has a fence all around this immense property, but there is no fence visible from the son's habitation. The son goes on and improves that land, breaks it up, grows crops upon it, puts money in the bank and is successful; he has no rent and no taxes to pay. He does not assist his old father or the rest of the family in any way whatever. Finally the father gets into difficulties, and he says: 'My boy, I want a little help; what can you do for me? I want to build a seven-foot- fence all around this big property.' ' Well, father,' says the son, ' I am entirely willing to help you; I will do so by building a dinky little two-rail fence all around my own lot. Now, Sir, it seems to me that that illustration is apropos of the naval situation. The supremacy of the British navy is this great big, fence that has been protecting little Canada. It has not been visible to us, but it has been there,^ and it has been efficacious. What good is our little tin-pot navy going to do in the defence of the empire? Would it not be^a great deal better for that son to say: ' Yes, father, I will do something for you. There are a lot of strange cattle maraucl-ing around the farm; there is danger of them jumping over the fence, and if they do jump over the fence, anything I can build around my farm will be no good to me, therefore I will help you to put two more strands upon the fence, and make it a little stronger and a little higher. 1 think that illustration puts the situation in a nutshell, so that any man in Canada can understand it. Sir, those are my opinions. I give them to you as the result of my careful deliberation, and the way they are received on this side of the House shows that there is a lot of united empire loyalty in us yet.
House divided on amendment. - Mr. Nort-hrup.
, TEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barnard,
Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder.
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Cowan,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Mr. CAMPBELL
McCall,
McCarthy,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Nan tel,
Nortlirup,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Price,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Roche,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar),
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Forget,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lortie,
Macdonell,
Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn, Thornton,
Yerville,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-78.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Biekerdike,
Black,
Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness). Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Dnbeau,
Ecrement,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McColl,
McCraney,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste, Mary's), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), , Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Harty,
Dodging,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrii
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester). Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
, Turcotte (Nicolet),

Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
Turootte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Warbirrton,
White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval).-119.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Borden (Sir F.),	Foster (Hon. G. E.),
Paterson (Hon. W.), Crosby,
Brodeur (Hon. L. P.), Ames,
Harris,	Beattie,
Gordon (Kent),	Osier,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing),
McCoig,	Bristol,
Talbot,	Owens,
McIntyre,	Lewis.
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived.
House divided on motion.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.,
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth, Beauparlant,
Boland,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ecrfiment,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Harty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McColl,
McCraney,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval).-118.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barnard,
Best
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Cowan,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Forget,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes, [DOT]
.Tameson,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lortie,
Macdonell,
McCall,
McCarthy,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Price,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Roche,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn, Thornton,
Verville,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-78.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.
Borden (Sir F.), Paterson,
Brodeur,
Harris,
Gordon (Kent), Stratton,
McCoig,
Talbot,
McIntyre,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, ond time.
Opposition.
Foster,
Crosby,
Ames,
Beattie,
Osier,
Gordon (Nipissing), Bristol.
Owens,
Lewis.
and Bill. read the sec-
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Committee of Supply on the Estimates of the Minister of Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 11, 1910.