1910-11-30

PROHIBITION OF THE SALE OF OPIUM.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 22) to prohibit the importation, manufacture, sale and use of opium for other than scientific or medical purposes. He said : In 1908 parliament passed a Bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium. It was found that the manufacture of opium was making considerable headway in the cities of the Pacific, but the law we then passed had the effect of putting a stop to its manufacture, and also largely to its importation. There is reason to believe, however, that a good deal of opium is toeing smuggled, and in many cases sold serruptitiously, and under the existing legislation, it is difficult to obtain a conviction in cases where tnere is strong reason to believe that the provisions of the law have been violated. The Bill I am introducing is an endeavour to make good any deficiency in the existing legislation by giving power to the proper authorities to search, seize and confiscate opium not in the rightful possession of anybody, and by throwing the onus on any one, having opium in his possession, to show that it is held for scientific or medicinal purposes. The Act of 1908 contains no provision with regard to the smoking of opium but this Bill remedies that defect and prohibits absolutely opium smoking. By the proposed legislation we hope to eradicate an evil, imported from the Orient, and prevent its establishing a foothold in this country.
Mr. BLAIN.: Would it not be opportune to embody in this Bill a prohibition of the manufacture and sale of cigarettes?


Mr. KING.: I think it would be better to deal with the two subjects separately. The use of cigarettes is not an abuse so great an evil as the opium habit.


Richard Blain: It is very much more widespread.


Mr. SPROULE.: It does not seem to me veTy desirable to have two or three independent Acts of the same name. Would it not be better to introduce this Bill as an amendment to existing legislation?


George Gerald King: The other Act is a very brief one and is repealed by this measure. It seemed more desirable to introduce a new measure than amendments very much longer than the original Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1910.-Hon. A. B. Ayles worth.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to move:
That Messers. Monk, Harris, Macdonald and Stanfield, be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the restaurant, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Before the orders of the day are called I beg permission to raise a question of privilege. In the ' Le Devoir ' of last night there is published an article charging me with having in three instances purposely deceived the House by attributing to that newspaper some quotations which, it says, were not published in it. The article is very violent and injurious, and certainly the circumstances do not at all call for the denunciations and the violent language used in it. For instance it states that I read some extracts from the ' Le Devoir ' as having been published on the 30th of October when that day was a Sunday, and contains other statements charging me with having purposely deceived the House. In that connection I may say that I quoted, in the speech I made the other day, several extracts from addresses made previous to the election in Drummond and Arthabaska and also during that election. I quoted from speeches made at St. Eustache, Farnham and Victoriaville-all speeches
made by Mr. Bourassa which, according to the notes I have before me, were published in ' Le Devoir.' I also quoted from the famous pamphlet which was published by * La Gazette d'Arthabaska,' as I am informed. At the same time I gave some three quotations from speeches made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) during the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. According to the unrevised edition of ' Hansard,' I am reported as having said:
Another gentleman who spoke at those meetings was the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin). I may say that all these extracts are taken from 'Le Devoir,' their organ, and I have every reason to believe that they are correct. Here is what the hon. gentleman said on the 25th of October at St. Louis de Blandford:-	'	_	.
You are intimidating the people in waving the English flag, and adding that we must contribpte always and everywhere to the defence of that tormentor of our constitutional liberties; but we will not be made to forget that in 1837 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.
Now the hon. gentleman, the extracts from whose speech I was reading, taken from ' Le Devoir,' took occasion to state that this quotation was incorrect, and that ' Le Devoir ' had misrepresented him. Of course, I accepted his word, for we. must always accept the word of an hon. member of this House in such matters. I went further and quoted two other extracts from the hon. gentleman's speeches, and, to the great dissatisfaction of ' Le Devoir,' I attributed these two extracts to that journal. I may say that in the notes before me at the time was a memo, with the following heading: ' Words uttered by Mr. Blondin, M.P., at St. Louis de Blandford, the original of which is to be found in ' Le Devoir ' of 26th October, 1910,' and in quoting the above extract and the two following ones I attributed the three quotations to ' Le Devoir,' believing that the above heading applied to all those three extracts. It would appear from the information which I now have that I made a mistake in stating that the two last were taken from ' Le Devoir.' The important thing wras to find, not where these statements were published, but whether they had been actually made or not, especially when those speeches were quoted in presence of the member to whom they were attributed. As to the second extract which I read, the hon. member tor Champlain (Mr. Blondin) disavowed the paternity of what I quoted. As to the third, he stated that one phrase only was incorrect. I repeat that the most important thing wTas to find out whether the statements have been made or not, and, though I made a mistake in attributing the two last to ' Le Devoir.' I do not think that that was a reason for

' Le Devoir,' particularly as I was correct in attributing to them the other utterances that I quoted, using the words they used. I say I deprecate the assertion that I purposely deceived the House.


Mr. MONK.: If a reply is allowed


Mr. SPEAKER.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) asked the privilege of raising the question. There is nothing else before the Chair.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe that my hon. friend from Champlain desires to make some explanation.


Mr. P. E. BLONDIN (Champlain).: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise to a question of order on the same subject on which the hon. minister (Mr. Brodeur) has just entertained the House. I was going to state that the reports which he quoted as being taken from ' Le Devoir ' were denied by me in this House as having been uttered by me, and they are denied by ' Le Devoir ' as having been reported by that journal. I would be glad to hear the minister tell the House whence he took these extracts on which he bases a charge of disloyalty against me in this House. These reports were taken from one of his Liberal newspapers, either ' Le Soleil ' or ' La Vigie.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend (Mr Blondin), I suppose will not deny that
Le Devoir ' published the following as being an extract from


Some hon. MEMBERS: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is exactly where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) is at fault. The [DOT] statements reported included some words which I uttered, but also some words which I never uttered, so that the sense was different from that conveyed in what I said. I intended, in order to make this matter plain, to translate this article and leave it for the House to judge. The article is entitled, ' M. L. P. Brodeur,' and in it the minister is charged with having deceived the House. I do not know whether
I am qualified to translate to the House-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point of order i3 raised, I would like to hear it stated.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand it, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made a certain explanation, and stated that the words which he had quoted as coming from my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Blondin) had been published in ' Le Devoir '. The question now is, I take it, whether or not those words were from ' Le Devoir


Mr. LAKE.: I understood that objection was taken to an article published in * Le Devoir '. Surely, this House should know what that article was.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point of order has been raised, and hon. members must speak to that point of order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There were three extracts quoted by me and attributed to the hon. member (Mr. Blondin)


Mr. FOSTER.: That is not speaking to the point of order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) wishes me to state the point of order


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the minister refers to one article, and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) to another. The point of order is what I would like to hear discussed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is for the purpose of discussing that that I rose. The article published by * Le Devoir * is absolutely offensive and injurious.


George Eulas Foster: I submit that the ministep is not speaking to the point of order, but is discussing the first question. Tou have already ruled, Mr. Speaker, that nothing but the point of order is to be discussed. I propose to hold the minister to that discussion and nothing else.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to state what the point of order is, he can raise objection if I wander from it. But, if he does not give me an opportunity to state the point as I understand it, it will not be easy for me to please him. Here is an article which is absolutely offensive and injurious to a member of this House, as it states that the member has purposely deceived the House. I say that such action should not be attributed to any member of this House


George Eulas Foster: Would you, Mr. Speaker, be kind enough to state the point of order that was raised?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know why my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) will not allow me to state the point of order as I understand it, which is what I am trying to do.


George Eulas Foster: But the hon. gentleman will not state the point of order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This article charges me with having absolutely deceived the House, with having stated a thing which I knew to be incorrect. I say that it is' not permitted to any member of this House to make such a statement concerning another. If one member does attribute to another such an attempt to deceive the House, he is called to order and must withdraw the statement. Well, if it is not permissible for a member of this House to make such a statement, would it be permissible for a member to rise in his seat and read an article of a newspaper in which a' statement of a similar kind was made? That is the point of order I am making. I say the rules of the House prohibit absolutely such an offensive statement being made by hon; members, and members have no rieht either to read from a newspaper a like statement. That is the point of order I make, and I appeal for your ruling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understand the difficulty correctly, it is this: The hon. member complains that an article which does not and did not correctly report what he said, is quoted in this House, and he is made responsible for the quotation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, and he brings that article here for the purpose of disabusing the House of the impression that he had said what was attributed to him, and for that reason he asks permission to read the article. In my judgment I think he ought to be allowed to read that- article in order to settle the question.
Mr- SPEAKER. If it is the same article the Minister of Marine and Fisheries complained of I suppose it ought to be read to the House. If I understand the hon. member for Champlain, he wishes to read another article.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is the same article.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: A statement made by a member of the House must be accepted, and cannot be contradicted by any one outside, or even by members of the House. Here is the doctrine laid down by Bourinot:-
Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters, or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating from persons outside of the House and referring to or commenting on or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on the proceedings within the House.
If the hon. member wishes to read an article from the ' Le Devoir ' to contradict- the Minister of Marine and Fisheries he is not allowed to do so.


An hon. MEMBER.: It is the same article.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I want to read the same article in order to explain to the House the facts, and that the House may be able to judge between the hon. minister and myself. I was charged by the minister, who did not take back his words-and that is the reason why I don't want to let the matter drop-I was charged with having uttered words which it is said were disloyal, and he told the House that these words were reports in ' Le Devoir,' trying to make this House believe that, inasmuch as they were reported in a newspaper published by my friends, they must have been correctly reported. That is not a correct statement, Mr. Speaker, and I want to read the article just to explain-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What I wanted to say


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is what I wanted to read:-
The qualification is bad enough, but the proceeding is still worse. Mr. Brodeur, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has, from his seat in the House of Commons, cynically lied to the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. The hon. gentleman is out of order, according to parliamentary rules of procedure. He cannot read any extract from a newspaper attacking the veracity of a member.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not propose to read what is said outside.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member understands the rules. The statement of a member must be accepted, and cannot be contradicted by anybody in the House or outside the House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. minister's explanations to the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am ready to withdraw anything which is contrary to the rules of procedure. I understand the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to tell the House that these words, which were reported as coming from ' Le Devoir,' were not correctly read, and were altered by me.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I did not say anything of the kind.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the minister is ready to take back what he said I am ready to apologize, if I am out of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule applies to the minister as well as to the member; the min-

471)
ister must accept the statement of the hon. member.


Mr. DOHEKTY.: I understand you to rule, Sir, that if the article which the hon. member for Champlain desired to read was the same article whereof the Minister of Marine and Fisheries complains, the hon. member for Champlain has a right to read it. The hon. member for Champlain is proceeding to read precisely the article which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries brought before this House for the purpose of raising a question of privilege based on that article. Now it is precisely that same article that the hon. member is proceeding to read, and I understood that your ruling was that if he desired to read the article that the minister had put before the House for the purpose of raising the question of privilege, the hon. member was entitled to read it. I would ask respectfully how this House is to appreciate _ otherwise the question of privilege that is raised. Is the knowledge to be withheld from this House of what were the contents of the article to which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself rose in his place to draw to the attention of the House, claiming that it constituted a breach of privilege? I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Champlain, has a right to read the article.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Is the hon. member for Champlain reading precisely the 3ame article, or is he reading another article commenting on the statement made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is the same article.


Wilfrid Laurier: Allow me to state the question, as I understand it, and I am in the judgment of the House. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries rose a moment ago to explain that the words which he had attributed to the member for Champlain as taken from * Le Devoir,' were not reported in * Le Devoir ' but in ' La Vigie, ' that the speech which he made was not first reported in ' Le Devoir ' but that it was reported in ' La Vigie.' Is that right ?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I suppose it was in ' La Vigie.'


Wilfrid Laurier: In 'La Vigie ' or in ' Le Soleil.' Then the point raised by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is settled. Then another question is raised as to whether the quotation which he has made was from ' Le Devoir.' The point raised by my hon. friend was that the words attributed to the member for Champlain were taken from a report made at the time in ' Le Devoir.' Now this point is concluded, unless some one is Mr. SPEAKER.
prepared to say that ' Le Devoir ' did not make that report. Now another point is raised by the member for Champlain. He says that the words which were read by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were not first published in ' Le Devoir ' but were published in ' La Vigie ' and ' Le Soleil ' and reproduced in ' Le Devoir.' My hon. friend says _ the words attributed to him by the minister he did not utter in their entirety, but that they were enlarged by ' La Vigie.' That is all the question there is before us. Now it seems to me, under those circumstances that it is not fair either to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries nor to the member for Champlain, to quote from an article which was only published yesterday in ' Le Devoir.' Whether these words were published in ' La Vigie ' I do not know.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: In so far as I understand, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) rose to a question of privilege, and that question arose in connection with an article which was published on Sunday in ' Le Devoir,' or yesterday, perhaps. I do not know what the date is and I do not know what is in the article. Well, the minister does not read the article to the House. He states the purport of it to the House and characterizes it as an article which is very unbecoming and altogether too severe. But, he is not the only person concerned with the question. The question originally was one between him and another hon. member of this House-the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin). The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had charged that the hon. member for Champlain had made certain improper utterances and had cited as a proof of it the publication of these utterances in ' Le Devoir.' When the hon. gentleman for Champlain denied it the minister said: Yes, but this is your own organ. He endeavoured to cast, as I understand it, discredit upon the disclaimer of the hon. member for Champlain because he said: These things have been published in your own organ. Very good. Now, the minister comes into this House and raises a question of privilege. He does not take the course which is usually adopted of reading the article to the House. My hon. friend from Champlain believes that he is entitled to read it. I entirely appreciate what has been said with respect to the reading in this House of any article of a scandalous character respecting any hon. member. That is a perfectly good rule and a rule to which all of us must conform, but if a question of the impropriety of an article is brought up in the House and a question of privilege is raised, it becomes really the privilege of the whole House because the honour and dignity of I the whole House are offended. Some hon.

gentlemen might think that the writer of the article had used words of such a character that he ought to be brought to the bar of the House and his conduct called in question in a somewhat more formal way. If that be good reasoning how are we going to keep the article from being read to the House?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The article to which I have taken exception, is, as I have already stated, of a very offensive character. The writer stated in general terms-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read the article.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, this is a rule which, I think, deserves some consideration. There are articles published in many papers against members of this House of a most offensive and abusive character and hon. members would not be very anxious to have these articles spread before the House. But, in this case


George Eulas Foster: You had better not bring it up then.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, but I raise this as a question of privilege. If the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will be kind enough to let me give my explanation, he will see, himself, how it is. Perhaps he may suffer injury some day if such articles as this are permitted to be read to the House. Here is an article which states that I have purposely deceived the House. I take exception to that statement. I say that that statement is incorrect. I say that I have not purposely deceived the House and I showed the circumstances under which the statement was made. I showed that this article has uselessly offended a member of this House. Now the hon. member (Mr. Blondin) gets up and wants to read the charges which are made against another member and to which I have taken exception. I say this is absolutely contrary to the rules of the House, because, when a member of this House is obliged under the rule to accept the word of another member, in this instance, the members of the House, i.f the rule is to be observed, must take the explanations I have given, must accept the statement which I have made, and consequently if another member gets up and says: No, I will read the article and I will repeat the charges made against this member, I say it is absolutely contrary to the Tule of this House. I say it is against the Tules of the House and that it should not be permitted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the conduct of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) is more against the rules of this House than that of the hon. member against whom he is complaining, because, if I understand aright, a member rising to a question of privilege
regarding some article that has been written about him, must read to the House the offensive remarks, whatever they were, and allow the House to be seized of them as well as himself. That is what the hon. member, up to the present time, has not done. In that respect, in my judgment, he is contravening the rules of the House worse than the other hon. member.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Speaker, it is not a pleasure for me to try and read this article, but I find that the statements made iby the minister in this House have been misre-ported in the whole country. Now, I have in my hand my justification, but the minister tries to prevent me from presenting it to the House. I do not wish to charge him, but I just wish to explain to the country that when I was charged with giving utterance to such sentiments there was no ground for it. I am very well disposed not to read any of the offensive words out of consideration for the minister, but I think the House would like to have a translation of the article.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point of order will have to be settled. I am sure the House will be willing that the hon. member fqr Champlain (Mr. Blondin) should give a full explanation, and that the House will be prepared to hear him on that point. But, there is a technical objection to denying a statement made by a member of this House by means of a communication from outside. That is the point, but if the hon. member wishes to make a full personal explanation I think the House will willingly listen to him. But can he read a newspaper article to contradict the statement of a member of this House?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The object of my hon. friend (Mr. Blondin) is not to contradict anything that has been said here by the minister. The question raised is a question of privilege-a complaint with regard to an article published in a newspaper. At once there is an inherent right in the House, it seems to me to take knowledge of the newspaper article. It becomes absolutely necessary before we can pronounce on the question of privilege. It would be quite another case to apply the rule if the hon. member for Champlain were endeavouring to contradict the minister. We are seized with a question of privilege and a complaint against an utterance made outside of the House and in order to appreciate that complaint we must hear the words uttered. That is what I submit to you, Mr. Speaker. It would be open to me as a member of this House to ask that the newspaper be laid on the table of the House. The minister will not deny that. I could ask that it be laid on the table of the House, and once it is on the table of the House it is the right of any hon. member to ask that it be read.

So that, the question of privilege cannot possibly be answered by us intelligently unless we have the article.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no question of privilege which has been raised with the view of having ulterior proceedings upon it. My hon. friend rises simply in the House, as many other members have often done, to contradict a statement regarding himself made in a newspaper and there cannot be any ulterior action to be taken upon it. But now the hon. member for Champlain seeks to make use of the question of privilege with the view of contradicting, as I understand, certain statements which were attributed to him in ' Le Devoir ' newspaper. I understand that he also wanted to show that in the statements attributed to him as being published in ' Le Devoir ' were published in ' La Vigie ' and ' Le Soleil.' So far, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blondin) is within his rights. He is entitled to show that he was not correctly reported in any newspaper, but he must not travel afield to introduce other matters.


Mr. HAGGART.: (Lanark.) The right hon. gentleman is correct, but he ought to have added that while the hon. member for Champlain is explaining his own conduct and action, he has a right to explain it to the House, even though he differs from the view taken by the hon. Minister of Marine.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This appears to be a somewhat complicated question. An hon. member rising to a question of privilege is heard at all times with great indulgence by the House, because generally he is making a personal explanation, and as a rule his statement is received by the House without further discussion. There is another rule of the House which says that the statement of an hon. member cannot be contradicted by anything introduced from outside. If the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) wishes to give a personal explanation, I am sure the House will listen to him with the same indulgence as was accorded to the Minister of Marine. But, the point I cannot get over is, that the hon. member (Mr. Blondin) cannot be allowed to contradict a statement of the Minister of Marine by reading a newspaper article.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Mr. Speaker, you allowed the Minister of Marine to read a part of this very article, and a part of the article which places a wrong construction on the whole article.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it fair, Sir, to allow the Minister of Marine to read a few lines of this article which place a wrong construction upon it, and not allow Mr. MONK.
the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) to read the whole article so that the House may understand what it really is.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course, the hon. Minister of Marine raised a question of privilege on his own behalf, and he explained what was personal1 to himself. As a general thing when that is done no debate follows and the word of the hon. member is accepted. If the hon. member for Champlain wishes to raise another question of privilege it is his privilege to do so. If the article is injurious to the Minister of Marine and he objects to it as bringing in outside matters which would not be allowed to be spoken in the House, there is a method of having the article read by moving that it be laid on the table of the House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When I first entered the House it was my intention to read this article so as to set myself right, but I was prevented from doing that by the Minister of Marine getting ahead of me. I now rise to read the article to the House without any comment, in order to set myself right.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the article contains statements which would not be allowed to be spoken by the hon. member, can he be allowed to read a newspaper article which contains such unparliamentary state- -ments?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any bad meaning in the article. The only bad thing there can be is that the minister is charged with an offence which I would be the first to give him an opportunity to repel.


Mr. RHODES.: As I understand it, the Minister of Marine rose to a question of privilege in respect to an article published in ' Le Devoir He failed to read that article, and I quote from Bourinot:	.
Questions of privileges may always be considered in either House without the notice necessary in the case of motions generally. By the 38th rule of the Commons it is provided :-		
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
In the Canadian House of Commons questions of privileges take a very wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the House collectively, or the position and conduct of members in their representative character. In this category may be placed motions touching the 6eat or election of members; reflections or libels in books and newspapers on the House or members thereof.
But it is very clearly laid down by the English authorities that if a member has a complaint to make of a newspaper, he should formally move to -have it read at the table, and then make a motion in relation thereto, if he desire6 to have the matter discussed and dealt with by the House.

My point is t'hat if there is a question of privilege before the House the House has the right to hear the article read, and that is what the hon. member for Champlain intends to do. If we have no question of privilege before the House, then this whole discussion is out of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: According to the very authority cited by my hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes), if the hon. member (Mr. Blondin) complains of a newspaper article and wants to take proceedings upon it he must first have it read at the table. It is a common practice by the indulgence of this House, to permit a member to deny a certain thing, and then there is an end to it. In this case my hon. friend from Champlain wants to read a newspaper article, and if the hon. gentlemen takes exception to anything said in'that article concerning himself he has the right to read it. But if he has no personal complaint to make against that article he has no right to bring it before the House. I am sorry to say that the name of my hon. friend (Mr. Blondin) has been more than once brought into the present debate, and, if he thinks he has been incorrectly reported in any newspaper whatever, he has the right to make a disclaimer. But, as I understand it the hon. member wants to read this newspaper article, published only yesterday and as to which personally he has no fault to find or explanations to make. Under these circumstances the hon. member has no right to read the newspaper article.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister has overlooked one feature, and that is that the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Marine affects not only himself, but the hon. member for Champlain as well.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. The point I raised was that there was an offensive statement published in that paper against me, which I repudiated, and it does not concern the member for Champlain at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly it does; the whole thing is in connection with the attack which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made on the hon. member for Champlain.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: It was either that or it was nothing. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries says this does not concern the hon. member for Champlain It does _ concern him most directly. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, when the hon. member for Champlain made his disclaimer, said, ' Ah, but it was published in your own organ.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When I said that it had been published in ' Le Devoir,' the hon. gentleman admitted that it had been, but he said the statement as published was incorrect. There were two or three statements published attributed to the hon. gentleman. I said they were taken from ' Le Devoir,' which I find is incorrect. The newspaper now charges me with all sorts of things; there is most offensive abuse of me in that article. I take exception to that. I had no intention of deceiving the House, and so stated. The hon. member for Champlain wants to read that article and repeat the offensive charges made in it against me. If the words contained in this article were uttered by a member in this House he would be called to order, and the hon. gentleman has no more right to read an offensive extract from an article than he has to say the thing1 himself.


Mr. McINTYRE.: Perhaps I may be permitted at this stage to make one remark, not so much on the question generally as to suggest a possible solution of the difficulty. When I read from Bourinot the House will perhaps understand the objection raised by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
Where the language of a document is such as would be disorderly or unparliamentary if spoken in debate, it cannot be read; no language can be orderly in a quotation which would be disorderly if spoken.
I realize that the hon. member for Champlain may, under the circumstances, have the right to place himself right in view of that article. Would it not be possible for the hon. member to place himself rights and omit any offensive epithets or other portions affecting the hon. Minister of Marine?


Robert Laird Borden: He has already stated that he intends to do that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Speaker, if I insist on repeating this to the hon. minister, it is because he represents me as having uttered words which he said were reported in 'Le Devoir.'


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member had better confine himself to his own question of privilege. The other_having been disposed of, the hon. member for Champlain rises to a new question of privilege, and he will have to be judged on that as he proceeds.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I was going on to assert that this article goes on to say: ' The House has been deluded, as it appears, on pages 159

'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The ruling of the Chair is that this article cannot be read to coni tradict the statement of the Minister of Marine. If the hon. member for Champlain wishes to raise a question of privilege, he can do so, remembering always that a statement of a member of this House must be accepted and cannot be contradicted from the outside. He can proceed now to make his own personal statement on the new question of privilege, and he will have to be judged on that as he proceeds.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I intended to read to the House the words I was charged withj having uttered, and to show the House the statement of ' Le Devoir ' that they never1 printed such a report. This is what the hon. member said on page 159


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am quoting-line 13 and following


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is impossible for the House to proceed in this way. I cannot judge of that article before I hear it.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Speaker,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.
Mr. SPEAKER, The member for Champlain has the floor.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. member for Champlain allow me one word?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The article complained of is published in French, and I wish it to be first read in French. If my hon. friend' then translates it, he may do so, so that we may correct his statements, although I make allowances for his being a student and a scholar.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member may read the article in whichever language he1 pleases. I do not know whether I have been able to express myself clearly to the hon. member in English.
(Translation).-It must be observed that a question of privilege gives the member who has raised it the opportunity of presenting personal explanations. That is what the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has done a moment ago. I shall say, moreover, that the statement made by a member must, according to the rules of the House, be accepted and not be contradicted in the House by another member or by reading a writing or an article coming from outside. The hon. member for Champlain begs' leave to give personal explanations as to the position he has taken. But in Mr. BLONDIN.
so doing he must not read a newspaper article contradicting what the hon. Minister of Marine has stated. Such are the rules of the House. The hon. member cannot be permitted to read that which is unparliamentary in the article.


Robert Laird Borden: Pardon me if I make a suggestion. The hon. gentleman was charged with having been reported by 'Le Devoir' in a certain way. He denies the charge and he has the right to call 'Le Devoir' as a witness.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He can read 'Le Devoir' but not to contradict the statement of the hon. minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have no desire to contradict the hon. minister, who, if I understood him correctly, has corrected the statement he made the other day.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If there be anything unparliamentary in the article, you cannot read it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The qualification is hard; but the proceeding is still worse


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I raised the point of order, that the hon. gentleman is reading the article in English whereas it is written in French and therefore he is not quoting it, as he says he is doing.	.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is preferable that the article should be read in the language in which it is written.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The position is no doubt rather difficult. The hon. member for Bel-lechasse (Mr. Talbot) says that I should read the article in French and there are others who would prohibit me from reading the words which are offensive. The article is headed:-[DOT]
(Translation).-I am now in a very difficult position. The hon. member for Bellechasse asks me to read, the French wording of the article, whereas others claim that I should be prohibited from reading it literally. I have no objection to read the article as it has been written. Here it is:
Louis Philippe Brodeur, public liar.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The article applies to the hon. minister an unparliamentary epithet which cannot be allowed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw and apologize.
Mr. BLONDIN-
(Translation): M. Louis Philippe Brodeur, public liar.
The qualification is hard; but, alas! the proceeding is still worse.
Mr. Louis Philippe Brodeur, a member, a minister of the Crown, has made a mistake

when speaking from his seat at the House of Commons on the 22nd of November, 1910. He has made a report which is not truthful and the proof of this is to be found in the official report of the Debates (pages 159 and 160 of the French unrevised edition).


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I rise to a point of order. This is very serious.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I want to maintain the dignity of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: The House lost its dignity this afternoon.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I appeal to the hon. gentleman to state whether he is reading the article as it is or leaving out some words which are contained in it and which are offensive.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am ordered by the Chair to leave out the offensive words.
Je vais 6tre oblige de passer des alineas com-plets:
(Translation). Mr. Brodeur has made a mistake and he has deceived the House as to the importance of the election which has taken place in Drummond and Arthabaska. He has make a mistake with a view to bringing shame upon one of his colleagues and to making the electors in the English provinces believe that the farmers of Drummond and Arthabaska, when rejecting the governments candidate, had yielded to anti-British appeals. Mr. Brodeur was mistaken in the course of statements carefully prepared and under such circumstances that it is morally impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is not what the article says.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: -
(Translation). Mr. Brodeur read before the House a certain number of statements which he claimed to have made in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, and he added: ' I may say, by the way, that all those extracts have been taken in the newspaper ' Le Devoir/ their organ. . . (page 159, line 13 and following.
He also said (line 40 and following):


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The same honourable member, speaking at Saint-Louis-de-Blandford-and this extract also has been taken in ' Le Devoir '-said:-
The English have never done anything for the French Canadians. We owe them nothing. The French Canadians have not to care about the opinion of the other provinces on the naval question. They are able to settle, themselves, the questions in which they are concerned, without going abroad for an advice. The same men who ripped our grandfathers open on the plains of Abraham are asking you to-day to sacrifice yourselves in order to serve them.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The member to whom Mr. Brodeur referred, having denied those so-called statements, Mr. Brodeur went on (page 16i
159, line 61 and following: page 160, line 1 and following).


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, we shall take another one in ' Le Devoir of Octoiber, 30tli -. England has gone so far as to crush her colonies as did the imperial Rome of old.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is absolutely false.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: snatched them from the English. England did not conquer Canada through love or with a view of planting the cross of Christ as France did, but in order to establish commercial posts and to make money. She has sown germs of hatred the world over, germs of quarrel and of war. We have enough of the English and of England.
So then, for three times; first, in a general way, then in a particular way and specifying the texts which he alluded to, Mr. Brodeur declared that he relied upon the authority of the newspaper ' Le Devoir/ For three times, Mr. Brodeur, a member and a minister of the Crown, grand admiral of the Canadian fleet and future knight of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, was mistaken. We challenge anybody to find in any report of a speech of Mr. Blondin which may have been published by ' Le Devoir ' in the course of the electoral campaign of Drummond and Arthabaska, the two texts quoted by Mr. Brodeur and which we have just reported.
Mr. Brodeur has claimed to read extracts of ' Le Devoir ' in its edition of October, 30th. We could simply answer him that the 30th of October being a Sunday, there was no issue of ' Le Devoir ' on that date and the edition of October 30th exists nowhere else than in his imagination.
But some who do not know what degree the audacity and cynicism of Mr. Louis Philippe Brodeur may reach might believe that the question is one of mere lapsus and that the text incriminated has been published in another issue of the paper. But such is not the case at all.
Frigidly and deliberately, anticipating the almost absolute impossibility of a denegation being brought forward on the spot with respect to his statements, resting assured that none of his colleagues could think he was capable of such an attempt, Mr. Brodeur asserted that we had attributed to Mr. Blondin words which we never did ascribe to his account.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order, order. Mr. BLONDIN:-
(Translation). Is that sufficient, and what do you now think of the Gentleman? In England a minister who should he caught in such a trap would be ordered by his chieftain to tender his resignation at one. He would not dare to appear in a public meeting and he would run and hide his shame and his dishonour in a distant refuge.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order. Mr. BLONDIN:-
(Translation). What shall Mr. Brodeur do? And shall Mi. Laurier suffer for a long time yet one of his colleagues to publicly deceive the House and the country?

I have quoted this article to show, before the House and the country, that all the words attributed to me by the hon. minister as being reported by ' Le Devoir,' that all the words which he has attributed to me before the House while he was gathering them from other newspapers, are absolutely false. I now ask the hon. minister if he will deposit on the table of the House, the article which he claims to have quoted; and if he does not, I shall tell him that he made a mistake and that he has been most unjust towards me.
I was quoting this article to show to the House and the country that all these words attributed to me by the hon. minister and which the newspapers reported as having been said by me were not said by me at all, and the statement is absolutely false; and I ask the hon. minister to lay on the table the article he pretends to have cited. If not, I would ask him to say that he was not justified and withdraw his statement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend has no right to reproach the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blon-din) with having quoted certain words and then call on you, Mr. Speaker, for protection.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman has no right to substitute any words for those which are in the article but should read the article as it is. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I wa3 giving a personal explanation in answer to the statement of the hon. member for Champlain. In my speech the other day I quoted three extracts from the hon. gentleman's speeches concerning the statements of the hon. member for Champlain. The first was taken from his speech at St. Louis de Blandford. This statement was taken from ' Le Devoir,' and from no other newspaper. Does the hon. gentleman deny it? If he does, I am going to quote ' Le Devoir ' itself.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has asked to be allowed the privilege of giving a personal explanation in answer to the statement of the hon. member for Champlain. There is nothing before the Chair and all this discussion is simply by consent of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What I want is simply to put a fair, honest, conclusive statement


Pierre Édouard Blondin: before the House in the way of a personal explanation. ' Le Devoir ' charged me yesterday with having purposely deceived the House in three instances regarding some declarations.made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin). In my speech the other day I quoted three extracts from the hon. gentleman's speeches. One was dated 25th of October, 1910. I said that this statement was taken from ' Le Devoir '. ' Le Devoir ' does not quote that in its article of yesterday.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Read it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The statement which was attributed to, ' Le. Devoir ' is as follows , ,	. . , .	.
You are intipfidatihg Rie people in waving the English flag, and adding that we must contribute always and everywhere to the defence of that tormentor of our constitutional liberties; but we will not be made to forget that in 1837 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to , breathe the atmosphere of liberty. ' - -
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that I drew the attention of the House to the fact that this was published in ' Le Devoir,'.and that is true; it was published in -* Le Devoir.! Later on I quoted from the -speech of the hon. member for Champlain at St. Louis de Blandford, and by mistake stated that this also was taken from ' Le Devoir.' It was, in fact, taken from some other pape^. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blondin) denied that he had used these words, and I accepted his statements, as I always accept the statement of a member of this House. The third statement also was not published in ' Le Devoir,' though, by a similar error, I attributed it to- that paper. There were several other statements published in ' Le Devoir,' and which I did not attribute to that journal, because I did not think it- necessary. The important point to my, mind was to learn whether or not the hon. gentleman had really made the statements that were attributed to him in the newspapers. The following statement is attributed to the hon. gentleman, and I take it as coming froin ' Le Devoir,' but he says it is not:

	*
The only liberties which we enjoy have been snatched. England has not conquered Canada for love or to plant the cross of Christ as did Prance, but to -establish trading posts and make money;


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: -
She has sowed the world with hatred, quarrels and wars. We have had. enough of England and the, English.
That was the statement which I attributed to ' Le Devoir.'


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I denied it. There are a * few words in it which are mine, but as to

most of it, I denied B wlierf tof'minister read it, and I deny it nowi '>
-	" ;


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If acceptthei statement of my hon. friend. But I would point out that in the denial, to which he refers he said: ' I did not say the fhrst pTirasd, and I think Mr. Beland will denyHt also.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), I rise to a point of order. Tire privilege oi personal explanation is being, strained in a way I have never seen it, strained; before in this House. The minister'is going )tp all limits of personal explanation. And the^e, is nothing in what the minister hjas.- saidt within the last ten minutes that he had not already laid before the Hou^e.- : * >
/


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thinjh the hon. gentleman will admit that 'it was, part of a personal explanation, becbps'g I ( was Stating exactly what was reported VotH'crning these statements. If the hon^ meinher. (Mr. Blon-din) denies that he, Iras skid .'a. word of these things I accept .his stafeiheht.


Mr. LENNOX.: He did' hot' say that.
1	*a	'	. -


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I; said shine of those things, but I did not say ottered* A



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. GEO.


George Taylor: We have wasted an hour and a half of the time of this House. I have a matter which affects myself personally, and I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member, for. South Grey (Mr. Miller), whom I am glad to see in his seat now-he was not here for an houT after the opening, and I am glad that the Minister of Marine and (Fisheries entertained the House until the hon. gentleman made his appearance-speaking on November 24, as reported at page 250 of the unrevised ' Hansard,' said :-
Now, they speak of two wings of the opposition ; one of them is called the real loyal wing, and there are really loyal men upon the other side of the House, men who are as loyal as the men upon this side of the House. But then there are with them men of different ilk.
I do not know what the hon. gentleman's interpretation of that is. I do not know whether he means to say that they are disloyal, but that is the interpretation I put upon it.
There are the loyal men and there are the Monks, and the Blondins.
And on the 28th of November, as recorded at pages 377 and 378 of the unrevised ' Hansard, ' my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), brought the matter up again and quoted the remarks of the hon. member for South Grey to which I have just referred, and said:- ;	1
I would like to ask my hon. friend from South Grey whether he adheres to that statement?
The discussion proceeded:-


Mr. MILLER.: I think I gave two other names, and I am willing to add these and still adhere to the statement.


Richard Blain: Who are the two others?


Henry Horton Miller: If you will judge people by their actions, I named the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), thinking they were not loyal when they sent the telegrams that: they did send.
I have not read the telegram of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), but the hon. member for South Grey did read the telegram I sent. Here are two references to it, one from the Kingston ' Whig,' a good Liberal paper, and another from the Gananoque ' Reporter,' another good Liberal paper. The Kingston ' Whig ' says:-
George Taylor, the Tory tex-whip, was so tickled by the success of the anti-British campaign in Quebec that he wired Monk 'heartiest congratulations on your great fight and success.' And George thinks he is a true blue Britisher!
And on this the Gananoque ' Reporter ' comments:-
And he probably is, hut he is also such a true blue Tory that he just can't help rejoicing at the defeat of a Liberal, no matter what cause contributed to it. It is not that he loves Monk and Bourassa more, but Laurier less.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, (Mr. Monk), and I have always been personal friends. And when he was engaged in a fight was it not all right for me to say to him, ' Heartiest congratulations on your great fight and success '? I did that, and did it as a loyal man, much more loyal than some others whom T could name. The discussion proceeded:-


Richard Blain: Is that a proper statement to make in this House, charging that hon. members of this House are not loyal? I would like the ruling of the Chair on that question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think it rather late in the day to raise that point.


Richard Blain: I do not ask your ruling upon the statement in the hon. member's_ speech of a few dav's ago. But he has just risen in his place in this House and declared that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) is not loyal.


Mr. BELAND.: Was not loyal. I understood the hon. member (Mr. Miller) to say that the hon. member for Leeds was not loyal when he 6ent that telegram.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. Beland) understands the naval policy a good deal better than he does this proposition. I would ask the ruling of the Chair on that question whether the hon. member for South Grey is in order in making a charge of disloyalty against an hon. member of this House.


Henry Horton Miller: Perhaps I may be allowed a moment, Mr. Speaker. I said exactly what I am reported to have said. And I say now, as

I said a moment ago, that judging these gentle-J116 i	actions, I would not deem them
to be loyal men for the actions of which I have spoken were not, in my opinion, the actions of loyal men. If the hon. member for Jfeel (Mr. Blain) wants your ruling on that, ** am quite willing to abide by that ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member V Air .Miller) has a right to estimate the action of other hon. members. I do not see that there is any direct charge of disloyalty.
That was your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to appeal from it in any way. I have no doubt that you gave that as the ruling which, in your opinion, ought to be given. That being your ruling, in accordance with that ruling I have the right to estimate the actions of the hon. member for South Grey, and judging by his actions in making the speech he has made, I would deem him to be not an honourable man, not a reliable man, not a truthful man, not a loyal man.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin: for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; the proposed amendment of Mr. Monk thereto, and Mr. Borden's proposed amendment to the amendment.
Mr. T. W. CROTHERS. (West Elgin).: 
Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE.: I never was in Drummond and Arthabaska. I never took any part in the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. ,


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was referring to Mr. Turcotte, the member for Nicolet.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There are two Mr. Tur-cottes in the House. This is the hon. member for Nicolet, and, of course, the< hon. member (Mr. Crothers) accepts his denial. There are two members by the name of Turcotte.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It must have been the other Mr. Turcotte, from Quebec county. Well, I am going to read a little from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Nicolet, The hon. member for Nicolet- Mr. G. A. Turcotte-is reported in ' Hansard ' of last year at page 4624. Is that the gentleman who was just speaking to me?


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: Yes, sir.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Very well. Now, we, understand each other. At page 4624 hd is reported as having used these words:
I intend supporting the present policy of the government, because the more, in my humble opinion, we assert our national existence, the more we approach the state of national perfection and the closer we get to the status of independence.
The hon. gentleman there is telling us why he was supporting the naval policy of the government, because, by supporting it, we get closer to the status of independence.
And I trust that such a status will be conceded to us while we continue to enjoy the present political system, the most perfect to my mind.
He is in a hurry to get it. A little farther down


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: sWill my hon. friend allow me?
4S5


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Just wait until I get through, if you please.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: All right.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He continues:
Timorous or narrow-minded men, blinded by an unconquerable fanaticism will possibly take exception to such an expression of opinion; but to set their mind at ease, I beg of them to listen to a few words of explanation, and, in the first place, to remember that a rather small group of English-speaking people settled on this American continent one day wished to be free, gloriously shook of! her yoke and broke by the force of arms the ties which united them to the mother country, England. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in one of his outpours of sarcasm, taunted the right hon. leader of the Liberal party for having in by-gone days advocated independence for Canada. I fail to see there anything objectionable, anything which could justify the taunts of the deputy leader of the opposition.
Then, at 4628, we have a little more:
Independence seems to be, in some quarters, a scare-crow, the nightmare of those in whose eyes the interests of Canada are of little account and who reserve their love and loyalty for the empire. But, I put the question to these hon. gentlemen. Will not Canada sooner or later have to choose between annexation and independence?
Most of us w'ill say, Mr. Speaker, never.
Are we destined to remain a colony for ever, and should not the true Canadian, who really loves his country above all, have the rightful ambition of seeing it one day free and independent? It ill becomes politicians of many years experience, who have witnessed the succession of great events and political changes which are to-day consigned in the annals of the country, who have seen the nation grow, and are cognizant of its vigour and immense resources, it is not patriotic nor loyal, I say, on the part of these men to set obstacles in the way of the full development of our political organization, and to contend that we must remain forever under the protection of the British flag. But, thank God, I am satisfied it will not be so, and the establishment of a war navy will in my humble opinion, be the last step towards independence.
Listen-to this, Mr. Speaker:-
That is the view I take more particularly and I may say exclusively when giving my support to the Liberal policy at this juncture.
I speak from the Canadian point of view and I think my point of view is also that of the greater part of the electors in my own constituency and I would even say of the majority of electors in the province of Quebec.
Well, that speech was delivered in this House last session; it *was delivered in the French language; many of us did not understand it; the right hon. the Prime Minister heard that speech, the right hon. the Prime Minister understood the language in which it was delivered perfectly, and I ask why the right hon. gentleman did not get up 1 Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE.
in this House and repudiate the sentiments uttered by the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte). It was stated by the hon. member for Nicolet, in the hearing of the Prime Minister of this country, that he interpreted the naval policy of the government as a step in the direction of securing the independence of this country. The Prime Minister did not repudiate this language then; I am not aware that he has ever repudiated it since. I give him an opportunity now of declaring to this House and through this House to the whole people of Canada whether or not he approves or repudiates the sentiments uttered last year by the hon. member for Nicolet. We have no reply from the Prime Minister. Why, a few days ago my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated in this House that a Liberal campaigner in Kingsey Falls village, in the county of Drummond, had stated that one reason why they wanted a navy was to be able to resist the unjust demands made upon us by England; and the Prime Minister and other gentlemen on his side of the House appeared to be shocked. And the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) hurriedly rose in his seat and read a telegram said to have been received from Mr. Begin, denying he had used any such language. A day or two afterwards the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Tobin) read a solemn declaration from the chairman of the meeting to say that no such language had been used by Mr. Begin at that meeting. Why, Mr. Speaker, we had far worse language used in this very House last session in the presence of the Prime Minister, without a word of repudiation from him then or since; without a word to the good people of Drummond-Arthabaska in disapproval of the words then used. At page 4960 of ' Hansard ' of last year I find that the hon. member fox St. James (Mr. Gervais) used this language:-
But it is true just the same that Canada is bound whether it pleases her or not to do what England may require her to do. Should England wish to tax Canada there is nothing in the public law of England to prevent her.
I may be reminded that we have the precedent of the Boston tea merchants, but let me tell you, Sir, that these merchants at that time were probably equipped to accept the inevitable consequences of resisting the new tax on their tea. Such is not the condition of Canada to-day. Are we to follow the teaching of a certain portion of the press and the speeches of our orators who have been preaching that Canada should have no army and no navy, depending solely for protection on the application of that fiction or hallucination known as the Monroe doctrine?
So that we had an hon. member of this House last session setting forth the argument that we ought to provide a navy of our own, not to fight any foreign power that might attack us; no, but to resist any unjust demand that might be made upon us by the mother country. And so, Mr. NOVEMBER 30, 1910
Speaker, in this very House were uttered by gentlemen opposite far worse language than that charged against Mr. Begin in the Drummond election. These words were uttered in the presence of the Prime Minister of this great country, uttered in French, which we did not understand, but which he understood perfectly, and he did not rise in his place to repudiate them, nor has he ever since repudiated them on the public platform or elsewhere.


Mr. PROULX.: I think the hon. member (Mr. Crothers) is mistaken. If I remember aright the speech of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Gervais) was delivered in English last year.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Mr. PROTJLX.: I was at the meeting, and he did not say the Conservative party; he said the Nationalist party.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You people said the Conservatives and the Nationalists were the same. I am reading from a report which appeared in your own organ, and it says there were no less than 1,200 electors at the meeting. Let me read another report. I want to show the nature of the campaign that went forward in Drummond and Arthabaska in the very eyesight of the Prime Minister. This appears in the Montreal ' Daily Witness ' of October 29, page 3, column 5:
Drummond, October 29.-The candidates, Messrs. Perreault and Gilbert, with their 6Up-rr -ters, held two meetings yesterday, one iu I/A-*enir, and the other in Riverton. The feature of the speeches was that in the Navy Bill the Liberals declared they saw a step towards the independence of Canada, while their opponents concluded that it was a step backwards to the loss of our autonomy.
Is there any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who will stand up and assert that he was there, and that that did not occur.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, I was present at the 1/Avenir meeting, and I spoke; and, as far as I can remember, there was no mention of even the word independence in the meeting, and none of your own friends who were there will assert it. If my hon. friend will allow me, as I know he wants to be fair-I have been told that while I was out of the House he asserted the same thing as being reported in some of the papers and as having been said at a meeting in Victoriaville. I make the same statement with regard to that meeting. I never, neither this year nor any other, neither there nor elsewhere, made any allusion to the independence of Canada.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The paper must have been mistaken. It says that both the speakers referred to the navy in the way I have shown; but it may have been only the colleague of my hon friend (Mr. Gauthier) who did so. It is not on record, however, that the hon. gentleman repudiated anything his colleagues said.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I did not hear it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not know whether the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) was in the House last year when the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte) made the speech I quoted this afternoon.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Nor do I know whether he was here when the hon. member for St. James division Montreal (Mr. Gervais) made the speech, a part of which I have read, but if he were not here, and did not hear it, no doubt he has since read it. And I would like to ask him whether on the hustings in Drummond and Arthabaska, in this House, or anywhere else, he has repudiated what the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte), and the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Gervais) said in this connection.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is quite enough for any member to speak for himself; and speaking for myself, I say that I never made any assertion in favour of the independence of Canada, or to the effect that such independence was being promoted by legislation presented by this government.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: Let me say that my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) made an argument against independence in the speech he made in my constituency. For my part I do not see anything to repudiate in the speech I made at all. If my hon. friend will read it over he will see that I was speaking only of independence brought about in a constitutional way after friendly negotiations with England, and nothing more.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I want to be very fair, and will be very glad to give my hon.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: friend from Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte) an opportunity to make a recantation of the sentiments he has uttered.
While the lamp of life holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return.
If my hon. friend now desires to make a recantation of the sentiment then expressed and apologize to this House and country, we shall receive him with open arms.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: I take back nothing I have said. I stand firm in the position I took that sooner or later independence or annexation will be the destiny of this country. If my hon. friend will be fair enough to look over the speech from which he has quoted, he will find that in it I said that independence, if it should come, could only come by constitutional means, and as the result of friendly negotiations with England.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And one of the constitutional means is the building of a navy. That is the very thing the right hon. gentleman himself said many years ago. Again and again he repeated that the goal of his aspirations was the independence of Canada, to be brought about in a constitutional way, of course, just as the hon. member^for Nicolet says. Does the right hon. the Prime Minister recant that now?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He does not reply. He will not say now that the goal of his aspirations is not the independence of Canada. I have heard the statement made many times that Mr. Perreault used these words : ' Our fleet is not and never will be imperialistic; it is a step towards the independence. It was made in the other chamber the other day, and has been repeated here, and I have never heard the right hon. gentleman contradict the statement that his candidate in Drummond and Arthabaska used these words. Our navy, according to that statement, is not now, and never will be imperialistic, but it is a step towards the independence of Canada. Is it unfair to assume that the right hon. gentleman saw his candidate, and talked over with him the character of the campaign to be waged in Drummond and Arthabaska? He went there and voted for him. He was challenged-so jthe report in the 'Witness' says-to meet"Mr. Bou-rassa in that constituency and discuss the question in open daylight, and he refused. But he was able to find the time to go down to Drummond and Arthabaska and give his vote. Why did not the Prime Minister himself participate in that campaign? The county of Arthabaska was his adopted home, he had lived there 40 years, he knew the people intimately, why did he not go down there and educate them if, as

they now say, they so badly needed to be educated? A Naval Bill had been passed by this parliament, perhaps the most important measure we have passed since confederation. It was being submitted for the first time to the test of public opinion, it was on trial, and every eye in Canada was looking to the people of Drummond-Arthabaska to see what answer they would give to the right hon. gentleman.
Here was a test case. And where is the Prime Minister, the father of this measure, one of the most important measures since confederation, a measure which is to be submitted to the test of public opinion for the first time and in his adopted home? He was in the vicinity, and the people of Canada looked to him. And he -I will not use a strong word-failed to appear in that constituency to father the Bill that he had fathered in this House. I am perfectly serious. It seems ,to me that he clearly failed in his duty. He must have known, as I have said, the character of the campaign that was being waged in his behalf. Did he approve or disapprove of that campaign? If he approved it, he has not been quite fair and candid to the people of Canada as a whole on this momentous question. If he disapproved of it, it was clearly his duty to go into the constituency and tell the people there that his candidate and the members of parliament and others who were advocating his cause were misrepresenting the character of the Naval Bill in telling his old friends and neighbours in Drummond and Artha-baslra that this was a measure in the direction of independence. It seems a perfectly fair inference from these facts that he approved of the campaign being waged on behalf of his candidate. Was he but walking in his beaten path of a quarter of a century in the province of Quebec, saying little himself on these embarrassing questions, but winking at the efforts made on his behalf to arouse race prejudice and smilingly receiving support won in that way? In my opinion, there is very little difference between the party heeler who wins support by such means and the party leader who' gladly receives such support. With such a campaign, the government candidate is defeated. But it is interesting to inquire, where did the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte), the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Gervais), the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) and Mr. Perrault, the candidate, get their first lessons in the sentiments I have read to this House? Let us turn to the records:-
Canada would never consent to imperial federation, even on commercial lines alone, because the consequences would be the participation of Canada in British wars, and Canada would never consent to participate in British
wars. I hold out to my fellow-countrymen the idea of independence.
And again:-
If we are true to our record, we will again exhibit to the world the unique, the unprecedented example of a nation achieving its independence by slow degrees and as naturally as the severing of the ripe fruit from the parent tree.
With the assistance of the hon. member for Nicolet, the hon. member for St. James and the others:-
Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy? I am ready any day, whether I am charged with annexation or not, to take a Yankee dollar in preference to an English shilling. I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada.
These are the words of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself. If he has read sacred history with care, he has come across these words: Be not deceived, whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.' The Prime Minister had read to him in my hearing the words which I have just read, and he has never yet, so far as I am aware, recanted any of them or repudiated ally of them; nor is he prepared, as I understand it, to repudiate any of them to-day.
Well, Sir, that seems to have been the character of the campaign that was waged on behalf of the government in Drummond and Arthabaska. And, instead of taking their defeat like brave men and valiant soldiers, what do these gentlemen do? They come to this House-the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur)-and take up hours of our time in trying to explain to us how it all happened. And what do they say?
Let me read a few extracts delivered by the right hon. Prime Minister himself. I quote from page 58 of ' Hansard.':
That election was won by appeals so desperate, that when the smoke of battle had cleared the public conscience was aroused to shame and indignation.
If that had read that the fight put up on his behalf had roused the public conscience to shame and indignation, it would have been nearer the truth. Then the Prime Minister reads to the House statements which, he alleges, were made in that constituency to induce the people to vote against his candidate. He quotes a ' fatherless pamphlet,' and here are some of its words:
But to return to the question; when the volunteers shall have been sunk in their old tubs of war and the law shall come and claim from the mother of the family, after the sacrifice of the eldest son, that of the husband and of her last child; tell us then, Mr. Laurier, if conscription shall respect her tears and sorrow.

And again:
England has gone so far as to grind down (pressurer) the colonies as did imperial Rome of old. The only liberties which we enjoy have been snatched. England has not conquered Canada for love or to plant the cross of Christ as did France, but to establish trading posts and make money. She has sowed the world with hatred, quarrels and wars. We have had enough of England and the English.
Then we have the Minister of Marine giving us a choice morsel of the food which, they tell us, was so palatable to the people of Drummond and Arthabaska. At page 150 we have this:
The navy is a conspiracy of the British to drown Canayens. Laurier has consented after having betrayed us_ as regards our language, to man all the ships of war which we will have with French Canadians. This will take 50,000 to 60,000 men, all fathers of families or young men on the point of so becoming, who will have to go to Japan, China, or Australia, under the command of English officers, who, wishing to make our race disappear will see to it that these ships go to the bottom of the sea. Laurier has sold us to the English in return for the honours he has received, and in 25 years there will be no French Canadians left.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Who made that statement?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am reading from a speech delivered by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in this House, stating that somebody had made it, but he does not tell us who that somebody was. Sir, as a fellow-citizen with the people of Drummond-Arthabaska, I felt indignant at the humiliating spectacle of the Prime Minister of this great country and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries declaring to this House, and through this House to the world, that the character of their compatriots in the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska was such that a thousand of them could be moved to abandon this government by such unmitigated trash. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it. I think it was an unpardonable slander upon the people of Drummond-Arthabaska, it was the most unkindest cut of all. Here were the people among whom the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, had gone in and out for forty years, a people who had observed his charming manner and fascinating smile, who loved him, who were proud of him, and because the people in that province, after hearing the campaign in favour of independence that I have read to you this afternoon, because his neighbours and friends in that constituency, in the exercise of their inalienable right as British subjects, chose to declare that they were opposed to the navy intended as a step in the direction of independence, that, forsooth, they are to be


Thomas Wilson Crothers: told by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that they are a class of people that can be influenced by the language that has been read to you to-day. In so characterizing those people the Prime Minister and his colleagues wrere, it seems to me, guilty of ingratitude- of all moral defects the most repulsive. No, Mr. Speaker, I choose rather to think that these people were influenced by the campaign on behalf of the government candidate in favour of the navy because it was a step in the direction of independence. Who shall say how many hundreds of them were influenced to vote against Mr. Perreault on that ground? By what rule of logic does the right hon. 'gentleman conclude that because these people voted for Mr. Gilbert, and against the man who said he was in favour of the navy because it was a step in the direct tion of independence-by what rule of logic does he reach the conclusion that these men must have voted against Mr. Perreault because they thought the British were in a conspiracy to drown Canadians? Now, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has refused to submit the question of a navy to the people of this country. He did submit it to one constituency, under the tempter's voice, and he got his verdict. Let him open another constituency in the province of Ontario, where the sole question shall be whether or not we shall have a navy such as he proposes to-day; and I believe that in four cases out of five he would get a similar reply. Now, I think that is all I desire to say with reference to the Drummond-Arthabaska election.
There was one other question that the right hon. gentleman referred to, that was our trade relations with the United States. He told us that the question of reciprocity' was now engrossing the attention of thq people of this country. These are his words, as found on page 52:
This is the question, which in my estimation, engrosses at the present time the attention of the Canadian people, and this is the question which I think they expect to hear U6 discuss on this early occasion after the meeting of parliament.
Well, the Minister of Militia and Defence, a few days ago, was interviewed in Boston on that subject, and in the Montreal ' Herald ' of October 28, he is reported to have said this:
Any proposal the United States may make for reciprocity with Canada will^ receive careful consideration from the Dominion government; but the attitude of the Canadian people now is to let well enough alone.
* The attitude of the Canadian people now is to let well enough alone.' That is what the Minister of Militia and Defence

tells us is the situation in Canada. But the Prime Minister tells us that this is the question above all others that is engaging the attention of the people of Canada. Well, last session we remember very well that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) asked the Minister of Militia and Defence whether he was in accord with the Prime Minister in his view of independence, and the minister told us then that he always was in accord with his leader. So I suppose he was in accord with his leader on the 28th of October last, and if he was, the position of the Prime! Minister at that time was that- the attitude of the people of Canada to-day on this question is to let well enough alone. Now, he comes to this House and tells us that this is the question above all others that is engrossing public opinion. Well, Mr. Speaker, I venture to think that in making that statement the Prime Minister is no more accurate in his estimate of public opinion than he was in his estimate of public opinion in Drummond-Ar-thabaska. On first seeing the report in the press that negotiations were to be opened, I took some pains to consult the people in my constituency, Liberals as well as Conservatives; and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I did not speak to a single man ' who had given the question any thought whatever. One of them, a very intelligent farmer and a leading Liberal, I think a granger, told me that he had been requested from Toronto to see to it that some delegates were sent from his part of the country to Ottawa to interview this government on the question of reciprocity with the United States. He told me he could not find a single man who would undertake to go to Ottawa, that they had no interest whatever, that they all said:	Let	well enough alone.
Then we have the Prime Minister telling us on the next page:
All our enemies and some of our friends have been very emphatic in telling us that we should have absolutely nothing to do with these American commissioners, that we should eschew them as we would eschew a pestilence.
Well now, it seems to me that the Prime Minister, in making use of such language, was guilty of his besetting sin of gross exaggeration. I do not think that there is any one who feels that way towards the matter. What is the history of our more recent dealings with the government at Washington with respect to trade relations? The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the other night, gave us a short piece of history. He told us that in the year 1891 the government of that day, proposed to make a treaty with the government of Washington, and that they went to the people on that particular
question. At that time the Liberal party was in favour of unrestricted reciprocity. The Prime Minister declared that he had nailed the colours of unrestricted reciprocity to the mast of the ship of state and that he would never take them down until they should wave triumphant. Well, they came down in deep humiliation. They have not been run up since. From the year 1891 until the year 1896, when the right hon. gentleman came into power, he declared, in season and out of season, just as my hon. friend from South Wellington declared here the other day, that the reason why we did not have reciprocity with the United States was, that we did not treat the people at Washington with sufficient courtesy, that we were brusque. The right hon. gentleman, in season and out of season, made that charge against the Conservative party from 1891 to 1896. He told them that if he were returned to power, he would show them how to get a reciprocity treaty, how to get this great inestimable boon from the government at Washington. Had he not pledged himself to secure that, after the election of 1896? The hon. member for South Wellington dropped the matter when he reached 1896. I do not think that was quite fair. I think that was a very serious suppressio veri. What happened when the right hon. gentleman came into power in 1896? A joint high commission was appointed. He, with a kingly retinue of retainers, at enormous expense to this country, made several pilgrimages to the shrine of commercialism at Washington, but after these meetings, extending over two or three years, he came back and declared to the people of Canada that he had made his last trip to Washington, that he would make no further effort to secure reciprocity or reciprocal trade with the United States. Time .and time again he told us that. Well, we did not hear very much more about it. In 1892 the right hon. gentleman found fault with the Conservative party, and he found fault with it in this House in these words:-
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) no doubt would prefer an English shilling to a yankee dollar; but for my part I am differently constituted. I am ready any day, whether I am charged with annexation or not, to take a yankee dollar in preference to an English shilling.
In those days the right hon. gentleman's attachment to the British Empire was a question of dollars and cents merely. As shown by these words he was then prepared to barter his British birth-right for a mess of Yankee pottage. At that time he repeated these words:-
I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada.



Well, we heard nothing more, after the declaration made by the Prime Minister that he would not return to Washington to try to get a treaty, till last winter, about a year ago, when the President of the United States sent representatives here, and said to this government, in effect :	It is quite true that our tariff
against you is twice as high as your tariff against us ; still, we will raise it 25 per cent higher unless you give us an inducement not to do so. Then, we had the editor of the Toronto ' Globe,' under secret instructions from one or more members of this government, hieing off to Albany to meet the president and from that point he sent word back here, that the question was so urgent that the Minister of Finance must hurry off to Albany, and have conference with the President of the United States on Sunday and plead with him to spare the suspended big stick until he could have time to come back to Canada and get the Minister of Customs,; who knew something about such matters?-no, but the Minister of Railways and Canals. Just what railways and canals had to do with perfumery, nuts, fruit and soap was not quite apparent ; still these two Ministers hied off to Washington and there they agreed to reduce the duty on thirteen classes of articles coming into this country from the United States. The suspended big stick did not descend upon our devoted head. They came back and reported to us in this House,-and I think their courage was sublime. They tried to appear as happy as a child with a new whistle.	They told us that times had
changed that there was no moTe going to Washington, but that Washington was coming to Ottawa. What are the facts? The president came over here with his big stick, and said: Bow your head, or I will crack it with the big stick. We obeyed, we bowed our head, the big stick did not come down and the Minister of Finance said:	See the great
victory we have achieved! Such is the statesmanship of which hon. gentlemen opposite are so proud.
Well now, I do not think that the people of this country desired this government, as the Prime Minister says, to eschew the American commissijoners as they would eschew a pestilence. I believe the people are quite willing that the representatives of this government should ascertain from the representatives of the government at Washington what we can get, and what it will cost us to get it, and then that the question should be submitted to the people, because, prior to the last election, we were told by the Prime Minister that there would be no further pilgrimages to Washington, that there would be no more efforts made to secure a trade


Thomas Wilson Crothers: agreement with the United States. The last word he had with the people of Canada was, that we will make no more efforts towards securing reciprocity with the United States, and, therefore, before he does anything more, he should consult the people of the country. We all understand, as the right hon. Prime Minister said the other day, that if the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs go to Washington and bring back a treaty, it will be submitted for ratification to the people's representatives in this House. We all understand that very well, but we also know that such a procedure is very unsatisfactory. I do not want to say anything that may appear to be harsh, but I will just say that a treaty made at Washington by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs that would not be ratified by this House, as it is now constituted, would make interesting reading indeed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to say anything further with regard to reciprocity. I have only a word or two more before I am through with reference to the navy. I do not propose to go over the arguments that I presented to this House last year on this question. It seems to me that a great deal of that sort of thing has been done during this discussion and some might think it was difficult to point out the difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party on this question. It seems to me there is no difficulty whatever about it. To me it is perfectly clear that the difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party on this question is that the Conservative party desires to render some effective aid towards the. strengthening of the British navy, and that the Liberal party does not desire to do anything for the strengthening of the British navy. Why? Do we desire to remain in the British Empire? Is there anything in the British Empire for us? Almost every man says, certainly, we want to remain in the British Empire. The British Empire, constituted as it is, with nations and colonies surrounding the globe, with thousands of miles of high seas between the centre and the various parts, is it essential to the progress and prosperity and safety of this great empire of which we form a part that she should continue to be mistress of the seas? Is it essential to the prosperity of this part of the empire that the great highways of the seas should be protected and kept free? Is it so that the British navy has protected us for the last 150 years, and that if we were attacked to-morrow we would call upon the British Empire to assist us with its navy? My right hon. friend said the other day, as a reason why we should build this navy: We have a Pacific coast, and the time may come when Japan, or China, or Russia may

attack us. Well, Mr. Speaker, suppose Japan were to attack us to-morrow, where would you get your defence? Who would protect you? It has taken Japan 40 years to construct the navy she has to-day, and it would take this country 50 years to provide a navy as strong as the present navy of Japan; and if during those 50 years we were attacked, as the Prime Minister apprehends we may be, who would protect us? The British navy, the greatest weapon on earth to-day, as was truthfully said the other day in this city by a great American, for the advancement of peace and civilization, and it belongs to us. I have no patience with those men who talk of defending the coasts of Canada and the trade routes of Canada, while doing nothing for the British navy. The Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) said last year that our proposition was to send $25,000,000 to England, where we would have no possible advantage from it, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said, during this debate, that had our proposition prevailed and we had sent $25,000,000 to England to strengthen the British navy it would have been sent out of this country to no purpose. Why, Mr. Speaker, I submit that these hon. gentlemen, in making these utterances, show that they have never grasped the idea of empire. The difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party is that we desire to do something effective for that great central weapon that protects Canada, that protects New Zealand, that protects every part of the British Empire; that great weapon which the leaders of both political parties in England, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour, in the British House of Commons, spoke of as being not merely for the defence of the coasts of the United Kingdom. What did they say? They said: We must have a navy sufficiently strong to protect not only the coasts of the United Kingdom, but every part of the British Empire. That includes us. Can we, a population of eight millions of people, retain our self-respect in these circumstances, that we have accepted that protection for 150 years and have never contributed a dollar towards it, and that we propose for the next quarter of a century, if we are attacked by China or Japan or any other foe, to accept that protection from the British taxpayers without contributing a cent towards it? I do not believe it, Mr. Speaker. I have conversed with hundreds of farmers during the last year, since this matter was up in this House, and I have never found the man in the province of Ontario who was not prepared to stand up at once and say: Yes, certainly, we must make a contribution to the strengthening of that central weapon, not to be frittered away on wasps and hornets, as the ' Globe ' characterized the little ships which the government propose to build. The right hon.
leader of the government tried to show that he had been consistent in the position he had taken. You will remember that at the Colonial Conference of 1902 the right hon. gentleman told the British authorities that his government was prepared to consider a naval defence as well as a milita defence. Well, he came back to Canada. Five years transpired. I fancy that during those five years he did consider the question of naval defence in his cabinet. He did not promise to do anything more than consider it. I fancy that he carried out his promise when he came back to Canada, and that in the cabinet councils he did consider with his colleagues the question of naval defence, and it is fair to assume that they reached the conclusion that they would do absolutely nothing towards naval defence, and why? Because we find the right hon. gentleman going back to England to attend the Imperial Conference in 1907, and we find Dr. Smartt, Commissioner of Public Works for Cape Colony, moving this resolution, to which I ask the close attention of the House:-
That this conference recognizing the vast importance of the service rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make 6uch contribution towards the upkeep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures.
Notice this now:
The contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.
There was a proposition submitted to the conference in favour of the various dominions beyond the seas doing something, not confined to a monetary contribution alone, but, a monetary contribution, a local naval defence, or such other service as the local parliaments might determine. Was not that broad enough to let in anything that had for its object the strengthening of the British Empire? But, what do we find the Prime Minister of Canada saying to that proposition, he says:
I am sorry to say so far as Canada is concerned we cannot agree to the resolution.
He could not agree to a monetary contribution, he could not agree to construct a local naval defence, he could not agree to render any service under heaven towards the strengthening of the British navy. And then, the Prime Minister of Canada went on to say:
I am sorry to say that so far as Canada is concerned we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in that respect in our

country before committing ourselves to a general claim. We have too much to do otherwise. . . . For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.


Dr. SMARTT.: I should like very much to hear the opinions of the representatives of the other portions of the empire.


Mr.   DEAKIN@: I have no hesitation in entering into the discussion if desired; but if we are not going to pass the resolution, is it worth while?


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


Wilfrid 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: Yee, 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 farther just now.
An lion. MEMBER. Who blocked the whole scheme?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Who blocked the whole scheme but the representative of Canada, who, in 1902 stated that the government would consider the creation of a naval force, and who five years afterwards said: we will do nothing, we will give you no money, we will construct no naval force, we will not render you any service of any character that will tend to strengthen the British navy. And why did he take this course? Sir, we have got the answer in the character of the campaign waged on behalf of the government in Drummond-Arthabaska; we have got it in the statements made by Liberal campaigners to the effect: we do not desire to do anything for the British navy; what we desire to do is to strengthen the Canadian navy as a step in the direction of independence. I was surprised the other night to hear the Minister of Customs, in dealing with the resolutions passed by the House on this subject, omit a very important amendment that was suggested, as I understand, by the leader of the opposition, and which would make it quite possible in accordance with these resolutions for us to give a contribution. For my own part, and I in this respect speak for myself, I see no difference between our situation to-day, and our situation two years ago. Talk about an emergency. We have gentlemen in this House getting up one after another and declaring in the presence of heaven that if there was imminent danger to England they would rush to her succour at once. Why, Mr. Speaker, what good would their rushing to the succour of England do, unless they are prepared in advance. Suppose a foreign country


Thomas Wilson Crothers: were to attack England to-morrow it would be to late for those men to talk about rushing to the aid of England to strengthen the navy then, and if thousands of them rushed they would do no good because the strength of England's defence depends on her ships and the trained men on these ships. There is as much of an emergency to-day as there was two years ago, and there was then as much emergency as there is to-day. England is reconstructing her whole navy at a cost of a thousand millions, and for what purpose? Is it not for the purpose of protecting the British Isles alone, but for the purpose of protecting all parts of the British Empire, Canada among the rest. And she asks us to render her some assistance and our answer is as expressed by this government: We will not give you a dollar, there is no emergency, you have money enough of your own to construct ships to protect us; but we will build a few ships in Canada to protect our coasts and our trade routes, and as the Minister of Marine says, to keep away the pirates down in the Gulf of Mexico. It would take us 50 years to prepare a navy that would be of any service whatever to protect us against any attack by a foreign nation, and in the meantime the British navy would have to be our protecting arm. And, are we willing to accept that protection for nothing during the next 50 years, as we have for the last 150 years. Mr. Speaker, the difference, in a few words, between the two parties is this: that the Liberal party wants a few ships, as they say, to protect our own coasts, and as many of them say to be a step in the direction of independence, while the Conservative party declares for: One King, one flag, one navy.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: Had I time before the hour of adjournment I should like to refer to the question of our trade relations with the United States and also to the question of the naval defence which are in my opinion the two most important references in the speech from the Throne. Time will not permit me to discuss our trade relations at any length, and I, therefore, shall devote myself principally to the naval question which seems to be the paramount purpose of this debate. Let me say, however, that I have not yet understood that it is the policy of the present government to conclude what may be called a reciprocity treaty with the United States; I do not understand that there has been any proposition made by the government of the United States or the government of Canada with the object of securing what might be called a reciprocity treaty; at least in the sense of the reciprocity treaty which we had from 1854 to 1866. The speech from the Throne does not say so, but simply says that there has been a demand for more

improved trade relations. Well, I may have an opportunity to discuss this question later on, but I want to ask this House now if it would not be to the benefit of every producer in the Dominion to-day to sell his products at better prices than he now gets. That is all we want. I must confess that in the past the attitude of the government of the United States was not very friendly; and so far as I am concerned, I would not be willing to consent to any negotiations which would jeopardize in the slightest degree the interests of the Canadian people. But if our farmers can obtain freer access to a market in which they can sell their produce to better advantage, if our fishermen can be given the opportunity of selling the results of their toil at more profitable rates, if our lumbermen can be enabled to dispose of their lumber at better rates-if all those in this country who have anything to sell can do so more profitably, without giving away any of the rights we now enjoy, by some mutual arrangement between the two countries, I think it is the duty of the government to conclude an agreement of that kind. And should they fail to bring about any agreement, no harm will be done.
We have had two weeks' discussion over a proposal of the government, enacted into law last year, to make the commencement of a Canadian navy. All sorts of arguments have been advanced by our hon. friends opposite; but there is one thing in this debate which stands out prominently above all others, and that is that our friends opposite are a little ashamed of the position into which they have been driven by the arguments put forward in this matter, and rather ashamed of the position into which they have been driven by a repetition and rehear-*sal of the facts and occurrences during the last two or three years. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers)-who, I regret to see, has left the Chamber-was evidently put up for a purpose, and that purpose was to draw a herring across the track, and endeavour to escape from the attacks made throughout the country on the party opposite because of-I will not say their alliance since my hon. friend the leader of the opposition says there is none- but on account of the arrangement evidently made between the Conservative party and the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman spent one solid hour this afternoon in trying to show that some members of the Liberal party have in their minds the possibility of an independent Canada in some distant future. In that connection he referred to my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte), and I am convinced that every one who heard him must have concluded that his intention was to charge that hon. gentleman with having gone into the counties of Drummond 17
and Arthabaska and preached there Canadian independence. It was only when brought to book by my hon. friend himself (Mr. Turcotte) that he was compelled to drop the charge. He also tried to make this House believe that the hon. member for St. James division (Mr. Gervais) had gone into Drummond and Arthabaska and preached there the same doctrine. He likewise charged my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) with having made certain statements at Victoriaville. That charge my hon. friend positively denied and the hon. gentleman had not the fairness to accept that denial, but tried to escape responsibility by saying that he had been quoting only from a newspaper. Then he went on to make a charge still more reprehensible. He said that the Liberal candidate in that county had declared that the object in establishing this navy was to bring about the independence of Canada. In that connection he quoted the Montreal ' Witness,' but he must also be a reader of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire,' for no man who can preach as much lip loyalty as my hon. friend did this afternoon could live in Ontario without being a constant reader of that paper. He must have known, therefore, that the defeated candidate, Mr. Perrault, wrote to the ' Mail and Empire ' on the 9th of November, three or four days after the election, a letter in which he positively denied having ever made any such statement. I do not think I am making an unfair statement when I say that my hon. friend did not do himself justice as a gentleman when he neglected to read that letter which was published in the ' Mail and Empire.' That letter is as follows:
Sir',-In your issue of Saturday, the 5th inst., the following appears in your editorial column: ' Mr. Perrault, the defeated government candidate in Drummond and Arthabaska, appealed to the electors on the separation platform. He said in one of his speeches: " Our fleet is not, and never will be, imperialistic ; it is a step towards the independence of Canada." '
I wish to give to that statement an unqualified and emphatic denial. I never gave expression to any such opinion or sentiment, and no words of mine ever could, even with the wildest stretch of imagination, be construed as conveying that meaning. On the contrary, at every meeting which I addressed I dwelt on Canada's duty to assume the naval defence of her shores and commerce, and I declared that she would come to the rescue of the mother land should the supremacy of Britain on the seas be ever threatened. I endorsed unequivocally the policy and statements of Sir Wilfrid Laurder on the navy question. I missed no opportunity of asserting that the British flag protects our civil and religious liberties, and that we are proud to live under it. My position was interpreted so differently from that contained in your columns that I was violently assailed for being too ardent an imperialist. My opponents insisted that Canada owed nothing to England,



and did their utmost to represent the government as being sold body and soul to Great Britain. These unpatriotic appeals did me sufficient injury without my being saddled with opinions which I never professed and which I repudiate.
I rely on your sense of fair play to insert the present letter.
Believe me, dear Mr. Editor,
Yours truly,



J. E. PEER AULT.

[Stage Direction]
Liberal candidate in Drummond and Artha-baska.
Arthabaska, Nov. 7.
Did my hon. friend from West Elgin possess the spirit of fair play to the extent which evidently the ' Mail and Empire ' possesses since it publishes that letter, he would not have failed to read it to the House. I do not think it would be possible to review the hon. gentleman's speech from the standpoint of the utter lack of logic and the utter unfairness of the arguments used by him, because that would take much more time than I have at my disposal. He quoted one gentleman from the province of Quebec as having said in that campaign that no country ibut a nation could have a navy, and in his most melodramatic style he approved of that and said that no country could have a navy unless it was a nation, the inference being that Canada, not being a nation, had no right to have a navy. Mark the inconsistencies, mark the absurdities and contradictions into which the gentlemen opposite fall whenever they open their mouths on this question. This compels me to read, what has been read in this House, perhaps half a dozen times during the present debate, the resolution passed on March 29, 1909, as follows:-
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
Mr. Speaker, compare that with the magnificently loyal peroration of my hon. friend from West Elgin, that the only thing to do is to contribute money by millions and declaring for one nation, one flag, one King. And yet that same hon. gentleman voted for this resolution. He swallowed everything that was put up to him. He swallowed a change when it was proposed last session; and if, before the end of this parliament, the leader of the opposition can think up half a dozen more changes, I am sure no one will be more ready to swallow them than my hon. friend from West Elgin. He swallowed this:
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: j
organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last imperial conference and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
Two years ago he had no hesitation in voting for the resolution which declared that it was the duty of the people of Canada not only to enter into a policy of selfdefence but a speedy policy of self-defence. And as the Minister of 'Customs (Mr; Paterson) pointed out, the word ' speedy ' was introduced by the leader of the opposition to make sure that there should be no delay in getting to work on this navy. But why attempt to follow a gentleman who places himself in such a ludicrous position from the logical standpoint as did my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) this afternoon? He committed another breach of etiquette, which I think is more unpardonable than anything else he did or than anything else that I have seen done since I first had the honour of a seat in this House. He deliberately read from ' Hansard ' statements which had been quoted by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) statements, in my opinion, of the most damnable nature, made by certain Nationalist orators during that campaign, and I believe his intention was to make the people of this country-if his words could reach the country-believe that they were the sentiments of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and it was only when called to book by members on this side and asked whose words he was quoting,-and he did not, even then, have the manliness to say whose words they were, but he believed he was quoting the words of some person who had spoken in the campaign. I do not wish to be harsh or to say anything against the hon. gentleman or his mode of conducting an argument, but I do feel that when a member is put up by his party for a specific purpose and places himself in such a position as that in which the hon. gentleman placed himself, it is not right to let his action go unnoticed. I hope the House will pardon me for taking up so much time, not exactly in replying to, but in noticing such statements as those the hon. gentleman made.
The history of this naval question and the history of this Drummond and Arthabaska election have been so thoroughly discussed that I felt it would be only trespassing upon your patience were I to go into the facts again. I have read here a portion of the resolution of March 29, 1909, which was voted for by every member of this House. I think the House will

pardon me if I read one or two quotations from the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) on that occasion, because, to my mind, it is the finest illustration of what appears to me to toe the true principle governing this question that I have heard or read in these debates on the question of the navy. These words of the leader of the opposition were spoken in support of the motion of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I believe that my hon. friend from North Toronto was sincere when he moved that motion. Possibly he may have had the hope that he was getting the government into a little difficulty, because I have found that when the hon. gentleman assumes the aspect of fairness, you need to watch him a little more closely than you would on ordinary occasions. However, he appeared to be sincere. He introduced this resolution which was read by the Prime Minister last evening, the substance of which was that we should get together and get to work as soon as possible and start the nucleus of a Canadian navy. In that debate, the leader of the opposition said:-
I do not desire to say anything more on this subject. I believe that the defence of out own shores and the protection of our own commerce is due to the self-respect which should fill the heart of every man in this country. You say that we may rest contented to depend for our naval defence on Great Britain. Well, if we had assumed the status of a nation in one respect, shall we adhere to the status of a Crown colony in other and still more important respects?
These are noble sentiments. These are the sentiments that actuate the Prime Minister to-day and have actuated the Liberal party for the last two or three years, and they are the sentiments we are trying to carry out, and which we will carry out, and of which, in my opinion, the people of this country will approve when they first have an opportunity to express themselves. The hon. leader of the opposition went on to talk about the Monroe doctrine, showing in what an unenviable position we should be placed if we relied upon the Monroe doctrine for our defence. Then he added:-
We desire that this resolution should go out as the unanimous resolution of the parliament of Canada to the whole world, and I believe it may go out as a message which will do much to keep the peace of the world in these days of uncertainty. It should go in such terms as would entitle the Canadian people to the gratitude of the empire and do much to restore to the people of this country that self-respect in which, it seems to me, we have been somewhat lacking in these days when others have done so much, and we so little, for naval defence so absolutely essential to .the integrity and the maintenance of our great empire.
I can only say that I concur with that sentiment in every particular. I only wish 17}
that I-could say that my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) and his friends had continued in the manly course which they marked out in March, 1909. Had they done so we should not have had this long discussion, but the matter would have b.een settled and out of sight long ago.
But these hon. gentlemen did not want it out of sight. There was a time, I believe, v'hen they would have been glad to have it buried. 1 do not wish to intimate that there are not dozens of men on that side of the House as loyal as those on this side. If there is anything I have particularly disliked in what I have heard since coming to this House it has been the periodical shout of ' disloyalty ' on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not impeaching their loyalty, but I do find fault with the means they are adopting to get into power. I believe that when the resolution of March, 1909, was introduced, practically every member on the other side was in entire accord with the sentiments expressed. And, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister last night, members went away from that session believing that all were a unit on this question. But something happened. The first thing that happened was that the Tory leaders in Manitoba and in Ontario saw that it would never do to have their party fall in line with anything proposed by the Prime Minister. So, some means had to be found to get out of it. The means found were very simple. The Tory bosses of Manitoba came down to Toronto and set up a cry that there was an emergency, and so we must not create a navy, but must contribute money to the navy of Great Britain. That was taken up by the Conservative leaders all over Ontario, and when my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) reached Toronto he found that his position depended upon going back on the alliance he had made with the government-a manly alliance I call it-and trying to do something else. He said: All right; we will go back on what we said a year ago and come out with a policy of contribution because there is an emergency. Of course, I am not to judge whether they believed at that time that there was an emergency or not. If they were honest about it and believed that the Germans were likely to attack Great Britain and believed that it was necessary to send $20,000,000, or $5,000,000 to the old country, I give them credit for being logical. But there was a little trouble staring them in the face. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier is reported to have kicked over the traces. He says: No, I don't believe in contributing to the navy, nor do I believe in having any navy. But I believe we ought to do something, we ought to consult the people about this thing. Mr. Borden says: Oh, that is very easy, we will put both planks in our platform and we will make a

new olatform; we will say we believe there is an emergency to-day, and we will give $25,000,000. Then we will say that it is not constitutional to build this navy, and we will go to the people and find out what they want to do about it. Now, I want to read to you what the leader of the opposition proposed in 1910, on the 20th of April, as found in volume 5 of the debates, starting at column 7535. After arguing the matter to some extent, he says:-
This is the principle I stand for, and the principle I desire to see carried out. It is desirable, in the first place, that we should co-operate upon some permanent basis. It is desirable, in the second place, that if the conditions of the empire at the present time are emergent, we should bear some immediate and effective aid to the empire as a whole. I still maintain, notwithstanding all the arguments that have been advanced to the contrary, that the proposals I submitted to the House involved the true principle in that regard; and that the true solution, the wise solution, of the great problem that is before the people of Canada to-day would be, in the first place, to bring immediate and effective aid in the manner I have already indicated to the House on the second reading of the Bill, and in the second place to mature more carefully and wisely the proposal for permanent co-operation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire, to bring those proposals into parliament and discuss them, then to submit them to the people at a general election, and after that to have them carried into force according to the mandate and the direction of the free people of Canada.
Well, Sir, there is nothing in that declaration which says that we must have imperial federation before we can have a navy; but he simply declares that we should make a cash contribution first, then mature our plans and bring them forward. Now, let us see what he says to-day. I want to quote to you the words of my hon. friend in this House on the 24th of November instant.
I do not know whether I have made my position clear, but I have done so according to my humble capacity. I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in imperial defence involves very large and wise considerations. If Canada and the other dominions of the empire are to take their part as nations of this empire in the defence of the empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole empire, shall have absolutely, as citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the councils of the empire relating to the choice of peace or war throughout the empire? I do not think that would be a tolerable condition, I do not think the people of Canada would for one moment submit to such a condition. Should members of this House, representative men, representing 220 constituencies of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, no one of them have the same voice with regard to those enormous imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British isles has at this moment. It does not seem to me that a condition of that kind would stand for the integrity of the empire,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: for the closer co-operation of the empire. These issues would have to be taken into consideration, and a permanent policy would have to be worked out, and when that permanent policy had been worked out and explained to the people of Canada, to everv citizen in this country, then I would say it would be the right of any government to go to the people of Canada to get them to pronounce their mandate and their disapproval or approval of that policy.
Now, Sir, if you will analyse these three propositions for one moment, you will see whether there is any relation between them. The first proposition was, build a Canadian navy, make a start at once, and do it speedily. The second proposition was, contribute a sum of money, then mature a plan, bring it to parliament at the next general election, and submit it to the people. He comes down now, after the Drum-mond-Arthabaska election, and after a resolution passed at a Nationalist meeting in Montreal, to which I will soon refer, he comes down to this House with a third policy, and that third policy is-not a contribution, because he admits he was wrong last year, and that there was no emergency-he abandons that proposition, he no longer says: Let us get together ourselves and mature a plan, bring it before parliament and then send it to the people; but he says:	We should not touch this
thing until we have imperial federation, until we get the whole empire together. He says it is unreasonable to expect the self-governing colonies of this empire to contribute to the expense of a war with the declaration of which we have nothing to do. He says it is beneath the dignity of the people of this country to be asked to do such things until they have had a chance to discuss them, or until we have imperial federation. I would like to ask my hon. friend from Victoria-Haliburton (Mr Hughes) if he will tell us how many generations it is going to be before that comes about.


Haughton Lennox: Who says that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have just been reading the words of the leader of the opposition who says it. Any hon. member who will read his speech in the debates of the 24th of November will see that he was deliberately playing into the hands of the Nationalists. He says we cannot do this thing until we have imperial federation. He knows that is generations hence, and therefore it will be generations before we are called on to do anything. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier introduced an amendment to this House. He was consistent, for he says: We ought not to do anything, especially until we have consulted the people. But the leader of the opposition says: That wont do, it wont do for us to show that we are working hand

in glove with the Nationalists, it wont do to accept all the amendment, we must put up something else. And so they have prepared the amendment which has been read so many times to the House. The amendment throws in a lot of flag-waving, it omits a sentence or two at the end of the amendment of the member for Jacques Cartier, because that condemns the free contribution policy which they voted for last year; they dont want to do that, therefore they omit it. You have all read the amendment of the leader of the opposition, now I want to read to you a resolution passed at a Nationalist meeting held in the city of Montreal on the 9th of November, a sort of congratulatory meeting _ on the part of the Nationalists over their great victory in Drummond-Arthabaska. At this meeting, at which were present the member for Jacques Cartier, and the member for Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr. Bourassa, I believe it was, moved the following resolution, which was seconded by the member for Jacques Cartier, and was unanimously adopted:
This meeting approves and. ratifies the verdict rendered by the electoral division of Drummond and Arthabaska, reaffirms the will of the Canadian people to uphold the rights of the British Crown in Canada

No Tory ever forgets that.

declares itself ready to approve all necessary and efficient measures to make sure the defence of Canadian territory, but it considers as contrary to the principle of Canadian autonomy and to the real unity of the empire, any policy tending to impose upon Canada, that_ has no voice in the government of the empire, any share in its external responsibilities and its military defence outside of the Canadian territory, the only portion of the empire upon which the Canadian people may exercise any political or constitutional action.
Why, Sir, one would almost think that my hon. friend had drafted his amendment from the resolution of the Nationalists themselves. They are as like as it is possible for one set of ideas to be alike and yet differ in being not exactly verbatim. The hon. member for West Elgin has attempted to draw upon our imaginations and has asked us to say that the Liberal party is advocating independence and everything else but what they call loyalty. He has quoted statements alleged to have been uttered by my right hon. friend the leader of the government twenty years ago in Boston. He has travelled through every book of the library of parliament and every speech of every Liberal member which he could find in the last twenty years in order to give some evidence of this being the attitude of the Liberal party. I do not care what the leader of
the government said twenty years ago in Boston, and I do not think the people of this country are bothering their heads very much about it. The people know the record of the right hon. leader of the government, they have pronounced upon it many times and they will have another chance in the not very distant future to pronounce upon it, and I have nc fear what their judgment will be. But the people are concerned, and very deeply concerned to-day with the unholy alliance that exists between the Conservative party and the Nationalists of Quebec. They may say that I have no right to make that statement in view of the denial of the leader of the opposition. But, I want to point out that it has not been denied by any member of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec in this debate. I want to point out that on every possible occasion since the night of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska every Conservative who has ever spoken on the question, and the Conservative press all over Canada, have made no attempt to conceal their joy and jubilation over the result. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller), pointed to a few of the evidences of this alliance. He quoted the telegram of the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster). The hon. member for North Toronto says :	Vote
against Laurier; it is your Christian duty. Any man in this country is performing his Christian duty when he votes against Laurier. And my hon. friend goes further -I can forgive him for that because that is a part of his religion-and says: Do not be too hard upon this man Bourassa; there is good stuff in him. Of course, there is good stuff in him when he is working for the Conservative party. I do not believe that my hon. friend, who, I understand, is going to follow me, will deny that Bourassa is working for the Conservative party and working with the knowledge and consent of the Conservative party.
Then, we have the telegram from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in which he so heartily congratulates the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for the great victory which he and his friends achieved in Drummond and Arthabaska. That has been referred to before. And, we have the telegram of the virtual leader of the Manitoba government, who, I think, is probably one of the most active and militant Conservatives in Canada to-day and he congratulates them and endorses everything that they have said. But, we have something that, I think, is better evidence than that. We have the evidence of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) who has taken a very active part in this debate, a gentleman who has had two or

three opportunities of expressing himself here and defending his position, and a gentleman who has absolutely failed to deny the fact and who glories in the fact that there is an alliance between the Nationalists and the Conservative party. I want to read to you what the hon. gentleman says. You will find it recorded in the debates of November 23. This hon. gentleman is, I should judge, a scholar of no mean pretensions. He certainly has an excellent command of the English language and I imagine that he must be a very fluent speaker in the French language, a gentleman who evidently knows what he is talking about, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot say that the hon. gentleman did not understand the true significance of the words when he was speaking because he was speaking in a foreign language. There is no doubt in the world that from the standpoint of the hon. member for Champlain he feels that he is perfectly justified in taking the course which he has taken. I am not blaming the hon. member for Champlain. I am concerned with the Conservative party who are urging him on. They are the real culprits in this case. Let us see what the hon. member for Champlain did say:
In spite of all the statements published in the newspapers and made in this House to the contrary, I declare from my seat in parliament, and I declare in the face of my fellow-countrymen that during the whole campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska we who spoke in opposition to the government candidate remained loval and faithful to our King, to our country, and to what we think are the true principles of the Liberal Conservative party.
Why, this hon. gentleman had not any doubt in the world that he was working in hearty co-operation with his party. He knew that he was working in co-operation with his party. He had not any apologies to make, and, therefore, he comes into this House and boasts of the work that they did.
Then we have, in addition to that, the conduct of the party as a whole as evidenced by the conduct of the leader of the opposition to which I referred a short time ago. We have them, in the first, place, in 1909, avowing and voting for the' principle of the Canadian navy. When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in 1910, objected that there should be a re-i ferendum of some kind we have the (Conservative party following the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier comes down now and when the Nationalists of Quebec come down now and say: We will have nene of this whatever, we are utterly and absolutely opposed to a navy of any kind, we are opposed to a navy because it means conscription, because it means that our


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: sons are going to be taken away and roasted and disembowelled by the enemies of England, and we are opposed to a navy because it is English, and we have had too much of English tyranny-when these people come before their leader and put this proposition to him, what does he do? He moves another amendment, and he supports it by a speech in which he declares that we cannot have this Canadian navy for at least two or three generations and probably half a century. Now, I would like to know, in the face of all that: Have not the people of Canada a right to ask what kind of a coalition or compact exists between the Conservative party and the Nationalists of Quebec? Do hon. members opposite deny anything that was said by the Nationalists in that campaign? Has any member of the Nationalist party denied a word they have said? The hon. member for Champlain says:	I did not
say some of these things, but I did say some things, and he takes mighty good care not to tell us what part it was he did say. He has had three different opportunities since this debate commenced, and he has never told us what he did say, but he reiterates the statement:	I have not
been properly reported in the newspapers, and I did not say all that you say I said. Well, heaven knows, he said enough. He said more than I think the Conservative party like to stomach, but, for political purposes, they are compelled to do so.
Now7, do we need a Canadian navy? Are w7e right in the policy which we are adopting? Our Conservative friends said we were two years ago. To-day I do not know what they say. They do not know themselves where they are at on this question. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), who has just preceded me, comes out, I think, frankly, if you can form any conclusions from his remarks, and says:	We do not want a Canadian
navy. He says that we should contribute in money. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) talked for an hour and a-half the other night, and he did not say anything. He hopes that possibly before he dies his party may be in power, and, of course, in order to get the reward that he is after, he must vote for them, although he is not in accord with them. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) discussed this matter the other night, and he said nothing. The hon. leader of the opposition has discussed this matter twice during this debate, and w7hile he has moved a resolution which intends to put the thing off forever, he has not said:	We do not want a navy.
The only logical men on the other side of the House are the Nationalists. They come out flat-footed and say that they do

not want a navy; they are men enough to say so, and I respect them for having the courage of their convictions.
But, Sir, I cannot speak in that way of the members of the Conservative party who talk one thing, and two things, and a half a dozen things, and say nothing in the end. It has been said in the House to-day, that we have halT the kindly protection of the British navy for 150 years. Yes, and we had the protection of the British army for 125 years down to the year 1861, when trouble impended between Canada and the United States. Since then we have looked after our own defence, and only once in my lifetime was it necessary to have recourse to arms, viz., the Riel rebellion, when the people of Canada looked after their own defence. In 1899 Britain was at war, and although we were not compelled to send soldiers to South Africa, we sent them of our free will. Then, comes the present time when we are asked to do something to protect ourselves on sea as well as land. The South African war demonstrated that the British Empire is able to protect herself no matter in what part of the globe she may be attacked, and Canada demonstrated during that war that an armed force capable of doing pretty fair work in the field can be made effective in a few mpnths. But, it is not so with a navy. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) told us it would take 50 years to build a navy, and I agree with him, and that being the case there is the greater reason why we should get to work on our navy at once. It is, Sir, the duty of Canada to protect herself, it is the duty of Canada to take her place in the empire, it is the duty of Canada to do whatever is necessary to protect herself and to take her place in the defence of the empire if trouble should come. I am not here to shout loyalty, I leave that to members on the Conservative side of the House. But, Sir, I do believe that in the British Empire there is the greatest freedom, the greatest advancement, and the highest conditions of civilization to be found in this world. I believe in the British Empire because it stands for everything that is best. Perhaps, I have not that sentiment towards the gentleman who happens to occupy the position of King which some other hon. gentlemen may have, but I respect the high office he holds, and I venerate the principles he represents rather than the man;, although, I have nothing but the most eulogistic words to speak of the present King. To my mind it is to what he represents that we should be loyal, and if the British Empire of which he is the head be all that I think it is, then it is worth fighting for. As I have said, in 1899 we sent 10,000 soldiers to South Africa and we spent a few million dollars, but in sending these soldiers we did more to consolidate the British Empire, in conjunction
with the other colonies, than anything that has occurred in the last 100 years. At one period of that war we heard stories of European intervention, but that was before the colonial contingents were sent to South Africa, and, when the world saw that a new force had arisen in the British Empire, and when our colonial soldiers took the field, from that very moment nothing was heard of interference by European nations, I say, Sir, that we accomplished more by sending these 10,000 men to South Africa than we could accomplish by sending $100,000,000. It is not the money that counts, for they have lots of money in England, it is the men that count. The same argument would apply to the navy. We could send the mother land $25,000,000 this year and $50,000,000 next year, and it is only so much taxation taken off the shoulders of the British taxpayer, but, Sir, the thing that counts above all is the sending of the men, and we cannot send men and make them effective unless we have ships on which to send them. You cannot send 10,000 men out to man a navy unless you have a navy to man. We can do nothing that will so solidify the empire, as by doing our duty to ourselves first, and do our duty to the empire as a whole. And, Sir, let me say here that I have never been so proud of the Prime Minister of this country and of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the whole delegation from the province of Quebec as I have been during this campaign. There has been no white feather shown by these gentlemen. They nailed their colours to the mast in 1909, they stuck to them in 1910, and now even after a temporary reverse in Drummond and Arthabaska brought about by a combination of the Conservatives and Nationalists, the Liberal delegation from the province of Quebec still stick to their colours, and they come here in the face of the whole world and declare that they are ready to do whatever is necessary to protect Canada, and the empire as a whole. And, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman appeals to the country as he will in the course of the next two or three years, and when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries goes back to his people, I have enough confidence in the fair common sense of the people of Quebec to feel that they will give them the same support they have given them in the past, and I know that so far as the English speaking provinces are concerned they will give their support to the naval policy of the government, and that hon. gentlemen opposite will receive from them the condign punishment which they deserve.
On motion of Mr. Foster the debate was adjourned.
House adjourned at six o'clock.



Thursday, December 1, 1910.