1910-02-17

Mr. S. SHARPE:: Is it the intention of the government to so amend the Volunteers Bounties Act to enable the Canadian civil surgeons who served in the war to receive grants? If not, why not?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER.: It is not considered advisable to enlarge the scope of the Act.



BEAUHARNOIS CANAL LESSEES.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	What persons occupying government lands along the Beauharnois canal, now under lease, to the Canadian Light and Power Company, are at present indebted for rent, and for what amount?
2.	Has the government given instructions to issue legal proceedings against such persons so indebted for arrears of rent?
3.	If so, to what lawyers or firm of lawyers have such instructions been given?
1.	What instructions have been given?
5.	What persons have been sued?
6.	Have instructions been given to sue all or only some? If so, which of the persons so indebted?


Hon. GEORGE GRAHAM:: 1.	The names of several persons appear as being indebted to the government for arrears of rental for lands along the Beau-harnois canal; but as some of the above parties have raised the question, as to the validity of the amounts claimed, it is not considered in the public interest to give the names at present pending a settlement.
2.	The Department of Justice are now in negotiations with their agent, Mr. R. A. E. Greenshields, K.C., of Montreal, who is acting in the matter.
3.	4, 5 and 6. Answered by number two.
MR. Calvin McKenzie.


Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Was Calvin McKenzie employed on the Intercolonial Railway, in Pictou county, N.S., in October, 1908, and February, 1909?
2.	If so, where was he employed, what was his work, and what was his wage per day?
3.	Was he at work on the 26th October,
1908,	and was he paid the usual wages for that day?
4.	Was he at work on the lGth February,
1909,	and was he paid the usual wage for that day?
5.	If he was not at work on the days mentioned, or either of them, why was he off duty, and why was he paid his usual wages, for such days, if that was the case?
6.	Is he still in the railway's employment? If so, what is his work and what are his wages?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	At Stellarton, as boiler maker helper at sixteen cents per hour.
3.	Yes, at night, received the usual wage of sixteen cents per hour.
4.	Yes, at night, received the ushal wage of sixteen cents per hour
5.	Answered by numbers three and four.
6.	Yes, he is still employed as boiler maker helper, working at night, at sixteen cents per hour.



TRENT CANAL FLOODS.

Air. LENNOX:: 1.	Have the following persons in the township of Asphodel, namely, John Lynch, John Sayent, Patrick Crowley, G. A. L. Humphries, James Warner, Thomas Davidson, .1. J. Breckenridge and Charles Faux, been paid damages for flooded lands occasioned by the dams on the Trent river at the village of Hastings?
2.	If so, for what acreage, has each been paid, what sum, and when was payment made?
3.	Who acted as valuator for the government?
4.	Who acted as solicitor for the government in each case, and what sum was the solicitor paid for his services, in each case?


Air. GRAHAM:: 1. Yes.
2.	John Lynch, 8 acres, $40, 14th June, 1909; John Sayent, 60 acres, $600, 17th March, 1909; Patrick Crowley, 32 acres, $320, 16th June, 1909; G. A. L. Humphries, 50 acres, $550, 17th March, 1909; James Warner, 30 acres, $330, 5th March, 1909; Thomas Davidson, 5 acres, $45, 30th April, 1909; Charles Faux, 80 acres, $720, 29th April, 1909; J. Breckenridge, 6 acres, $60, 14th June, 1909.
* 3. James Dickson.
4.	L. F. Clarry. Nothing has yet been paid, but his accounts have been approved by the Department of Justice, and will be paid as soon as the money is available, April 1, 1910.



MR. 'GEORGE WALTON.

Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 1.	What amount of money has been paid each year to Geo. Walton, Manitoba, by the Interior Department from January 1, 1906, to December 31, 1909?
2.	Has Mr. Geo. Walton received any money since January 1, 1906, from any other department of the government?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	1906, nil; 1907, $200; 1908, nil; 1909, $1,650.71. In regard to the second part, as it involves more than one department, I would suggest that my hon. friend move for a return.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand as a notice of motion for a return.



MR. ARTHUR JOHNSON.

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR:: 1.	Is the following return correct in the last report of registered vessels: No., 122417; name, ' Relieverowner, Manley Chew; post office, Midland; length, 226 feet; horsepower, 80; tonnage registered, 306.
2.	Was one Arthur Johnson engineer of
said vessel during the season of navigation of 1909 ?	.
3.	What certificate would be required of the first engineer of said vessel?
4.	Did said Arthur Johnson have such a
certificate duly issued by the Marine Department ?	,
5.	If not, was a permit issued by the department allowing him to act in such capacity ?
6.	If a permit was granted, under what circumstances was the same granted and at whose request ?
7.	Has the said Johnson now a certificate from the department entitling him to act as engineer on a1 vessel of such tonnage?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: 1.	Yes, excepting that the registered tonnage should read, 366. The horse-power by
ship's register is 80 but the nominal horse
power from actual measurement is 70-5.
2.	Yes.
3.	Third class certificate.
4.	5 and 6. Yes.
[DOT]	7. Yes.



MR. JOHN E. RUSSELL.

Mr. J. D. REID:: What amount in each year, including the current fiscal year, has been paid to John E. Russell for work done in connection with Toronto harbour and the eastern entrance thereto ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: In 1898-99		$ c.
		 1,585 95
1905-06		
1905-06		
1907-8		
1908-09 		
1908-09		
1909-10 		
Total



CANADA PERMANENT PORCE.

Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	What proportion of men serving in the permanent force of Canada have re-enlisted after the expiration of their term?
2.	Is the permanent force at full strength? If not, what is the shortage?-
3.	If there is a shortage or deficiency, what is the tause of it?
4.	What proportion of the permanent force is Canadian born?
5.	For what term are men enlisted in the permanent force?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	50 per cent.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Approximately; officers 90 per cent, n-on-commissioned officers and men 20 per cent.
5.	Section 17 of the Militia Act provides
that the period of service in time of peace shall be as follows:	(a). For the active
militia, *three years, (b). For the reserve militia, such period as is prescribed.
*The term active militia includes the permanent force.



SUBSIDIES TO BRUCE MINES AND ALGOMA RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	What subsidies have been granted to the Biuce Mines and Algoma Railway Company by the Canadian government?
2.	When were these granted and are they still in force?
3 How much of this line has been completed, and how much has been paid in subsidies ?	#
4. Has any application been made recently for renewal of subsidy to this line?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1 and 2.. By Subsidy Act, chap. 7, 1901, item 24, a subsidy was granted for a line of railway from a point on the Algoma branch of the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Bruce Lake station northerly to a point at or near Rock lake, not exceeding nine miles.


Mr. FIELDING.: This subsidy was granted to the abovenamed company bv contract No. 14,360, dated November 5, 1901, and expired May 23, 1905.
By Subsidy Act, 1903, chap. 57, item 38, a subsidy was granted to the above-named company for 21 miles from the end of the line subsidized by chap. 7, of 1901 (no contract was made for this subsidy). This subsidy expired October 24, 1907.
By Subsidy Act, 1904, chap. 34, item 2, a subsidy was granted to the above-named company for:
(a)	That portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines iunetion south to the town of Bruce Mines on Lake Huron, not exceeding three miles.
(b)	The six miles of railway constructed from Gordon Lake station, being the end of its line as subsidized by chap. 7, 1901, north of Rock lake, a distance of six miles.
(c)	Twelve miles from Rock lake north, a distance not exceeding twelve miles.
These subsidies were granted in lieu by item 38, section 2, of chap. 57, 1903.
On October 20, 1904-A contract was entered into by the above-named company for the subsidy covered by section ' b ' of Act of 1904, being from Gordon lake to Rock lake.
By contract dated January 28, 1905, the company were granted subsidy for the line
(a)	mentioned in Act of 1904, chap. 34, for the line from Bruce Mines junction to the town of Bruce Mines, a distance of three miles. These subsidies expired August 10, 1908.
3.-
January 24. Subsidy on nine miles at $3,200, from a point on the Algoma branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, near Bruce Lake station, to a point near
Rock lake	$28,800
January 4. Subsidy on 5-90 miles, Gordon Lake station to Rock lake at $3,200 per mile.. $18,880
March 9. , Subsidy on 1 -95 miles, from Bruce Mines junction southerly to town of Bruce Mines at $3,200 per mile	$6,240

4.	Yes, an application was received on the 4th April, 1909, from McCarthy, Osier, Hosken & Harcourt. on behalf of the railway company.



ADDITION AND REPAIRS TO KENSINGTON WHARF.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1. Upon whose representations did the Department of Public Works act in sending its engineer to make an examination of Kensington wharf for the purpose of ascertaining what additions and repairs were necessary?

2. Upon whose recommendation or representation was the sum of $3,300 placed in the estimates for the addition and repairs to this wharf?


William Pugsley: In matters of the kind referred to in these questions, the minister must take the responsibility of his action, and does not usually, I think, feel prepared to state upon whose representations matters have been decided upon. All I can say-all I think proper to say

is that in the matters referred to, the action taken was taken by direction of the minister.
reply to a question on the order paper of February 11, 1909, ' Hansard ' p. 1176, vol. 1, p, 1909.
2.	There is in the Department of Customs one copy of a report by W. A. Graham Clark, on ' Manufacture of Woollen Worsted and Shoddy in France and England,' published by the government printing office, Washington, 1909.



MILITARY SCHOOL OF INSTRUCTION AT ST. LAMBERT, QUEBEC.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 



MILITARY PROPERTY AT ST. JOHNS, QUEBEC.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to dispose of the military property at St. Johns,-Que., to the College of De Monoir, or to any other corporation or persons? If so, to whom, and on what conditions?
2.	(a) What is the valuation of the land held for military purposes by the government at St. Johns, Que., (b) what is the valuation of the buildings thereon, and (c) what has been the annual cost for the last five years for maintaining the upkeep of these buildings?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) $31,200.
(b)	$88,218.
(c)	1904-05	$4,869.771905-	06	
1,761.901906-	07	
4,007.351907-	08	
3,057.931908-	09	
9,194.65



FISHERY INSPECTOR PETER GUNN.

Mr. BRADBURY:: Has Peter Gunn, of Lac Ste. Anne, been appointed a fishery inspector? If so, for what district, and what salary does he receive?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, for the electoral districts of Edmonton, Victoria and Strath-cona. Salary, $1,200 per year; but the department has received his resignation, which has been accepted.



MR. THOMAS COSTELLO.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Has the government any further information, reports or correspondence that was not brought down in reply to a question on the Order Paper of February 11, 1909, ' Hansard ' p. 1176, vol. I., 1909, re woollen industry by John Costello? If so, what is the nature of the correspondence, and when will it be brought down?
2.	Has the government any information concerning a report made at the same time for the United States government by United States government agent W. Graham Clark?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1. The government has no further reports or correspondence to be brought down in
1.	What is the nature of the military buildings, the erection of which the government has under consideration at or near St. Lambert, Quebec, and for what purposes are these buildings intended?
2.	By what corps or regiments will they be occupied ?
3.	Has the site for these buildings been purchased? If so, from whom and at what cost?
4.	When is it intended to commence the construction of these buildings, and what is the estimated cost?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Barracks for the permanent corps to accommodate a school of instruction for Montreal and vicinity.
2.	Answered by No. 1, but the actual details of the units have not yet been settled.
3.	No; it is expected that these buildings will be erected on land already vested in the Crown.
4.	The surveys and plans have not yet been completed, and, until this has been done, it will not be possible to say when construction will commence, or what the cost will be.



THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA- EXPLANATIONS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) concerning a statement forming part of his recent speech, pages 3415 to 3418, of the unrevised ' Hansard' What I particularly desire to ask is concerning the cost of the 'Rainbow,' which does not seem 'to be included although the ship is mentioned.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 
Robert Laird Borden: I desire to know also what is included under the term 'upkeep?' For example, does it include interest and depreciation?


Frederick William Borden: In the statement I gave, these are not included.


Robert Laird Borden: What does 'upkeep ' include? May we count it as including practically everything else besides interest and depreciation?

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN Yes, everything outside of interest and provision for sinking fund.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring before the House a matter of privilege. On the 14th instant, the hon. member for York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket) read an extract from the Toronto ' Globe ' of a day or two before, as follows:
By reading extracts from some documents and carefully refraining from reading others he sought to convey the impression that money was being taken from the public treasury and spent upon a wharf at Pink Rock owned by a company managed by a political friend of the Minister of Public Works.
Hon. Mr. Pugsley destroyed Mr. Crocket's pretty little piece of political patchwork at one blow by producing an agreement which showed chat the wharf had passed from the hands of the company referred to by the member for York into those of the Crown, and that the expenditures complained of were for the improvement of a public work in the public incerest.
The hon. member for York is reported as making the charge that the statement in the Toronto ' Globe ' was untrue, and stating also that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) knew it was untrue. It is with regard to the latter assertion of the hon. member that I feel it my duty to bring the matter before the House as a matter of privilege. I may say, as the hon. member appealed to me, that 1 am unable to corroborate in the slightest degree his statement that the report in the ' Globe ' was untrue. I think that, if one takes the whole report, one must conclude that the reporter did give a true account of the state of affairs, so far as the Pine Rock wharf is concerned. It is necessary to read the whole report in the ' Globe ' in order to form a correct opinion of the truthfulness or otherwise of it. I will read it more fully, including the paragraphs quoted by the hon. member for York, which I have just referred to:
By reading extracts from some documents and carefully refraining from reading others he sought to convey the impression that money was being taken from the public treasury and spent upon^a wharf at Pink Rock owned by a company * managed by a political friend of the Minister of Public Works.
The impression which I received from the statement of the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket), and I think it was an impression fairly to be received from his language, was that the Public Works Department were expending money on a private wharf which was owned by the Albert Manufacturing Company. The facts of the case are that nothing of the kind has been * Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
occurring. Not one single dollar of public money has been expended upon a private wharf. The wharf which is being constructed is wholly the property of the Crown. My hon. friend from York may not have intended to create that impression, and I trust he did not intend to do so, but that was the fair inference to be derived from his language, and it is the inference which the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) also drew from hi.s language, because that hon. member made the statement that money was being expended on private property. Therefore, I think that the reporter of the ' Globe ' was clearly warranted in drawing that inference from the remarks of my hon. friend. Then the article proceeds:
Hon. Mr. Pugsley destroyed Mr. Crocket's pretty little piece of political patchwork at one blow by producing an agreement which showed that the wharf had passed from the hands of the company referred to by the member for York into those of the Crown, and that the expenditures complained of were for the improvement of a public work in the public interest.
I think that the agreement which gives to the Crown the absolute right to collect wharfage tolls, both side wharfage and top wharfage, and which gives to the public the right of way over the property which had been originally constructed by the Albert Manufacturing Company, over that property, to the work which the government was itself constructing beyond the length of the wharf originally built by the Albert Manufacturing Company, entirely justified the reporter of the * Globe ' in stating that the control of the property had passed from the Albert Manufacturing Company into the hands of the Crown, because that is the effect, not only substantially but wholly the effect of the agreement, subject simply to the right of the Albert Manufacturing Company to have its own vessels lie at the wharf free of tolls. Then the reporter further proceeds:
That the expenditures complained of were for the improvement of a public work in the public interest.
That statement was also absolutely correct. Therefore, for these reasons I, as I have said, am entirely unable to agree with the member for York (Mr. Crocket) that the report appearing in the Toronto ' Globe ' was in any way inaccurate.
Mr. 0. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.). The
Minister of Public Works has apparently felt it necessary to do some more explaining, a thing that he has been very frequently called upon to do in this House. He states that he is not able to corroborate the .statement of the hon.,: member !for York on Monday last, that the statement in the ' Globe ' newspaper was untrue. If

the minister is not able to corroborate that statement, I am able to corroborate and confirm the statement I then made, from a return furnished to me by an officer of the minister's own department. Although the minister started with the statement that he was not able to corroborate the statement I made, he ended by practically confirming the statement, inasmuch as he admitted that the wharf had not been conveyed to the Crown. The statement to which I took exception in the ' Globe ' was the statement that this wharf, to which the government is building an extension, had passed from the hands of the company into the hands of the Crown. I said the other day that the statement is untrue. I reaffirm it to-day. And the minister


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear


Mr. CROCKET.: It is all very well for the Minister of Public Works to talk about this being in the public interest. That is an expression we very frequently hear from the Minister of Public Works. [DOT] I suppose the many expenditures that have taken place in St. John, and important places in New Brunswick, have been, of course, primarily in the public interest, according to the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: All in the public interest.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But there are very many works in the province of New Brunswick for which the Committee of Supply of this House has voted thousands and thousands of dollars which are not primarily in the public interest, and which have manifestly been for the improvement of private property. The minister says that the wharf which is being constructed is the property of the Crown. The wharf which is being constructed by the vote which passed the Committee of Supply is for an extension of the private property of the Albert Manufacturing Company, of which Mr. Osman is the managing director; and the agreement that has been referred to, which the minister states is practically a conveyance of the property to the Crown, is nothing more or less than a colourable arrangement providing, as I stated the other day, that Mr. Osman, or the Albert Manufacturing Company, would very graciously allow His Majesty to charge wharfage upon all vessels other than their own, or vessels chartered by the company, that might use the wharf. The fact is, and the minister knows it to be true, that there is no other shipping at that wharf except the shipping of the Albert Manufacturing Company, and will not be for some years to come. I have the documents here, and I challenge the Minister of Public Works to contradict a single statement I have made to this House with reference to this subject.
The very second document on the return which was furnished to me by an officer of the Department of Public Works states that the wharf is intended for the shipment of gypsum, which is the product of the Albert Manufacturing Company, the only gypsum that can be shipped from that wharf. There is the statement from a return brought down by the officers ol his own department. Furthermore, it is not only to the fact that this wharf had not been conveyed to the Crown that I took exception in this case, it is to the fact that the expenditure which has been made and which has been entered in the Auditor General's Report for one year's work on this wharf, was made by Mr. Osman, under his own management and direction, without any supervision or direction from the Department of Public Works, and that the bills which Mr. Osman contracted were simply forwarded to the Department of Public Works, and the whole of that expenditure, amounting to over $2,000, was paid and entered in the report of the Auditor General as if the expenditure had been made by the Department of Public Works under its supervision. That fact is abundantly proved by the Teturn which I have.
In order that the House may understand the matter fully, and may understand particularly that the statement I made the other day was absolutely true, I have here a letter signed by Mr. J. C. Osman, and dated at St. John, New Brunswick. September 7, 1907, from which it appears that although an officer of the department suggested that this wharf should first be transferred to the Crown before any public money was expended on it, Mr. Osman declined to do that, and he suggested this beautiful colourable arrangement which the Minister of Public Works has represented as complying with the requirements of the case. The letter is as follows:
I am in receipt of a letter from your secretary in reference to the extension to the Pink Rock wharf, Westmorland county.
In regard to the suggestion that our company should convey the wharf which we have already built to a length of about 250 feet to the Crown, I do not see how we could properly be asked to do this, and I do not think that it was the intention of parliament that we-should do so. The appropriation, as you know, is for the extension of the wharf. We would, however, be willing to give to the Crown, for the use of the public, a free right of way over our property from the highway to the wharf, and will make a good road and keep it in repair, and we will also undertake to give to the Crown, for the use of the public, a right of way over our wharf to the proposed extension, and will undertake to keep onr wharf in repair, and for vessels other than ours or those chartered by ns coming to the wharf

And, as I have stated, no other vessels than those of the company, or those char-

tered by the company, do use or will use the wharf.
-we will allow the Crown to collect wharfage, both in respect to such portion of our wharf as the vessels may occupy and the government extension, without ourselves making any charge for its public use, and as an equivalent for vessels chartered by us and our own vessels having the use of the government wharf, we will undertake, at our own expense, to keep the whole wharf in repair.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the very firm conviction that I have that the Minister of Public Works would be absolutely incapable of doing such a thing as dictating a letter to himself to be signed by somebody else, I would be disposed to remark that that letter is couched in such smooth and skilful terms as to be almost worthy of the fine Italian hand of the hon. genius who presides over the great spending department of the government. The _ suggestion comes to me the more readily because of a subsequent letter of September 10, written by Mr. Osman, in which he refers to a very pleasant interview which he had had with the minister at St. John a few days before. This letter is dated September 10, and it was written from Hillsboro. The last was September 7, and written from St. John.
Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Ottawa, Ont.
Hear Dr. Pugsley,-Referring to the matter of the extension of the wharf at Pink Rock, the details of which we fully discussed during the pleasant interview I had with you in St. John, I now beg to confirm on behalf of the Albert Manufacturing Company and the New Brunswick Gypsum Company the proposition I then made to yon.
I think that these letters not only confirm the statement I make, but they show that it wa3 suggested to the minister by an officer of the department that this wharf ought properly to be transferred to the Crown before a public expenditure could be made upon it, and that that was a suggestion which Mr. Osman refused to comply with.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) is entirely in error. There was not one single dollar of public money expended upon this wharf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I cannot understand the hon. gentleman's statement. He took an appropriation from the Committee of Supply the other day of $10,500, or something of that kind, to complete an extension of the Pink Rock wharf upon which nearly $5,000 had already been expended.


William Pugsley: That is a new wharf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it independent of the old wharf? I would ask the hon. Minister Mr. CROCKET.
of Public Works if he could name another case in the history of the Public Works Department where a private wharf has been extended by the government for private or public purposes without the department first acquiring the wharf to which the extension was being made?


William Pugsley: Ye3, my hon. friend will find an identical case upon the western side of the harbour of St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who was the owner of the wharf?


William Pugsley: The city of St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It was a public wharf.


William Pugsley: So was this.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If this is the only instance that the Minister of Public Works can give it is one which does not help his case very much. I do not think it necessary to add anything to the statement 1 have made. The minister started out with the statement that he could not corroborate the statement which I had made, but before he concluded his speech, he himself absolutely corroborated the precise statement which I had made, viz.: that the wharf had not passed from the hands of the company to the Crown as alleged by the ' Globe '.


William Pugsley: While the discussion may be somewhat out of order I presume the House will accord me the privilege of replying to the hon. member for York. I first desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. member for York has not denied yet the statement


Robert Laird Borden: I presume we will have a general discussion on this subject?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I cannot consent to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance cannot consent to that it had better stop now.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the discussion has rather wandered a little.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Public Works had an opportunity of making a full statement. If the debate is going to continue it will have to be general.


William Pugsley: I would appeal to the sense of fairnesa of hon. gentlemen opposite to_ allow me to make a brief reply, and for this reason that the hon. member for York did not confine himself to the statement in the Toronto ' Globe ', but went on with a general discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. A question of privilege partakes of the nature of a per-
374b

sonal explanation. The Minister of Public Works having made his statement it was quite fair and within the rules that the hon. member for York should reply. The minister may be permitted to reply to the hon. member on the understanding that no new matter is to be introduced. Solely upon that ground perhaps the minister may be allowed to complete any explanation, but to bring any new matter would be irrelevant.


William Pugsley: I will not introduce any new matter. I was calling attention to the fact that the hon. member for York has not denied the statement which was contained in the report of the Toronto 'Globe' that he had sought to lead members of this House to believe that the Department of Public Works had been expending money upon private property. In regard to the agreement of transfer-


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister will permit me to ask him a question: Is this an extension of a private wharf?


William Pugsley: This is a wharf which is built at the end of the wharf which was owned


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. PUGSLEY

which was owned by
the Albert Manufacturing Company. I stated that in the city of St. John the government is building a wharf which you might call an extension of a wharf owned


Robert Laird Borden: I object to the minister going into that unless it is understood that this debate is going to be a general one.


William Pugsley: I do not want to make it general.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It must be confined strictly to the matter now before the House.


William Pugsley: In the case of the city of St. John, the city owned the wharf


Mr.   R.@: L- BORDEN. I object to going into the question of the wharf in the city of St. John.


William Pugsley: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker


William Pugsley: I did not interrupt the hon. member for York, although he wandered far afield, although he did not keep within miles of the question which is really before the House, and I do think I should be allowed a few words of reply. In the case of the building of the wharf beyond the wharf in the city of St. John-


Robert Laird Borden: I object to introducing new matter.


William Pugsley: Well, I will not go into the wharf at St. John.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I think you will have enough on your hands to deal with this wharf.


William Pugsley: All right, The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has referred to the agreement regarding this wharf and he has called it a colourable agreement. There is nothing whatever in the agreement, or in anything which was before the committee, or is in the possession of my hon. friend, which would justify him in making that statement. That agreement provides that there shall be a free right of way to the whole public over this wharf, a right of way over the road which was constructed by the Albert Manufacturing Company, that the whole public shall have the right to use it, subject to such tolls as the Crown may impose, and that the Crown shall have the absolute right to collect wharfage upon all vessels except those which are coming there for the Albert Manufacturing Company.


Robert Laird Borden: Because they were the only ones that use it.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) had been in the House the other day he would have heard the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son) state that not only are other vessels using the wharf besides those of the Albert Manufacturing Company, but that there are scores of vessels, a large number of vessels using it and that it is of the utmost importance to the traders and fishermen in the vicinity.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I rise to a point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have tried to be as fair as possible to both sides and the minister will understand that no new matter can be brought up.


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My point of order is that the Minister of Public Works attributed a statement to the member for Westmorland, which the member for West-orland did not make. The statement of the member for Westmorland was that there were some fishing vessels using the wharf.


William Pugsley: What the member for Westmorland stated was that to his knowledge there were a large number of vessels besides these belonging to the company which were utilizing this wharf, and it was a wharf in the public interest entirely, outside of the Albert Manufucturing Com-

pany's business. Further, it seems to me that the agreement that this company was to maintain its original wharf of 225 feet in length at its own expense and give to the Crown all these privileges over it; was an agreement made in the public interest, and I repeat that it absolutely justified the reporter of the ' Globe ' in making the statement which he did.


Mr. SPROULE.: Might I ask the minister this one question-in that letter from Mr. Osman he says: We will not only allow you to charge for vessels over the old wharf, but the extension which we now propose to make. Does not that imply that the Crown cannot own it? He says:	We
will allow you the privilege of doing so for both the old wharf and the new; as though it was their own wharf.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken as to the language of the letter, but I will say to him that there is no question whatever, and nobody has ever raised a question outside of my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) as to the ownership of the soil right in the wharf which the Crown has built. That belongs absolutely to the Crown, it is built upon Crown property and it is the sole property of the Crown. Now, just one other word and then I am done. The hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) with that sense of fairness, or rather what he would I suppose assume to be fairness, which characterizes him, suggests that this letter which the manager of the Albert Manufacturing Company wrote to me, with regard to giving these privileges upon the wharf originally built by the company, was probably written by myself. I need not answer that suggestion further than to say that those who know Mr. Osman will know that he is just as capable of putting a fair business proposition in a letter as I would be, and a good deal more able to do it than I would be. I can simply say that I never heard of the letter and never saw the letter until it was submitted to me by my officials in the department here at Ottawa. That is the answer which I make to that, and I think that my hon. friend really had begin to devote his attention to somewhat larger subjects; begin to deal with people a little more fairly, and if he does he will not only do more public good, but he will really do himself very much more good than by pursuing the small tactics which he is pursuing.



THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95), an Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden there-Mr. PTJGSLEY.
to, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr.  F. T.@: CONGDON (Yukon Territory), -resuming-Mr. Speaker, this debate has already continued so long that it seems almost necessary that one should offer some apology for venturing to address the House further. I do not suppose that it is possible for either myself or any of the gentlemen who will follow me, to add much interest or refreshment to the topic now before the House. I do not know but we shall be compelled to take refuge in the excuse of Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzzite who after having listened for a long and considerable time to the elders speaking; to Eliphaz the Teemanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite and to Job himself, deemed it necessary that he should apologize for speaking and gave his excuse in the words: I will speak that I may be refreshed. Under the circumstances, Sir, those of us who are deeply possessed of sincere opinions on this subject may feel that if we cannot refresh the House we may at all events have some satisfaction in refreshing ourselves when we speak on this matter. I trust that none of us will be open to the accusing inquiry that came in the whirlwind: * Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge/ I endeavoured yesterday to review somewhat briefly the panics which had possessed the British public in former years. I endeavoured to show that these panics were largely instigated and intensified by the action of elderly men, whose lives had in some cases been spent in warfare, but who had lost somewhat of the nerve and vigour of their earlier years. I mentioned the Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Ellenborough, and Sir Charles Napier. These are the men who at that time added greatly to the panics which possessed the public mind. I endeavoured to show further that none of these panics were justified by the event. Some of them arose out of the fact that men who for long years had been engaged in military and naval affairs appeared to have lost a correct sense of the perspective regarding the British empire. They seemed to believe that the greatness of the British empire was founded on her army and her navy, forgetting that the greatness of the empire which promises to endure is founded not upon a navy or an army, but upon the principles of freedom and justice, which have inspired the people of that great empire. At the adjournment of the debate, I was endeavouring to show the great progress which had been made in a very few years in the construction of the German navy. I pointed out the great difficulties which met German statesmen; that practically the nation had no harbours;
1 that the people had no savoir faire in sea-

manship and that for years it seemed an impossibility to establish in Germany either a naval or mercantile marine. But, by indefatigable zeal and by persistence, the German people have to-day a navy which has to be reckoned with in the polities of the nations. I mentioned also that concurrently with the increase of the German navy there practically disappeared the old wooden ship building industry of Canada. There came to the rescue of the Germans in their effort to found a navy the application of steam power to vessels and the utilization of iron and steel in their construction. The natural aptitude for scientific pursuits of the Germans gave them an opportunity to attain a certain mastery in seamanship. It would have been impossible for them to have become potent upon the sea if the old system of navigation had continued, and if conditions had not so changed as to render no longer necessary that expert seamanship which was required on the old sailing vessels. I referred also yesterday, with some satisfaction, to the announcement made by the Minister of Finance of the abolition of the surtax. I forgot to mention in connection with the panics of former days that they differed from the present day panic in that they were not to the same extent fostered by the yellow press. I think any one who has read the despatches containing the announcement of certain newspapers in England with respect to results which will follow from the removal of the surtax, cannot doubt that the yellow press is to-day a potent influence in fomenting these panics.
It almost leads to the suspicion that they do so for no other purpose than to increase the sales of their miserable papers. The grounds given by the syndicate of papers in England for their opposition to the removal of the surtax on German goods are in line with the remark made by Monck in 1666 when Great Britain was engaged in war with the Dutch. ' The justification of the war,' he said, ' is not this reason or that; but what we want is a greater share of the Dutch trade.' It would seem as if the gentlemen managing these papers in England care nothing at all about the fiscal relations between Germany and Canada, care nothing for the removal of those causes of friction between the two nations which have existed in the past and which to some extent continue to exist today. All they care for is a greater share of the trade of Germany. Let me compare the language used by these papers with the language used by gentlemen in this country to show that the surtax was removed, not in consequence of any result of the British elections, but solely in the best interests of Canadian trade. This fact is expressed in a Toronto paper by a gentleman whose opinions, I have no doubt, will be listened to with great respect by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House-Mr. W. R. Brock, of Toronto, a gentleman well known not only in that city, but throughout Canada generally, and of course also well known to hon. members of this House, of which he was at one time a member. That gentleman is reported in the Toronto ' Daily Star ' as having said of the removal of the German surtax:
It is better than ten Dreadnoughts, and to my mind it affords an excellent opportunity for this country to look into the very great expenditure on ships of war which they are about to undertake. They are always talking about a war with Germany, but it's not war that Germany is after, it is business. The fact that they have made very great concession shows that they are primarily a trading people. Broadly speaking-I like to speak broadly on such matters-it is of much greater importance to Canada to have the good opinion of Germany and the United States than to have a great expense like this navy will be. Peace and commercial intercourse are heralded by this treaty, not war.
And if you go to the root of this matter I believe you will find that it is to no great imperial reason, no idea of conquest, on the part of Germany, that the difficulties between Great Britain and Germany are due, but that they are due solely to the endeavour of each nation to secure the greatest portion of the commerce of the world.
My object in calling attention to the growth of the navy in Germany was to point out, as I have endeavoured to do, that the difficulty which Germany was obliged t>
meet was similar to the difficulty which we had to meet in this country when our wooden ships began to be superseded on the sea by iron ships, and when we had the misfortune not to have developed our resources, nor to have accumulated capital sufficiently to enable us to turn readily from the construction of wooden ships, which required less capital and for the construction of which we had ample material, to the construction of iron and steel ships. That is not the case to-day. In the eastern part of Canada, in the province of Nova Scotia particularly, in consequence of the policy adopted by a former government of the province, of which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was then the premier, the coal trade of the province assumed important proportions and increased to a very great extent. It has since become a most important industry in that province. As the result of the adoption of that policy, we have in Nova Scotia, not only the coal, but the iron and 3teel and all other essentials for the construction of ships. The same thing, or nearly the same, is true of the Pacific coast of Canada. So that for the construction of iron and steel ships we are in as good, nay, a better position in Canada than

Germany was at the time of the first serious decadence of wooden ships, for securing a fair share of the trade of the world.
We in Canada are now in a position, if we so desire, to go into the construction of ships, whether for mercantile or military purposes. To my mind, the real question involved in this discussion may be subdivided into two questions: which is better for Canada, and which is better for the empire? Is it better for Canada that we should adopt the provisions contained in the Bill before the House, and endeavour to initiate and build up in this country a ship building industry; or is it better for Canada that we should take the money of the taxpayers of this country and send it to England in order that all the skill and genius in naval matters should be confined to the inhabitants of the little island across the Atlantic? I venture to say that there can be no question as to which is better in the interest of Canada. And in considering these matters we have a right-possibly a first right, certainly a co-ordinate right- to consider what is in the interest of Canada concurrently with what is in the interest of the empire. To my mind, the only redeeming feature in the initiation of a naval policy is the fact that not only will it secure in this country the ability to construct vessels of war, which can serve as a defence for Canada and as an aid in the defence of the empire, but it will also at the same time, and in the same shipyards, develop an ability in this country to construct merchant ships which can engage in the carrying trade of the world. If we pass money over to England, there can certainly be no such result as that. For my part, I can see no more justification at the present moment for taking twenty or twenty-five millions of money belonging to the Canadian people and sending it to England, and saying to Great Britain, build Dreadnoughts and do what you like with these, we do not want or expect any of it back, than there would be in sending to Great Britain a delegation from the government of Canada to say, we want you to give us twenty-five millions to build ships for the defence of the empire in Canada. This will make you and us more secure than we are at present. Such a proposition would be regarded in England as utterly absurd; but it does not seem to me more absurd than the proposition to send our money to the other side of the Atlantic.
Look at the imperial position of affairs to-day. What do we find? Great Britain never occupied a position of greater naval superiority than she does to-day. All the authorities agree in that. If you read the last annual report of the British Navy League, you will find the statement there made, that during the last year Great Britain has occupied a position of greater superiority in naval matters than she has ever Mr. CONGDON.
occupied before. If you compare the list of British men of war of various kinds, from battleships down to submarines, with those of Germany or of any of the other European nations, you will find that that is absolutely true. From the calculations made by the very highest authorities on the subject, it is stated that if Great Britain absolutely ceased the further construction of battleships until 1919, and Germany carried out the programme-of naval construction upon which she has entered, at the end of that period, the navy of Great Britain would still be superior to that of Germany.
If you look at the reports, you will find that in spite of- this progress of Germany in shipbuilding, the Clyde alone produces more battle and merchant marine than the whole of Germany. And to tell us that in spite of the fact that Great Britain has nearly three battleships and armed cruisers to one of Germany, and that in the matter of tonnage and seamen engaged, she has in the proportion of almost three to one-to tell us that in spite of these facts, this is a period of emergency, that Britain is in danger from the Germans, is enough to make us despise the men who utter such sentiments. We are told that Germany can throw an army into England of 200,000 men and conquer it. Well, if the invasion by 200,000 Germans or 200,000 of any nation, can conquer England, it is about time ~ that England was conquered and some new blood infused into her veins. England cannot be conquered in that way. The idea that she must keep standing armies and be constantly preparing for war, as though Germany and other nations had nothing to occupy them except the idea of conquering Great Britain, is absurd. Britain is not to be conquered in that way. Germany has enough to do to attend to Russia, on the one side, and Austro-Hungary and France, on the other; and it is quite sufficient for her to see That she is safe against the attacks of any of these, without making a new enemy in Great Britain. As it seems to me, the position is this. Great Britain is absolutely safe against Germany. No doubt Germany alone cannot venture to attack Great Britain, nor is she thinking of attacking her. The great thing to do is to establish a circle of protection for the commerce belonging to Great Britain and her various colonies. It is pointed out in Has-lem's work ' The Admiralty of the Atlantic or the Navy League '-but each is equally strongly imperialistic, and whatever they say against any idea of contributing largely to the British navy may be taken as stronger than anything they can say in favour of it-that the only danger to Great Britain from any European combination, is the danger of having to distribute her home forces in order to protect her lines

of commerce. But if we contribute a powerful assistance and leave the navy of Great Britain in the North sea, where it can readily protect the empire against any European enemy, we will be contributing all that is desirable and can be required from us for the defence of the empire at present. The best authorities I can find on the subject indicate that the. great danger to the British empire is not immediate. The danger is that Germany may secure preponderance over Britain in naval matters by becoming able in her shipyards to produce ships faster than Britain can. The danger is that in the race for superiority, by reason, as she thinks, of her workmen and iron and steel and other matters of that kind, Germany may be enabled to outclass Great Britain, and in a given time turn out a greater number of ships. For shipyards are the roots of the navy. Without them you can have no navy. By the policy of the government, we shall not be contributing to the defence of the empire merely for the day. The great objection to the policy of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is that it is a make-shift policy and contains no provision for the future. Whereas the policy of the government is one which decides the way in which, for all time, we can contribute to the defence of the empire. We certainly would be contributing immensely to the strength of the British navy if we^ were able, within five or ten years, to point to three or more naval yards in the Dominion, where we would have material superior in quantity and equal in quality to any in Germany, and have that material ready at a moment's notice to be utilized in building ships of any character we might require. It seems to me absurd to imagine that the whole genius and skill of the British empire are to be centred in those little islands, and that no encouragement or outlet is to be given to the genius and ability of the people of the rest of the empire. They are not to be permitted to qualify themselves at all; _ they are not to be permitted to utilize their own resources in the defence of the empire. No, the only people, apparently according to the leader of the opposition-if one properly reads the implication of his resolution- the only people who have the skill and ingenuity to build ships are to be found in the Briti ish islands, and those descendants of Britain who have crossed to this side, and our other people, have lost all genius and skill in that regard. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not my opinion. I believe that the best interests of the empire will be served, not by contributing to the building of ships in the British islands and the development of the skill and genius to be found there, but by enlisting the abilities and skill and genius to be found in all por-119
tions of the empire, and utilizing them in the constructing of a great system.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


Mr. CONGDON.: 

thought she was bound to display. On the contrary, she has trusted them, and the only way you can secure the allegiance and confidence and loyalty of a people is by that mode which Great Britain adopted in the case of the Boers. And to-day, as the result of that generous treatment, you will find among those men in South Africa, who only a little while ago were fighting British troops and our own sons among those troops, as loyal and devoted sons of the British empire as can be found in any portion of the empire.
The most serious objection which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has offered to the policy of the government is to that clause which leaves to the determination of the Governor in Council when the naval forces of Canada shall take part in any war of Great Britain. One *would imagine that it was an unheard-of thing for Great Britain to be engaged in a war without Canadians being in danger of having their houses burned about their heads by the enemies of Great Britain. Why, if I am not mistaken, Great Britain is at war at the present time, yet most of us know nothing about it except as we gather a few stray facts from some obscure paragraph in the newspapers. Great Britain has been engaged in scores of wars in which Canadians took no part and no interest. And, in future, Britain may be engaged in similar wars. But, of one thing we may be sure, and that is that when war becomes a serious strain upon Great Britain, a danger to the empire, there will be no lack of the loyalty which will lead to the declaration that the military and naval forces of Canada shall take part in that war. It seems to me that the suggestion that there may ever be any difficulty about that matter is a reflection upon the loyalty of Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) seems to doubt himself, his party and perhaps the rest of us. He seems to thihk that we should bind ourselves now for fear that our loyalty may not be sufficient to cause us to do our duty later. But when a war breaks out he can trust Canadians, for I believe the people of Canada are so loyal that no government would desire or dare to withhold the forces of Canada from the assistance of the mother country when that assistance was required. That is all that is necessary.
Some hon. members of this House seem to entertain the idea that it is a sort of treason for us to question any utterance of the British admiralty. But in England they do not so regard the- matter. I notice that my Lord Charles Beresford, who thought it necessary to get into parliament in some way or other, does not reserve himself in his criticisms of the admiralty. He says that the whole thing is guided by espionage, favouritism and other disgusting things.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: But, according to some hon. members, we in this country should be so loyal that we cannot be allowed to question any decision of the admiralty, but, when it has told us what it wants we must yield without a word. For my part, I would sooner be guided by the declarations of the leader of this government in anything regarding the relation of Great Britain and her overseas dominions than I would be by the Lords of the Admiralty, or even by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We have in this country trained statesmen equal to any imperial statesmen of the time. The necessities of our situation, the fact that we have two races in this country, have made it a necessity that our leader should have a power, a diplomacy, a courage equal to those of any statesman. It is much easier to manage Englishmen and Scotchmen together than it is to manage Englishmen and Frenchmen together; and the fact that we have raised up statesmen who have governed the country agreeably to the wishes of their French Canadian constituents as well as to their British constituents, shows that we have developed a statesmanship in that regard which is unsurpassed in the history of the world. The checks and limitations which the leader of the government has placed upon the military forces of Canada, exactly similar to those which have been placed upon the military forces of this country are required by the whole situation not only of Canada but by the British empire. My hon. friend would carry his argument a little further, and, because we have to-day one of the greatest and best kings ever known in the history of the world, would think it insulting to continue in his case the limitations imposed by constitutional monarchy. But I do not think much support will be given to that idea, It is true that we have a great king, a king whom we can trust, in admiration and support of whom we would go to any length. But we think it a wiser principle to confine the operation of every branch of our government to its legitimate sphere and not to allow it to transgress its due limitations. And, notwithstanding our loyalty to our sovereign, notwithstanding the great love in which we have held that sovereign, no one would think of removing one of the limitations upon his absolute monarchy. And the same with regard to the imperial -parliament. It is true, we have confidence in imperial management, but we have so much confidence in their management that we prefer to. leave it to its own proper sphere and to retain for ourselves control of that sphere which properly belongs to us. It is absurd, in my humble judgment, to ask our people to adopt a policy which will take from the responsible governors of this country the control of any large por-

tion of our public revenue and hand it over to the imperial government. And it seems to me that the dangers that would be involved in such a confusion of authority afford the best reason for not venturing upon so unusual an experiment.
I think that the Bill introduced by the leader of the government best expresses what is in the interests of the people of Canada and of the empire. I do trust and hope that circumstances in international affairs may take such a line that it will not be necessary that we should construct any considerable number of ships. But one thing is certain-that, while we will not join in any imperial policy of aggression, while we will not back up any policy which seeks to infringe upon the rights of other nations of the earth, we in Canada will always be ready to yield up every ounce of our influence and every bit of our resources for the maintenance of the great empire to which we belong. We should be lacking in the self-respect which must be the attribute of a great and free people if we were not ready to sacrifice ourselves in order to defend our institutions.	_
I was struck with a statement in the work of Jane on ' Heresies of Sea Power,' to which I before referred in discussing this matter. There are some gentlemen possessed with the idea-and they hold it as though it were a political axiom-that sea power has always dominated the world, and that the nation that has the sea power is bound to be the dominating nation. Jane points out that if you follow the course of history you learn that this idea is absolutely unfounded; there are as many cases in the history of the world in which the nation having no knowledge 'of sea power, no possession of sea power, has conquered as there are instances in which the nation possessed of that power has conquered. If you go back to the old struggle between the Athenians and the Spartans, you find that the Athenians were the finest seamen, while the Spartans knew nothing of seamanship ; yet the Spartans had the fighting qualities and they won out. Ilhen when we come down to the wars between Carthage and Rome we find that, though Cartilage had inherited the great^ sea skill of the Phoenicians, and, at the time when the wars opened actually commanded the sea, and though the Romans did not even know how to build a ship until some unfortunate Carthaginian ran ashore and furnished them with a model, yet the result of the Punic wars was the complete conquest of Carthage by Rome.


Robert Laird Borden: That did not take place until the Romans had become dominant on the sea.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I do not understand-


Robert Laird Borden: Rome first acquired the dominion of the sea, and it was for 1194	! J
that reason that Hannibal had to march through Spain and over the Alps.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: But does my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) mean to say that the Carthaginians had not command of the sea for the first, the second-


Mr. HUGHES.: They lost command of the sea in the first Punic war.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I confess, I cannot understand the interruption. The assertion with which I started was that the nation that had the great sea power met the nation that had no sea power and was ultimately defeated and conquered. My hon. friend points out, in objection, that the nation that had the sea power at first afterwards lost that sea power. It lost it because the nation with which it came into conflict was the greater nation, with the greater courage.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cong-don), but, on the other hand, I do not wish him to misunderstand me. What I said was that Rome did not conquer Carthage until she had acquired dominion of the sea.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: That is quite immaterial to my argument. Of course, I do not object to the interruption, but it is quite immaterial to me to fix the exact time when the sea-power passed from Carthage to Rome. It is undoubtedly the fact that, in the commencement, all the sea-power was with Carthage while Rome had none. I am coming simply to this, that it is not the possession of ships or any of these things that determines ultimately the conquering powers of a race, fitness to win is the determining factor. As Mr. Jane says: It is not ships or the ability to handle them, it is not great commanders or ready obedience, but the sum of the sentiment of every individual combatant. What I urge is that if in Canada we conduct ourselves in such a way as to build up a free democracy, a democracy that does not need a large standing army in order to stimulate a martial spirit, that does not need any of these adventitious aids to martial spirit, we shall be able to protect ourselves, come what may * in our future. I believe we should possess the spirit pictured by Caesar as possessed by one of his lieutenants. He tells in the story of the great and terrible revolt of the Gauls, how one of his lieutenants, in dire distress, had surrendered and was butchered with all his followers. Labienus was in equal straits, but, says Caesar, in splendid praise of his bitter enemy of later years:	In these difficulties he took counsel from the valour of his mind. Difficulties and dangers may assail the Canadian people, but if we see that we build up in this country a vigor-

ous, a stout-hearted, a moral and a righteous people, we shall always be prepared to defend ourselves. It is this fitness to win that is the determining factor. You may get all the ships you want and all the guns, but you must have the men behind them to accomplish much.
Sir James Macintosh has pointed out the change that has taken place in conditions of this kind since men emerged from a state of savagery and a state of despotism into the free institutions of to-day. He points out that in a despotic country it is necessary to have an army as a seminary of martial spirit, in order to prevent the despot sinking into languor and laziness; in order to stir up the best impulses and faculties of the savage, it is essentia] that he should be stimulated at times by the frenzy of rvar; but in this greatest of free communities, the British empire, we need no such stimulants as that. We have, in the habits and modes of our life, that which readily lends itself to the system and genius of war. We have a free people; the point of honour with our nation is not its army, not its navy, but liberty, and if you preserve this liberty throughout the empire, if you preserve the freedom of the individual and of the component parts of this empire, there will be never lacking, either in Canada or any other of the Dominions of Britain, a spirit that will defend that particular portion and assist to the greatest possible extent in the defence of the whole. The people ot Great Britain have never been a people of soldiers, no occasion has arisen on which they have not shown themselves a nation of war-Tiors. I believe the same thing will be true of Canada, that we have to-day' in Canada enterprises that require identically the same skill, as much courage and persistence, as are engaged in the task of war. You have the pioneering population engaged in operations as serious and dangerous as any of those ever taken part in by warriors; you have our whole railway system, which requires as much genius in organizing and operating as are required in the organization and operation of a large army. And so, in all the diverse operations and business of civilized life, you find that which stimulates every faculty of the mind, which stimulates all the best qualities in men and prepares them when there is any danger, to defend themselves without having to go through preliminary drills in awkward squads. What we need is the nucleus of military and naval defence. So far as this Bill carries that out, I am heartily in favour of it. So long as it is only the legitimate and just provision for the defence of this country and contains no threat of aggression on any other nation unless we are attacked, I am in favour of it, and I mistake the spirit of my eountry-Mr. CONGDON.
men if they have not sufficient faith in our genius, to undertake the construction of all the instruments necessary for our defence without sending their money to Great Britain or any other country to be expended for that purpose.
I believe that such a policy is in the interests of this country and of the empire and therefore I shall have great pleasure in voting for the original resolution before the House.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House has listened with a great deal of interest to the very magnificent essay, partly on. philosophy, partly on metaphysics, with a little touch of religion in it some very badly quoted history, a eulogy of the First Minister, a eulogy of the Nova Scotia Steel Works and the natural resources of our country, an apology for every enemy Britain has had and a condemnation of everything that has gone to make up Britain's greatness in days gone by. We have listened to the hon. gentleman along this line yesterday afternoon and to-day, and I am sure he has contributed very little to the matter before the House, the Naval Bill which the government has brought down and the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden). According to this luminary on military and naval matters, the opinions of Lord Boberts, Lord Kitchener, Lord Wolseley, Lord Charles Beres-ford, Hon. Mr. Asquith, leader of the Liberal government, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Haldane, every prominent statesman of to-day-and they are not old men because the Asquith government boasts of being young men-are of no value. These gentlemen are in their dotage, they are old women, to use his own expression, and they know not whereof they speak in warning Britain whereof they know, that Britain is in danger from the sea power as she is from the military power of the German empire. Dreamers are always nice gentlemen to meet but very dangerous men. Bobe-spierre in France was one of the most beautiful types of intellect that could be found in the whole of that magnificent empire. He would weep at seeing any of the minor animals in trouble, a chicken losing its head caused him to shed tears, and yet Bobespierre was the man of all others who drenched France in blood when he got the authority. Dreamers are dangerous men, Sir. My good friend has referred in contemptuous terms to the Duke of Wellington, to Lord Beaconsfield, to Charles Napier, and to numoers of other gentlemen whose names I was unable to catch as he uttered them. He has spoken of the English to-day as panic mongers, and has said that these agitations were gotten up in music halls, by half-pay officers, and that there was no falsehood that has not been

urged in creating these panics in Great Britain against Germany. He went further and condemned the journals of the city of London, the leading newspapers of the world, regarded as such in every land, as a yellow press, and he referred in eloquent terms to the removal of the German surtax as an evidence of the friendliness of Germany. We are all, I presume, more or less pleased at the removal of any trade barriers if their removal will benefit this country. But does any one suppose that the removal by this government of the surtax on German goods was not actuated by the action of Germany? When she penalized the Dominion of Canada, Canada, I say, very properly penalized Germany.
Canada, I say, properly penalized Germany; so that this new concession, this surrender on the part of Germany, is not in the interest of the British empire, not in the interest of Canada, but it is in the interest of Germany herself that this surtax has been removed. The hon. gentleman reproved my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) with daring to speak of the leader of the government as a master of circumlocution and deceit. There is an old maxim that in a corrupt government there is no such thing as patriotic feeling. Its place is supplied by private interest, public fame and devotion to a chief. We found from first to last that the hon. member, in speaking upon this subject, beslobbered the leader of the government -adulation, devotion to a chief-and his only argument against the proposition of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was this: Don't send money to England; keep it in Canada and spend it among the boys. Yet this is the gentlemen who reproves my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier for having spoken in terms that did not meet with his approval regarding the first minister, and in the next moment, in referring directly to the motion and, indirectly to the leader of the opposition, he uses the terms, 'audacity' and 'inconsistency.' There is an old Scotch proverb that would aptly fit the hon. member for the Yukon. I need not quote it because he knows it:
Oh, waud some power th' giftie gi'e us
To see oorsels as ithers see us. I
I will challenge the pages of 'Hansard' for a number of years past to find more reflections cast upon prominent men in Great Britain than have been cast by the hon. member for Yukon upon the statesmen and soldiers of the old land in his speech of yesterday and to-day. Not content with that the hon. member indulges himself in a little-what shall I say?-I must be careful and not use a harsh term -shall I use the term misrepresentation? His language is as follows:
It does not at all depart from but absolutely carries out the conclusions arrived at by the conference of 1909.
He was speaking of the Bill introduced by the First Minister. What was the proposal of the British government as set forth at the conference of 1909? I shall not go farther back, as it has been entered into in detail before. Section 5 of the report, at page 21, says:
In the opinion of the admiralty, a Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, is capable of being used in its component parts in time of war.
Then it goes on to recite what a fleet unit it is. and in section 11 it speaks of a vessel of the Indomitable type as being necessary. Then, referring to the training, it says:
If the fleet unit maintained by a Dominion is to be treated as integral part of the imperial forces, with a wide range of interchangeability among its component parts with those foroes, its general efficiency should be the same, and the facilities for refitting and replenishing His Majesty's ships, whether belonging to a Dominion fleet or to the fleet of the United Kingdom should be the same.
Further, as it is a sine qua non that successful action in time of war depends upon unity of command and direction, the general discipline must be the same throughout the whole imperial service, and without this, it would not be possible to arrange for that mutual co-operation and assistance which would be indispensable in the building up and establishing of a local naval force in close connection with the Royal navy.
In not one solitary point have the wishes of the admiralty, or have the propositions made by the admiralty at the conference of 1909, been carried out by the government in the matter. Our hon. friend enlarged upon the policy of the leader of the opposition in favour of extending $25,000,000 to Great Britain, and our objecting to the construction of this navy in Canada. Why, Sir, where is the evidence that they are constructing their navy in Canada? Not only are they not constructing a navy in Canada, but they are buying British ships and spending money in weakening the imperial fleet in case of war. If they would build ships it would be all right. We have the guarantee of the right hon. the First Minister that these ships are not going to be of assistance to Great Britain in war unless his sweet will dictates that they shall go. Therefore, with Canada buying these ships as she is to-day, suppose Great Britain were engaged in a war in the course of a few weeks, what would be the position of Canada should the leader of the government not see fit to allow these vessels to go? In the first place, Canadian

money would have been spent in Great Britain, and in the second place, the British fleet would have been weakened to the extent of the number of ships she had sold to Canada.


Mr. TALBOT.: Why do the English admiralty sell them if they are weakening their own strength?


Samuel Hughes: I presume they are a lot of old things that they wanted to get rid of." They are unloading on this government a lot of old ships that- they want to get rid of.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: They are not weakening their own strength then.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Congdon) quoted some gentleman named Jane, and declared in the fulness of his eloquence that it was the right of every citizen to discuss the future of this country. We are not disputing that, but when it comes to a matter of legislating for independence, then it is time that the people of this country sat up and understood what was going on. I trust that I shall be able to show before I am through that in the Bill now before the House there is the most sinister attempt at laying the foundation of the independence of Canada that has ever been presented to the public. Our good friend made various other references, but I will discuss them as I pass on. Now, Sir, what has been the policy from start to finish of this question? A mandate was (issued by the conference, in which Canada took part, for the defence of the empire. Last year a resolution was solemnly passed by this House containing a mandate to the government. The absolute unanimity of the House was behind that resolution instructing the government to act. First, there was to be speedy assistance. Does the government's Bill propose speedy assists ance? To my mind it proposes no assistance whatever, and certainly there is no pretense that there will be any assistance forthcoming for the next four or five years. That resolution proposed co-operation. Is there any co-operation provided by this resolution? I fail to find it. That resolution gave the government a mandate last year to stand by the unity of the empire. I fail to find in the Bill proposed any provision for standing behind the unity of the empire. Co-operation means operating together for the same end. I find nothing in" this Bill providing for the operation of these fleets towards the same end. Cooperation means mutual help. The Bill before the House does not guarantee mutual help. It is a jug-handled policy; we are always to receive the help of Britain when we need it, but Canada will help Britain according to her own sweet will. Co-operation means reciprocal assistance, Mr. HUGHES.
and under this Bill there is no reciprocal1 assistance proposed or guaranteed. It means concurrent effort, and under the Bill before the House there is no proposition for concurrent effort Now, Sir, the First Minister was even more equivocal-I hope that will not be offensive, I do not like to say anything that may offend the First Minister, I know he is in a very difficult position. He has played the game so long-appealing with one cry to certain elements in the province of Quebec, and with a different cry to certain elements in other provinces-he has flayed the game so long that the old adage is coming true about the chickens coming home to roost. We can all remember when in 1885 he stood on the Champs de Mars in Montreal, and stated that had he been on the banks of the Saskatchewan he would have shouldered his musket to fight the loyal Canadian soldiers who went to the front. In 1895 and 1896 in the province of Quebec, where it was congenial, he stated in regard to the vote of $3,000,000 for the purchase of rifles for our volunteers, and his friends also stated it: Are you going to put the Tup-per government in power and have your money sent to Britain to buy rifles to have your sons fight Britain's battles in all parts of the world? I need not re,fer to other agitations led by the First Minister. In 1896 the song that was sung in Ontario was: Hands off Manitoba. No coercion of Manitoba, and, quoting from Shakespeare he struck that beautiful attitude which he can so well assume and said: No Italian priest shall tithe or toll in these our fair Dominions. Then, the right hon. gentleman went to the province of Quebec and told the people: 'Will you trust Tupper, a Protestant and an Englishman, or me a Frenchman, and Roman Catholic, put me in power and I will give you a stronger remedial Bill than Tupper will.' I need not follow him down to 1905, and show his attitude at'that time further than to point out " that the chickens are coming home to roost, and in view of his equivocal language in the past I can see the position the First Minister finds himself in. Even though he wished to come up and do his duty to the old empire he has tied himself by his own past actions, so that I can easily make an apology for him which he finds it impossible to make for himself. Had the government brought in a proper Naval Bill, had the government obeyed the mandate of this House last year to give speedy assistance and cooperation so as to maintain the unity of the empire, there is not a single Conservative in this House who would not have endorsed such a proposal. Further, I wish to take my good genial friend the Postmaster General to task. In the speeches of the First Minister, and of the Postmaster General, and of the member for Pictou-I do

not see how the member for the Yukon happened to miss it-they all eulogized the heroes of 1837, and by heroes they mean the cowardly men who went in for misleading the poor innocent habitant in the province of Quebec, and the innocent yeomen in Ontario, and inciting them to commit crimes which led to loss of life and destruction of property. These gentlemen have stood on the public platform, and even in this House in this very debate they have eulogized the rebels of '37 and '38. Why have these gentlemen stood up in this parliament and insidiously endorsed rebellion. The hon. member for Pictou, in his remarks the other day gave a very nice touch to the leader of the government in that regard. He showed how constitutional government had been obtained in the province of Nova jgcotia, and, in censuring the member for Jacques Cartier he said:
I have the same rights here as my hon. friend, I come from a race of men

How proud these gentlemen are of the race whence they sprung.
I come from a race of men who in the little province of Nova Scotia fought the battle of responsible government just as did my hon. friend's compatriots in the province of Quebec.
And now comes the gentle slap at the Postmaster General and the First Minister:
Our people in Nova Scotia won that battle and won it a little earlier and without any particular display, but we won it nevertheless and it is just as dear to us as it can possibly be to the people of any other province in the Dominion.
Then he refers to the ' heroes ' in Quebec and the ' heroes ' in Ontario. Why, Sir, what does history teach about these ' heroes '? I have the facts here, if any one disputes the statement I make. The truth is they deceived and misled the poor fellows who took up arms, and I say here to-day that no man can name a solitary wrong under which these people lived at that time that could not have been easily redressed by an appeal to constitutional methods. I go further and I say that one solitary wrong cannot be mentioned that these people laboured under at that time which could have justified in the slightest a recourse to arms. What was the conduct of the leaders in Ontario and Quebec? The moment they got. the poor, innocent, misguided fellows into trouble, the moment the first shot was fired the leaders skiddad-[DOT]dled.


Mr. C. A. WILSON.: Does the hon. member refer to Dr. Chenier?


Samuel Hughes: Comment?


Charles Avila Wilson: Are you referring to Dr. Chenier of St. Eustache as a man who fled from the battle?


Samuel Hughes: I am referring to Papin-eau, the leader of the rebellion in Lower Canada, and to Mackenzie, the leader of the rebellion in Upper Canada.


Charles Avila Wilson: That will please Mr. Bourassa, the friend of Mr. Monk.


Samuel Hughes: They were leading Liberals for a great many years, and if the hon. gentleman disputes what I say I can give the reference.


Charles Avila Wilson: I will dispute it so far as Dr. Chenier is concerned.


Samuel Hughes: So far as the leaders all over were concerned, they made quick time and left the poor fellows whom they incited to suffer from the evil effects of the rebellion.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is not history.


Mr. E. ROY.: The member for L'Islet will answer that.


Samuel Hughes: These gentlemen opposite endorsed not only the rebellion of 1837-38, but the Northwest rebellions of 1870 and 1885. These gentlemen opposite, in endorsing rebels, are getting the people of this country accustomed to believe, simply because the loyal men of the country do not care to come out and oppose them on every occasion, they are getting the loyal people of the country gradually to believe that there were some wrongs to be redressed in 1837 and 1885.


Mr. PAQUET.: Is the hon. member prepared to prove that the people of Quebec were misrepresented as he says?


Samuel Hughes: Which people?


Eugène Paquet: The people of Quebec.


Samuel Hughes: I don't understand you.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: Would you tell us something about the rebellion of Cromwell?


Samuel Hughes: Cromwell's rebellion was just; the United States rebellion was just; but here in Canada we had two or three rebellions and there was no justification for them at all.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: They won responsible government for us.
Mr. HUGHES I cannot hear the remarks of the hon. gentleman. These gentlemen have whistled that tune so long that they actually believe it. They have endeavoured so long to justify the rebellion of 1885 in the Northwest that they have actually come to believe that it was just.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that the American rebels were right?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, sure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I merely wanted that admission from my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton.
37G7


Samuel Hughes: The First Minister and the Postmaster General may expatiate on the justice of the rebellions of 1837 and 1838, and may talk about the rebels as heroes; but I am willing to let their speeches speak for themselves. I again repeat, they will search the pages of history in vain to find one solitary disability under which the people laboured at that time that would justify them in engaging in a rebellion.
Now, Sir, what are the principles at stake in this naval business? One is the question of immediate heln. Does this Bill provide it? Not in the slightest. At the earliest, it will be four or five years before this little fleet will be ready, and when it is ready it will be of no use. Secondly, does this Bill uphold the unity of the empire? I maintain that from first to last the unity of the empire is threatened by this Bill. We all deplore war as much as the hon. member for the Yukon does; but, as the Scotchman said, ' Nae man can live at peace wi' his neebur unless his neebur lets him'; and before I am through I will endeavour to show that the German nation is determined that her neighbours will not live at peace if she can nrevent it. Under the policy outlined by the First Minister, the wars of the future are to be easy. For instance, if the Yankees fight us, we will fight them, because they are our near neighbours; but he did not think we would be justified in engaging in a war between Great Britain and Russia, which would possibly involve the integrity of the whole empire. One plan of the First Minister is to get up a fleet here and give our boys a chance to get some good jobs in connection with it, and then not go to war at all. Another plan of his, as stated on page 3050 of ' Hansard,' is this: ' If Great Britain got into trouble, a wave of enthusiasm to assist her would sweep over this country and all other British countries.' That wave of enthusiasm would strike terror to the hearts of the Germans. That is one form of strategy proposed by the First Minister. Then, at page 3040, another plan proposed' by him was ' all joining in the case of a common danger and from all points of the earth, rushing upon a common enemy.' Another beautiful plan, in time of war, when we have no fleet ready. His third proposition, which is found on page 3047 of 'Hansard,' is this: 'We would strike the enemy before the enemy would strike us.' This is an old rule in warfare, but I do not see what he would have to strike with under this Navy Bill. We require to have something to strike with or something to rush or something to be carried along by this wave of enthusiasm which the right hon. gentleman talks about. The policy of the opposition is to put something now at the disposal of Great Britain to strike with, and to make these gentlemen sit up in case of trouble.
' Mr. LEMIEUX.
When the hon. member for the Yukon was speaking, I thought of the old prophet Buddha, that apostle of love and peace, who on one occasion was accosted by a tremendous giant, who said to him:
' Lo! son of peace,' the giant cried, ' thy -fate
Is sealed at last, and Love shall yield to Hate.'
The unarmed Buddha, looking with no trace
Of fear pr anger, in the monster's faec,
In pity said, ' poor fiend, even thee I love.'
Then the giant, becoming transformed into the form and fashion of a dove, circling around the head of Buddha, sang:
' Hate hath no harm for Love,' so ran the song,
And peace, unweaponed, conquers every wrong.
I do not see how this escaped my good friend in his comments. The philosopher from the Yukon reminds me of a professor of teaching who heard this story of Buddha, and lectured his students on the proper mode of discipline. He said: 'Of course, punishment must be meted out when a wrong is committed; but when you enter your class, you should always leave your rawhide on your desk and watch the first opportunity. When a boy misbehaves, you should hand over the rawhide to the young delinquent, fold your arms and wait the result. The delinquent will burst into tears, apologize to the teacher, and there will be harmony and peace all round. A number of teachers tried the plan. One morning a pupil committed some depredation and his teacher said to him: 'My little man you have been misbehaving, and punishment must be inflicted, but inasmuch as I prefer to receive it rather than administer it, you take the rod and I will take the punishment; and to his surprise the young lad, unlike the one in his story, picked up the rawhide and belaboured the teacher and chased him out of the schoolroom'. So the fine theory of the hon. member for the Yukon about the people of England staying at home and giving out love stories to the Germans will not work out in actual practice with poor old humanity. Cicero told us long ago that 'war should be waged in order that we may live in peace without suffering wrong'. I am satisfied that Great Britain has had within twelve months provocation to go to war with Germany; but owing to that long suffering spirit which is characteristic of the English nation, she has refrained. William Pitt long ago told the people of England that war with all its evils is better than a peace in which there is nothing but usurpation and wrong; and in case Germany should carry out her intention of going to war with the British empire, no nation would ever have indulged in a more

righteous war than Great Britain would to repel the invader. Douglas Jerrold says:
We love peace as we abhor pusillanimity, but not peace at any price. There is a peace more destructive of the manhood of living man, than war is destructive of his material body. Chains are worse than bayonets.
In regard to some of the arguments that have been advanced as to our duty to build up our material welfare, Shakespeare is my authority for saying that 'plenty and peace breed cowards'.
Now, Sir, I may be asked, why is this naval question in issue at the present time? The German ambassador to the peace conference at the Hague has published recently a curious book, in which he declares that 'the growth of the peace movement involves a national peril'. According to Baron Von Stengel, human progress has more often been the result of war than of peace. 'Athens and Rome', he writes, in his striking chapter on 'the significance of war for the development of humanity'.
Not only in spite of, but just because of tlieir many wars, rose to the zenith of civilization. Great states like Germany and Italy are welded into nationalities only through blood and iron. Storm purifies the air and destroys the frail trees, leaving the sturdy oaks standing. War is the test of a nation's political, physical and intellectual worth. The state in which there is much that is rotten may vegetate for a while in peace, but in war its weakness is revealed. Germany's preparations for war have not resulted in economic disaster, but in unexampled economic expansion-unquestionably because of our demonstrated superiority over France. It is better to spend money on battleships and armaments than luxury, motormania and other sensual living.
Germany to-day has upwards of 4,000,000 men that she can turn into the field at an hour's notice. She has undoubtedly the command of the land, and she aspires to the control of the sea. It is a well known fact that for ages she has aspired, and that recently, she has still more aspired, to the control of Holland and Belgium. She wishes, as she showed by her attitude at the time of the South African war, to disrupt the British empire and obtain control of the British colonies. In this connection I do not know that I can do better than quote from an address made by the hon. member for the Yukon last year, to convince this House that that is the object of Germany. In a speech in this House, reported in 'Hansard' of last session, at page 3526, that hon. gentleman said:
I believe the object in the creation of the German navy is to obtain an outlet of that kind, but I am satisfied that that aim could be best obtained by negotiations with other nations
Where can Germany get the outlet? Can my hon. friend from the Yukon point to any area under the broad canopy of heaven where Germany can get colonies that are not already occupied. Taking him at his word, Germany's aim is to obtain colonies for her trade] and she can obtain these onlv in one way. They cannot be obtained by peace negotiations. The way Germany negotiates is at the point of the bayonet and the end of the rifle. As Britain holds 25 per cent of the land of the globe and 90 per cent of the colonial territory of the globe, the only way in which Germany can obtain colonies is by taking them from Great Britain. And, we have the spectacle of this great empire, the champion of liberty in every part of the globe, threatened by a nation created by herself the century before the last.
Now, I want to touch upon a point about which this House has heard from me before. At the time of the American colonies Benjamin Franklin and other American statesmen proposed the confederation of the British empire. That, proposition was not taken up. In the old days French Canadian gentlemen from the province of Quebec proposed that the colonies should be given representation in the British parliament. Gentlemen from upper Canada many years ago proposed the same thing, and the redoubtable Joseph Howe, in letters and speeches, proposed a federation of the British empire, under which the colonies would have a voice and a vote in the government of the empire and be prepared to take their fair share in its defence. These men were right in assuming that in return for the privileges conferred upon us, we should take our share of the risks and clangers to which the empire may be exposed. I am satisfied that the solution of the problem is easy. A man with the genius of Cromwell or William Pitt or William III. could federate the empire in a year. I believe that if Chamberlain or Milner, or Balfour, or either of the Greys, or Mr. Amery, one of the greatest students of imperial questions, were given the opportunity, any of these men could federate the British empire in six months; and, although I have not the honour of the acquaintance of Mr. Asquith or Mr. Eloyd-George, I believe that either of these gentlemen if he had a heart and soul as broad as his ability, could do the same. The history of colonial and imperial wars proves that colonial assistance which was declared by some of the great men of Canada as monstrous, as contrary to responsible government, as impossible, was supplied "in two weeks' time when the emergency arose. So let the statesmen of today 'not hesitate about the confederation of the empire, which would solve every question that might arise in connection

with armies or navies for the defence of the empire.
In connection with this Bill, it might be well for us to consider for a moment what is the condition of the dominions beyond the seas. The First Minister has said that Canada is going to become independent as fruit falls from the tree, and he told us in his Toronto speech that Canada is a suzerainty-in other words that the King is a feudal lord instead of our soverign lord. We are told, not only by the Prime Minister, but by his followers, that we must maintain our autonomy. I wonder how many of them could define the meaning of the word ' autonomy ' which is constantly in their mouths. We are told also that we are 'sister nations,' with an emphasis on the word 'nations/ and the other day the right hon. the Prime Minister described us as a * daughter nation.' Then hon. gentlemen on this side are charged with attacking the principles of responsible government and imperilling the liberty of the subject, and our friends opposite praise rebellion and use up as much nickel and silver as would furnish a mine in Cobalt or Gowganda in polishing off their expressions which, to my mind, are merely the forerunners of a movement for the independence of Canada. But what means allegiance? What is our duty to the empire? To what do we owe allegiance? In days gone by I had the privilege of running foul of a very distinguished English officer in this country, General Hutton.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That was rebellion.


Samuel Hughes: There are just and unjust rebellions. The rebellion of the American colonies was justifiable. The Quebec Act of 1774 drove that people into rebellion by taking from them what are today the states of Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, and in 1785 the Americans rebelled. Had I been living at that! time, holding my present views, I would have been among them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Tell that to the United Loyalists.


Samuel Hughes: I would tell it to any man. There are mitigating circumstances of course.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are rebels and rebels.
-Mr. HUGHES. Certainly, and my desire to uphold the majesty of the British empire is not actuated by any wish to rub elbows with any red tape authority across the water.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about discipline?


Samuel Hughes: Does my hon. friend know the meaning of the word? Dis-
Mr. HUGHES-.
cipline means polish, education, culture and upbuilding but not repression or tyranny.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The composing room.


Samuel Hughes: My hon. friend knows more about that than any one on this side, in my regard for the upholding of the empire, I am not actuated by any red tape proclivities, but by what is required to accomplish the object I have in view. On this occasion I -had taken the liberty of offering to the imperial authorities the services of a Canadian regiment and I had
23,000	men ready to enlist under me for the South African war. I did observe the proper military or disciplinary course, I did send an application to the general officer commanding, but I also took the course of offering my services to the Minister of Militia. From the latter gentleman
I	received a courteous answer, but from General Hutton I received a reprimand. Haying my doubts as to whether my application through the military channel would go forward-I knew that to General Hutton would not be forwarded-I exercised the right, which I consider belongs to every British citizen in any part of the empire and communicated direct with the home government. I was reprimanded for this direct application. In reply to General Hutton, I used the following language:
II	application to the right honourable the Secretary of State was made in order that should the plan be favourably considered in Great Britain steps might be taken by the home authorities-of course with the consent and approval, but outside of the Canadian government-to enroll such a corps here. In the event of failure of action in Canada, through the failure of the general officer commanding to bring the official military application before the Minister of Militia, or through the Canadian government not deeming it advisable to act in the premises, the imperial authorities would be aware that whether or not the general officer commanding or the Canadian government had faith in such plans, yet the imperial authorities would be made aware of the fact that there are tens, of thousands of Canadians ready to assist in the up-building of the empire by enrolling for active service abroad.
While a Canadian, I am also a British subject, and should Canada try to cut adrift from Britain, I, as either soldier or citizen-
This was written away back in 1899.
-would not be disloyal in recognizing the home authority rather than the general officer commanding in Canada, or the Minister of Militia


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that taken from a sessional paper?


Samuel Hughes: I am quoting from 'Hansard' of 1901, Vol. 1, page 394. My view on the question of allegiance is this: I regard the empire as a pyramid of which the people constitute the great foundation. Then we have minor divisions. We have townships, towns, school sections and so on. We have the. superior divisions of counties, the still larger divisions of provinces, and the larger still of dominions. And over and above all there is the empire. My allegiance in minor matters goes to my own municipality as against the adjoining ones. In county matters, it goes to my own county over its neighbours. In provincial matters it goes to the province of Ontario over all others. In Dominion matters it goes to Canada oveT Australia or any other part of the empire; but in national matters it goes to the empire of Britain and not to Canada. There is the allegiance that I owe; and when the right hon. gentleman talks of suzerainty, let me inform him that he does not understand the question of this country as I believe the fathers of confederation understood it. We want no more prating about autonomy, no more talk about 'ripe fruit dropping off the tree', or about 'sister nations'. Each is supreme in its own sphere and should have a voice in the_ affairs of the empire. But the pyramid is incomplete in three ways. First, the oversea dominions, have as yet no voice or vote in the affairs of the empire. Second, the parliament of Britain is not adapted for administering, under its present constitution, an empire of this kind, and therefore should be remodelled. In Britain thev have their minor subdivisions or counties and shires, but they have no provincial subdivisions and I can see no reason why thev should not, according to my reading of the British North America Act as applied to Canada. Nevertheless has South Africa deemed it advisable to have any provincial
divisions? But in case such should be found to be necessary, I will take the liberty of suggesting that the judicial districts into which England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are divided might be taken as the basis of provincial division in Britain. In England and Wales there are nine judicial divisions, in Scotland three, and in Ireland there are the old provinces of Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. And, if they wish to confer upon these any extra privileges, and any extra provincial power, let us see what could be given them under the British North America Act.
The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding in this Act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant governor.
Nothing wrong about that.
Direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.
Nothing wrong with that.
The borrowing of money on the sole credit of a province.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
The establishment and tenure of provincial offices, and the appointment and payment of provincial officers.
That is necessary.
The management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and the timber and wood thereon.
They have none, so that will not be necessary.
The establishment, maintenance and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province.
I do not see anything wrong with that.
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, chanties and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
I do not see anything wrong with that.
Municipal institutions in the province.
They have these institutions already, and these could be placed under provincial jurisdiction.
Shop, saloon, tavern, and auctioneer and other licenses, in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local or municipal purposes.
No reason why they should not have that.
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes,

Then follows a list that are excluded. Incorporation of companies with provincial objects.

That seems all right.
The solemnization of marriage in the province.
I do not see why that should be a' provincial matter.
Property and civil rights in the province.
That might be all right.
The administration of justice in the province.
The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty and imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section.
Generally, all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
-and under our constitution-education.
I do not know whether, in Great Britain, they woud take in education or not. But, if they want provincial government, I do not see where they could get a better basis than by taking the old judicial divisions.
Now, to come to the British parliament -and I wish to make a distinction between the British parliament and the parliament of Greater Britain-this parliament should be erected into the parliament of Greater Britain, and there could be a separate, minor parliament, to manage the affairs of Great Britain. If that were done, the jurisdiction of the parliament of Greater Britain could include every dominion beyond the sea, and that parliament could deal with inter-imperial matters, international affairs, defence questions, trade and commerce, a tariff for imperial purposes, and an imperial court of appeal. Each dominion should have its own tariff. The sovereign would be the King of England. The upper House would be composed of members elected for life, and the lower House of members elected for a term of years. The capital should be London, and, during the first two years of each parliament members should visit the dominions of the empire. If we elevate the British parliament into a parliament, of Greater Britain, the door would be opened for representation of the colonies. When our good friend the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was speaking on this question early in the session, he recited a very beautiful incident in connection with the agitation in Rome following the execution of the Spanish patriot, Ferrer. When a number of the clergy from Canada, resident in Rome for educational purposes, found themselves in danger from a mob,_ they sought protection under the old Union Jack, that 'herald of mercy, as well as of might.' And I can easily understand how they would realize the sentiment expressed in the beautiful lines of Eliza Cook:


Samuel Hughes: Then, then did out hearts learn how precious can he
The fair streamer of England-the flag of the free!
When he was speaking of this incident, I noticed a blush mantle the cheek of the Prime Minister. It was enough to make any Britisher, any Canadian wherever he may be, blush to think that here we are sheltering ourselves under the folds of a flag to whose upkeep we do not contribute a man or a dollar. The Prime Minister in his remarks grew eloquent, as usual, over the contrast between Great Britain and imperial Rome. He spoke of the surprise that a Roman citizen of the time of Augustus would have felt had it been foretold to him that that far-off dependency of Rome, Britannia, should attain the prominence in the world of affairs that it holds to-day. And he said the answer would be:
That is Utopia; force and force alone can build and maintain an empire.
Let me remind the Prime Minister that every empire in the history of the world has been acquired by force and by force- I was about to say, by force alone-but it is certainly true to say that every empire was acquired by force. In this connection,
I am reminded of a remark of my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) who quoted the Latin maxim, Si vis pacem, para bellum, ' If you wish peace, prepare for war.' This was enlarged by Washington, who said, that the most certain way to defend a nation was in neace to be prepared for war. My good friend (Mr. Congdon) quoted from Sir Spencer Walpole, who, in this regard, said, that the world had changed and that victory now depended not so much upon the long sword as upon the long purse. Lei; me remind him of the case of the Franco-German war. France was worth two dollars for every dollar of Germany's, yet this rich nation was brought to her knees in a few days. Within two months of the beginning of the war, France was not only conquered, but humiliated in the dust before Germany -France, next to England, at that time undoubtedly the richest nation in the world. In that connection, let me call the attention of the hon. gentleman to a maxim of Machiavelli, that all the armed prophets have conquered and all the unarmed prophets have perished. Let me remind him also of the famous expression of one whom the hon. gentleman belittled, that the Lord is found on the side of the best disciplined, best drilled and heaviest battalions. These are standard maxims and require no further explanation. Let us get back now to the First Minister's reference to Utopia. This is not the first time the right hon. sren-tleman has used the word. When I ^ap-proached him on the subject of sending

men from Canada to assist in the South African war, he said that my ideas were Utopian-as did others. Yet, he found his Utopia had vanished in two short weeks. Within that time colonial assistance in imperial wars became an actual fact-to remain a fact, 1 believe, for all time. One week carried the Prime Minister in favour of the federation of the empire in 1899, and, I believe, that in relation to the question of the navy, one week would change him as it did then.
Now, why is this Bill introduced, and why is the amendment introduced? Again, I ask, has the Bill carried out the mandate of the resolution of last session? Had it done so, so far as I am concerned-and I believe I speak the views of every member on this side of the House-there would have been no amendment. But the Bill did not carry out the mandate of that resolution. Owing to the impulse created by the old spirit of the colonies as exemplified in the war of 1812, and when rebellions were put down in 1837, in 1870 and in 1885, by the loyalty which stands true to the empire and is characteristic of Canada on all occasions, the question came up of assisting Britain in her troubles across the sea. This spirit culminated in the union of the empire's forces in the South African war of 1899-1902.
And then Great Britain learned two things; she learned the inestimable value of the colonies, and she learned that the hand of Germany was behind the scenes seeking to disrupt the empire in the South African war. Germany is after Britain's colonies. It is known that in 1896, three years before the war, she officially notified the British government that German interest demanded the independence of the Transvaal. If Germany had had a fleet then, what would have been the result of Britain's refusal to recognize that demand? War-and as Germany is always dabbling and mixing up in the foreign policy of other nations, upsetting long-established policies, when she has a fleet, the first time she is rebuffed there is going to be war. I have not one word to say againjst the German people. They are a credit to humanity, to the world. They are a shrewd, law-abiding, true, devoted, patriotic people. They are a peace-loving people, and when the war with France was about breaking out in 1870, not thousands but millions of the residents of the German empire petitioned the sovereign not to go on with the war against France. But the policy was laid down, the plan was to carry on war against France, because they fofind France in an awkward position, and the prayers of the people were unheeded. So, although the German people to-day do not want war, thev are a peace-loving nation, nevertheless the policy of the German nation undoubtedly tends towards war with
Great Britain. Britain found these people scattered, disjointed into a lot of principalities, where the hireling soldiers of Europe were obtained prior to the wars of Frederick the Great. Britain backed Frederick the Great and established the Prussian Kingdom, and later at Waterloo they broke the power of Napoleon for ever. Britain continued t-o uphold Prussia, and the great. North German Confederation was established. About- 1870 Britain practically coaxed Germany into becoming a colonial empire. German Southwest Africa was practically the first important colony that Germany ever possessed. She got it through a little incident that occurred near Walfish bay, when Gladstone called on Germany to police these areas and bear her fair share of the.white man's burden. In other words, Germany is a creation of Britain, created as a barrier against tyranny, created for the preservation of peace, and today her own creation threatens the dissolution of her own empire.
Following on this period of German expansion, like others who become opulent, she became arrogant and still further grasping. Going back to an old quarrel of hundreds of years previous, she seized from little Denmark, Schleswick-Holstein in 1864. In 1866 she humbled Austria in the battle of Sadowa. Then came a period of intrigue between Bismarck, representing Germany, and Napoleon the Third, repre-seting France. The plan was this: Germany was to have the southern German states: Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Baden, and Holland. In return for that divvy-up, France was to have the left bank of the Rhine, including Belgium, down to the sea. When the Franco-Prussian war broke out and these plans became European property, in answer to Britain's demand for an explanation of this, Bismarck said that he did not want to unsettle the state of Europe by telling what the Emperor was always up to, that he paid no attention to his suggestions. Certainly he paid no attention, he played him, he led him on, he knew that France was being disrupted, that the Republican party was growing stronger in France, and that the power of Napoleon was not great. He listened to Napolean, he encouraged and fomented discord in France, and when the time was ripe, he struck and struck right home. In this regard, let me point out what the aims of Germany then were, and are now known to be. They practically had South Germany. They wanted Alsace-Lorraine, which was settled by Germans, they wanted the left bank of the Rhine, and they wanted French Flanders and Havre, as well as Holland and Belgium, and had it not been for the intervention of European nations in 1870, Germany would have carried out her

plan. These facts are known in diplomatic circles the world over, and yet gentlemen will tell us that this truly pacific nation has no designs on her neighbours. I see in the press this despatch from the Hague: The Hague, Feb. 10.
: In the first chamber of the states general yesterday, Baron von Heckeren asked the minister of foreign affairs if he intended to take steps to guarantee the integrity of the Netherlands in regard to Germany- and Great Britain, explaining when questioned that he did so because 'a neighbouring sovereign had intimated a few years ago he would be obliged to have Dutch territory occupied if Holland had not placed herself in a state of defence against Great Britain.
The minister pressed for further details, but the Baron declined to reply and the debate thereupon closed. It is understood the Baron referred to the Emperor j>f Germany.
So that to-day what do we find? Germany with her iron hand on Holland, Krupp the great gun maker, by arrangement with the German government is placing his guns, made in his own factory, in every fortress in Holland and it is Krupp who lays out the plans of the forts, not the Dutch administration, so that practically to-day Holland is a German province, and if Germany should get control of Austria's and Italy's fleets should assume control of what is under her influence to-day, the navy of Holland, and should seize Belgium, where would England be, with all her double fleet against such a combination? Of course France would undoubtedly ally herself with Britain because France was the first country Germany wished to humiliate. They would humiliate France and then Britain would be an easy mark. That is the policy of the German empire, and yet we are told we must sit with our hands folded and develop our home resources and do nothing for the development of this great empire. More than that, Sir, Germany ran foul of Great Britain the moment she established her fleet. In 1879 in Samoa, the United States and Great Britain having had previous occupation were intruded upon by Germany and they had t-o put her in her place. Then Germany was stepping in to plant her colonies in South America, seeking to obtain control of established governments there. The United States quietly again reminded her that there were others on the continent besides Germany, and that these countries possibly could look after themselves as well as Germany. Then we know that she meddled in Persia, in Turkey, in the near east, in the far east, in China.
When the United States were at war with Spain the German fleet ranged itself on the side of Spain as much as to say: We shall protect Spain in possession of these islands, and the Yankees will keep to their own Mr. HUGHES.
side of the water. Thereupon the old Britisher lined his fleet up alongside the Yankee fleet, and but for that Germany .would have taken part in the war against the United States, and would have endeavoured to obtain possession of the Philippine Islands for herself. We all remember the Kaiser Wilhelm telegram to Kruger in 1896, and the official note of the German government to the British government that the interests of the German government demanded that the Transvaal should remain an independent republic. Then, Sir, even after the humiliation caused him by the sending of the Kruger telegram, the Kaiser stated that in the near future the trident, that is the oontrol of the sea, must be in German hands. In spite of this and a thousand other instances that I could give, we find hon. gentlemen standing up in this House, belittling the best statesmen and soldiers of Great Britain, siding with Germany, saying that there is no cause for alarm, and that if there is any cause for alarm Britain herself is responsible for it. Take the South African war; we know to-day what the plan was. Germany and Russia, together with France, which was not too friendly then over the Fashoda affair, were to join hand in hand in establishing South African republics and in driving the British flag into the sea off the Cape of Good Hope, and from the British dominions as far as her colonies were concerned. The plan was afterwards given away by one of the Russian diplomats. But, these powers hesitated -when they saw that the colonies, including Canada, in spite of the First Minister, rallied to the defence of the flag in South Africa. Only last year Germany almost precipitated a war in Europe. She sought to humiliate France in connection with the Morocco incident, although she had no more to do with it than a child, and she sought to humble her upon another occasion, but Great Britain stood behind France, France stood her ground, and for the time being Germany withdrew. Then, only last spring again we know that Austria, with Germany behind her, took Bosnia' and Herzegovina and wiped them off the map of Europe, and if Russia had been prepared, war would have resulted. This was all owing to the fact that the German Emperor and his army are so all-powerful. Now we find ourselves face to face with the construction of one of the most tremendous fleets that has ever been raised up in any country. Germany wants colonies. The hon. member for Yukon suggests that she may obtain these by peaceful negotiation, but- that is not Germany's mode of getting these things. She gets them with the iron hand of war. She is determined to get them and there is no nation she can get them from except from Great Britain. She wants coaling stations, she wants markets, and she wants shipping, and if she gets them she

must get them from Great Britain. By her action in connection with her reference to this surtax business, by removing her objections, she is showing that she is ready to try and cajole and dicker with the colonies. How is the British nation meeting this? What are the British people doing? They are telling us what a great people they are, they are talking of their prestige, they are recalling the days of Agincourt, but ancient history never maintained a nation. It may inspire it, but it does not maintain it. She is blowing and blustering of her own greatness. They tried the Hague conference with Germany. You have heard the story of the German ambassador at that conference. Then they tried to coax Germany. They said: We will not build any more warships if you will not, but while the British ambassadors were at the conference the Germans laid down the keels of another couple of Dreadnoughts. Then Keir Hardie, John Bums, and other British statesmen, said: ' We think we will try slobbering. Germany listened to them, and although Great Britain had stopped laying down keels, Germany laid another keel or two. Then she formed an alliance with France and Russia, the only sensible thing that she has done, although this had the tendency to make Germany go on and build warships. Then, a number of radical members of parliament went over, these members of parliament are splendid people to get people out at elections, but they tried their cajolery in vain on the Germans. They drank their wine, ate their bologna sausages, and toasted each other, but the Germans laid down two more keels while they were there. Then, they said we are going to strike the fatal spot; we will make arrangements with the socialists and the labouring men in England, and the socialists and labouring men in Germany, and get them to agree that they will not dig any more coal in war time. In Britain the labouring men were a unit in favour of playing the game, but in Germany the socialists mined enough coal to last, five or six extra years, and that scheme fell through. Then, they tried another plan. They said: We are relatives. We have heard the First Minister at this same game. I guess he had heard of it across the water. We are relatives, we are allies, we are friends, and we are Christians with a capital ' C '. They shouted ' Hurrah for King William ' and stopped building Dreadnoughts. Germany reciprocated, admits that they are relatives, allies and Christians, and they cry ' Hoch der Koenig, Edward VII. But, in the meantime they get control of the British market, get the British naval plans and lay down the keel3 of four or five Dreadnoughts. So that Germany has shown that she does not go duck hunting with a brass band. The Germans continue to look after their own interests and they are looking after their own interests in no uncertain way. Thi3 reminds me of an old axiom which I have already repeated to the House, but a good thing can stand repetition. It is contained in the work of one of England's finest poets, a woman in whose breast there glowed the proper spirit. I wish she had the management of affairs in Britain with the spirit which she displays in this poem. I refer to Eliza Cook:
Never trust the soft breathing that preaches of peace,
With a pledge-giving lip and a smile-lighted eye;
Hear it all with good-will but be provident still
With men that are earnest and powder that's dry.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess,
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I drew attention to the fact that last year it was rumoured that the German Emperor had interfered with Holland in regard to her defences. And in connection with that I shall read the following despatch which appears in the newspapers dated from the Hague on the 15th of this month:
The Hague, Feb. 15.-Baron van Heeckeren sent his promised statement to the Senate today in regard to his charge that Emperor William of Germany had told Holland that if she did not fortify certain points against Great Britain, he, the Kaiser, would be compelled to do so.
It will be recalled that when Baron van Heeckeren made the statement abour ' a neighbouring sovereign ' threatening Holland in regard to her military preparedness against Great Britain, the foreign minister demanded specific proofs. Later Dr. van Swinderen, the foreign secretary, denied absolutely that Queen Wilhelmina had ever received a threatening communication from the Kaiser.
In his letter to the Senate to-day Baron van Heeckeren says he received informatien from Dr. Kuyper, the former prime minister. He adds that the matter was frequently discussed between them.
It would thus appear that this peaceful nation of Germany has already Holland practically under her control. As I pointed out a short time ago, the German Krupp firm is not only making guns for Holland, but has charge of placing them in strategic positions, and you may be sure they will not be placed to the disadvantage of Germany. I understood the hon. member for Pictou to say that when the national policy was introduced, and when it was pointed out that it might be bad for Britain, Sir Charles Tupper said: So much the worse

for British connections. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) cannot find any authority for attributing that statement to Sir Charles Tupper. The hon. gentleman made another reference to Sir Charles Tupper, and that was that Sir Charles had written a letter to the leader of the opposition asking him to support the naval policy of the First Minister. But what Sir Charles Tupper said in that letter was:
I read with pleasure the resolution passed unanimously by the House of Commons, which pledged parliament to proceed vigorously with the construction of a Canadian navy and to support England in every emergency.
That was the recommendation made by Sir Charles Tupper, and instead of this government following that recommendar tion they have departed from it in its first essential ' in every emergency.' Gentlemen on the other side have complained that in connection with this question the charge of graft has been levelled against them, but I will read the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who, if not a minister, is an embryo minister. and we will see from it the plane on which he puts the establishment of a Canadian navy. The hon. member for Pictou said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the object of this government in proposing this policy is that this navy is to be constructed in Canada, by Canadian workmen, in Canadian workshops, and that it is to be a Canadian navy, primarily for the defence of Canadian interests.
And this afternoon the member for the Yukon told us that the only redeeming feature of the navy was that it would lead to the construction of these ships in Canada. There is no spirit of patriotism in such remarks, none whatever. Every sentence of every speech delivered from the government benches so far enunciates the maxim of la Bruyere: that under a corrupt government there is no such thing as patriotism, its place being supplied by private interest, public fame, and devotion to a chief. That is what we see on the other side of the House. No nation would engage in war unless fairly certain she is going to win, and if the British empire wants to preserve her position unsullied before the world she is in duty bound to prepare for war. We have been told by gentlemen on the other side of the House that the plans of Germany are directed towards obtaining colonies; the member for the Yukon told us that Germany wants to obtain them by peace, but the real fact is that Germany wants to obtain them in her own way: by blood and iron. Canada has a duty in this crisis, and Canada's duty is to be ready by sea and land to defend the mother country. In this con-Mr. HUGHES.
nection, I may refer to an incident which occurred in the Franco-Prussian war. The French rifle in 1870 was superior to the German rifle, and although the French rifle far out-ranged the German rifle, a prominent German officer who led his corps at the battle of Weissembourg, declared that while his men came under the French fire at 1,700 yards, yet between 1,700 and 600 yards not one man was struck by a French bullet, which went to show that at the beginning of the war the French were bad shots. Later on they became better trained, and in the succeeding battles they gave a better account of themselves. In the American civil war the southern soldiers, who were excellent shots, although armed with muzzle-loading rifles, made it absolutely impossible for the northern army to advance on their position. In Canada, and the other colonies of the empire, are to be found expert shots, who, when they come to the assistance of Britain, I am satisfied will more than give a good account of themselves in any struggle in which they may take part. The hon. member for the Yukon, in his address, compared the militia law of this country with the naval law, but he forgot that there was an essential difference between the mobilization of the militia and the mobilization of the navy. It is good old English law that parliament should be called when war is declared, and that is a good sound principle in Canadian law so far as the militia is concerned. In the Franco-Prussian war it took weeks before the German army could Be mobilized, although it was supposed to be the best organized army in the world, and there was plenty of time to call parliament, and as a matter of fact the German parliament was called. In the case of our militia it, of course, would take some time to mobilize them, and it is quite right that parliament should be summoned when the militia is called out, and there would be plenty of time to do that. But in the case of a naval war the clash comes like a lightning flash. A war may break out to-day and a German ship may he in some harbour, or lying outside the three mile limit, and the music begins at once. So that a navy must of necessity always be ready to take the sea for active service, whereas an army and a militia are not necessarily in the same position.
Let me draw a contrast between the two policies. The government claim that they are adhering to the resolution passed last year, whereas we take the position that they are not carrying that resolution out in any essential point. The policy of the leader of the opposition provides immediate help. In furnishing two Dreadnoughts, it gives the necessary security, whereas the policy of the government is

simply one of promise. Their fleet will not ! be completed, and they do not profess that it can be completed short of five years unless they buy their ships from England. The policy of the opposition is an imperial navy under the one flag, united and strong, under which Canada will have ample protection. The place where the farmers of Canada require to be protected is the North sea, because there is the danger point, although in some future day the centre may be changed and the danger point may be in the Mediteranean. Canada is not in any danger on the Pacific slope or the Atlantic sea-board, but in the North sea. Germany at the furthest is but two days sail from the British shores, and if she succeeds in taking Holland, she will be within only a few hours sail of the British coast, so that Britain has to be ever on the alert, not knowing when the German fleet may advance on her coasts and attack her navy. - The policy of the opposition is one imperial navy, ready to be concentrated at a moment's notice at any given point. But the policy of the government is to have a Canadian navy acting independently and restricted to our own coasts, and which consequently could not give any effective assistance in an emergency. The policy of the opposition is to provide an effective navy and at the same time do so as economically as possible. Not that we object to proper expenditure, but we desire that every dollar should be expended where it can have the most effect; and when the time comes for a reference to the people, and the people will draw a contrast between the government policy of a Canadian navy, not acting automatically in concert with the imperial navy, and which will only go out to service when the Prime Minister of Canada gives the order, and the policy of the opposition which will provide a navy ready to take service at all times, I have no doubt as to what the verdict will be. Under our policy, while we would provide at once an effective navy, the cost to the country would be only $800,000 a year, whereas, under the government policy, which would only provide a navy in some five years, the cost will be infinitely greater -upwards of four and a half million dollars per year. Then the navy outlined by the government cannot guarantee protection to our trade and commerce on the sea because it would not be concentrated with but would act separately from the British navy. On the other hand the policy proposed by the leader of the opposition *does guarantee protection to our trade and commerce; and all that we would spend on this line would be well spent, even though we had to pay the same every year for all time to come. In fact, as an insurance on our trade and commerce, it would be a very small contribution indeed. The policy of the opposition would tend to 120
promote peace by letting Germany see that, not only the motherland, but the colonies of the empire are prepared to do their duty. On the other hand, the policy of the government has the tendency to create uncertainty and to disunite and disintegrate the nation.
The policy of the leader of the opposition is automatic-when Britain is at war Canada is at war, and our ships, trained in the imperial navy, are ready for action. Let me point out as an answer to those who criticise this aspect of the case that long before the Franco-Prussian war, an arrangement was come to by the independent kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemburg and the Grand Duchy of Baden with Prussia, that the moment the commander in chief of the German army issued the order, the troops of these three nations would automatically, be at the unrestricted disposal of Prussia. If then, for the purpose of the German empire, Prussia could make such an arrangement with Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Baden-three absolutely independent nations-so t-hat their troops would Ire at the order of the King of Prussia, and automatically take the field under his command, the moment war broke out, why should not such an arrangement be arrived at between Britain and her colonies. Much greater is the necessity that the troops and the navies of the colonies should, when the emergency arose, be at the command af the parent government. When the parent government felt the emergency coming, no doubt we would all be consulted, but when the emergency arose our navy would automatically fall under the command of the imperial authorities, and we would have combined training as well as united strength. The position of the government reminds me of the captain of a company of Fenians down near Huntingdon border at the time of the Fenian raid of 1870. He lined his men up against the border and he said: Now boys, before you is Canada and behind you is the United States, I want to ask you one question: Will you fight or run? The answer came nromptlv. we will. Again, he said, I repeat the question, will you fight or will you run? Again came the answer, we will. And the captain said: I knew you would. And just the some farmers along the border who had heard the fellows were coming over, let into them and they soon knew which they would do. In like manner this policy of a Canadian navy, hedged up and kept at the disposal of the government of Canada until the Prime Minister gives his sanction to its going to the support of the motherland, possibly untrained and unequipped, with a lot of officers better posted in balls and dances, which take up most of their time while dallying around our harbours, will hp about as effective as this Fenian corps who



were routed by the Huntingdon farmers. Besides our ships would be such small ones that they dare not go within range of the enemy. A small ship carrying light runs is to-day absolutely useless, because their guns will reach only five or six miles, while the 12 or 16 inch guns on the larger vessels, can be effective for a distance of 15 miles.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, has proposed a policy which will give automatic assistance to the mother country. More than that, our vessels, officered and manned under our policy, will be trained in the British navy, whereas under the policy of the government they would not. Our policy would make them ready to fight at a moment's notice, which would not be the case under the government's policy. The right hon. the Prime Minister himself has said that the United States is the only enemy with whom we might possibly fight. But there is no chance of the United States and this country ever coming to a quarrel. Reference has been made to the fact that the Americans have training ships along the inland lake. Well, so far as I am concerned, I would be delighted to see an American training^ ship at every large American port on our inland lakes and a Canadian training ship at every port on the Canadian side. What difference would it make? If war came it would make no difference, but war is absolutely impossible between these two nations. When Britain and her colonies are incorporated together, I look to an offensive and defensive alliance being reached between Britain and the United States and possibly France, Japan, which will guarantee the peace of the world for years to come; and I think that the right hon. the Prime Minister was very impolitic in his suggestion that the United States is the only nation he could think of against which he would allow his ships to go and fight.	1	]
Now, I come to the great"material difference between the two policies. Under the policy of the leader of the opposition, the Union Jack would fly from these ships; under the policy of the government the Union Jack would not fly from these ships.


Mr. FOWKE.: What would fly?


Samuel Hughes: I am just going to explain the position to the hon. member. In a memorandum on page 24 of the Defence Conference report is found this paragraph:
The question of the flag was also discussed, and it was arranged that the admiralty would give the matter consideration and would communicate its views at a later date to the Canadian government.
What need was there for discussing the flag? The fact is that the old Union Jack flies over the parliament of Canada-and


Samuel Hughes: a number of us intend that ft shall long fly there. And it would be sufficient to have the old Union Jack flying from the Canadian fleet.in case one should be constructed. I should be glad if the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had been here, or some member of the government who knew something about this question, to tell us what is meant by that paragraph in this report that * the question of the flag was also discussed.' Perhaps the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) could tell us?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not making the speech, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HUGHESf Is the hon. minister listening to the speech?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, every word. I know all about the old flag.


Samuel Hughes: What we want to know is that the old flag shall fly.


William Stevens Fielding: We will look after that.


Samuel Hughes: I can give the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a guarantee that there are lots of the boys who will look after it if he does not. If he does not do it willingly, he will do it anyhow-he will go as the fellow went with the bayonet behind him. The policy of the Conservative party is that the old flag shall fly, and the policy of the government is that the old flag shall not fly.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend (Mr. Hushes) knows, why does he ask me?


Samuel Hughes: I want to commit the minister. But it seems impossible to get these gentlemen committed. They plead the equivocal. They say: We will lock after that-and when the time comes they do not look after it. But, leave non-essentials aside, and let there be fair warning that, when the hour arrives, the old flag is going to fly.
Canada cannot declare war, there is no doubt about that; she is not a nation, not even a sister nation, and she cannot declare war, and rightly so. Nor can she prevent her people from taking part in the defence of the empire. No matter what the orders may be from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, neither he nor any other power in Canada has authority to prevent the Canadian who wishes to do so from serving the empire. In peace or war, the Canadian flag has no authority beyond the three-mile limit, and is not recognized beyond that. Suppose that war were to break out, and one of our ships were down in South American waters, or in the Mediterranean-


An hon. MEMBER.: How could it get so far?


Samuel Hughes: Suppose it were towed there, or engineered somehow. If war were to break out at that time, what would hap-

pen in the case of that ship? The First' Minister is considering whether he will take part in the war or not. What flag does that ship fly in the meantime? The British flag? Then, if so, the first ship of the enemy that comes near her, lets into her and down she goes. But suppose those on board do not know what flag to fly- Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his cabinet have not decided whether they are going to let us fight ox not. Of course, the boys are always ready to fight; but .suppose even it is decided not to fight, and the flag is taken down. What is the position of that ship? She is a common pirate; and not only the enemy's ships but the ships of every nation would be bound to capture her, for that is the law of nations. In war or peace our ships must fly the Union Jack or nothing. And, as I have said, our intention is that the Union Jack shall fly. The First Minister has spoken of responsible government, and his word is being? repeated. Now, I would like to point out that the policy of the. leader of the oppo->
sition maintains the policy of responsible government, and the policy enunciated by the First Minister departs from that principle. A few years ago, this country freely voted a sum of money-I think it was $250,000-to the relief of the poor in Ireland. Would any one maintain that because of that vote we were under tribute to Ireland? At a later time we voted money to San Francisco-did that mean that we were under tribute to the United States? We voted money to relieve the sufferers in Sicily: were we departing from the principles of responsible government in doing
SO?


Mr. HARTY.: And to France the other day.


Samuel Hughes: We voted $50,000 to France the other day-a splendid country. I wish some of our hon. friends opposite had as sound ideas of freedom as they have in France in many things.


William Stevens Fielding: Have not we French domination? I have heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) say that.


Samuel Hughes: Never.


William Stevens Fielding: I apologize. I have heard it stated that we were suffering from French domination.


Samuel Hughes: There is a wing of the French element which is trying to make us suffer, but fortunately there is another wing that tries to keep things in proper shape. Will any one say that because of the vote given to France the other day, we are subject to the domination of France? Not for an instant. We were standing by the principle of responsible government in every one of these votes. We appropriate money for the exhibitions in foreign coun-120J
tries-hundreds of thousands. Are we then, subject to the domination of Belgium and these countries to which we send our officers with our exhibits? We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for lighthouses and other means of protection for the commerce of the world on our coasts. Are we subject to the nations that are thus benefited? No. The money was freely voted. In voting it, we stand by the principle of responsible government, and we seek no subterfuge, and make no equivocation. But what is the position of the government, as we find in the speech of the First Minister? They are quoted in many parts of the country as being in favour of helping the motherland, but when we come to analyse them, you find that the ship he is proposing does not fly the British flag. And what is going on in Quebec to-day? Why, it is whispered about: ' Never mind; vote this money; it is all right; it means Canadian independence.' The First Minister tells us that he is accused on both sides-accused of being too loyal, and accused of not being loyal enough. But there is no question as to our position-we are standing by the principles of responsible government, and we aTe not obtaining the money for our policy by false pretenses. Under our policy Canada would have a voice in the councils of the empire, because Canada, having contributed these ships to the navy, would be represented on the imperial defence committee, and her voice would be heard, not only in the management of the ships, but on the question of war or peace. Our policy is a policy for the whole empire, and not a policy for Canada alone.
There are four or five ways in which Canada could have helped the motherland in this extremity, and of those four or five ways the government has chosen the worst possible way from Canada's own point of view or the point of view of the empire. The first policy is that of the government of Canada having a navy no matter where it is bought, controlled by Canada-and we know what that means-which may or it may not be loaned. There is the policy of . the government in a nutshell, and as I pointed out before, the British flag is not necessarily the flag that floats over that navy.
The second policy is that proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), a direct contribution in the meantime, and then we will be prepared to fight out at the polls whether the policy of the government is the one that should be upheld^ or not. That policy would fly the Union Jack.
The third policy would be that outlined by the admiralty, an imperial navy with docks, naval schools, training ships, etc., in Canada, so that whether we confederat-
.	3791

ed or remained as we are, we would do somethin? towards the upkeep of the empire, That policy, too, would fly the British flag.
The fourth would be a combination of a *direct contribution and an imperial unit, working in harmony with the admiralty. Jack would fly from the masthead.
The fifth is the one to which I have adhered for many a long year and which I trust will come within a very few years, a confederation of the empire, a full partnership on a union basis. That would combine all the good that is in the others and we would have the manhood of the nation elevated, there would be no complications in the matter, and the old Union Jack would fly from the masthead.
The only one of all these policies concerning^ which there is any doubt as to the position of Canada is the one that the government has selected, and why is that? Why? All we can do is to surmise. I am free to admit that the First Minister is in a rather difficult position in this matter. But it is the old question of chickens coming home to roost, and he cannot complain of anybody but himself.
Let us take a little review. We have listened so long to misrepresentation of these heroes of 1885, of the heroes of 1870 and the heroes of 1837-38 and all this sort of thing, that I think it will do no harm to nlace a few facts before the House. In 1763, by the treaty of Paris, Britain acquired the French property in the new world. In 1774 the Quebec Act was passed. Under that Quebec Act what happened? I am not referring to any concessions given to the then province of Quebec further than to point out that the territory for which the American colonists have given their 'time, their money and their lives, the valley of the Mississippi and Ohio, that great tract including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, part of Minnesota and Michigan, was taken deliberately from the British colonists in the United States and handed over under the Quebec Act to the province of Quebec.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE.: Why not?


Samuel Hughes: Because it did not belt ng to them, because they never conquered it, because it was bought by the blood of the men of New England and of Virginia, it was captured from the French by the blood- of New England. In 1775, there was the American revolutionary war brought about not alone by the Stamp Act and kindred Acts, but bv the fact that this territory for which these men of Virginia and other parts of the British dominions had given their lives had been taken from them. That is why these men rebelled more than anv other single cause. The American revolution was brought on by Mr. HUGHES.
the Quebec Act of 1774 more than by any other single cause.


Joseph Pierre Turcotte: That is new history.


Samuel Hughes: Following that came the Constitutional Act of 1791. I have not a word to say against the passage of that Act, only that our French-Canadian fellow countrymen did not ask it, it was given them by .the English speaking people there, many of whom had lived under responsible government in England. They had heard the name and they wanted a Constitutional Act passed in Quebec whereby they would have self-government. They got self-government, in other words representative government, the control of their own assembly, but had not control of the appointment of the ministry.
In 1783, owing to the fact that the Yankees gained their independence, the states that they had won from France, formerly, that is Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, part of Minnesota and Michigan, they again took back and they took them back from Britain and from Quebec. They then were parts of the American union, so in 1791 the province of Quebec was curtailed and was divided into upper and lower Canada. But from that time on a small party in Quebec, active until the present hour, began an agitation to sever that province from the British Crown. For a few years after they got the Constitutional Act passed, there was hardly a Britisher, only three or four, to be found in the whole assembly. British immigrants were practically forbidden to enter the province and were treated as foreigners, and when the settlers came in from the United States and colonized the eastern townships, the opposition was so strong that they would hardly build a road in there. The statement was then made: We must preserve the land for our own people, and the statement has been made in a Montreal paper within a week from to-day that we must have this province our own and must join the French-Canadian fellow countrymen of the New England states with the French-Canadians of the province of Quebec. Fortunately these views are not held by many in Quebec and they have thus far fallen on unsympathetic ears. The chief agitations were against British immigrants, English, Irish and Scotch. They also demanded that they should have an elective legislative council, and in the province of Quebec to-day they have not an elective legislative council. I believe that legislative councils and senates should not be elective for a Short term, they should hold office for life or a very long period. They also demanded control of the revenues from timber, from minerals, from forests and the lands.

Then followed the rebellion of 1837 and 1838, in Ontario, in Upper Canada led by a mountebank agitator, who had been a man of no character in his own country, Scotland, and had come out here. He had heard of responsible government in the old land, he did not know anything about the constitutional methods to be pursued, he gathered a few innocent people near Toronto, and the muskets being short-ranged in those days, the bullets could hardly reach them, they ran so fast.
In Quebec another man, clever and brilliant in many ways, but a man fitted for anything in the world almost rather than for leadership, gathered together a lot of poor, innocent fellows from various parts of the province and they met with disaster also. But history records that not one of the solitary grievances has ever been put in type that could not have been settled infinitely better by constitutional means as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out the other night that Nova Scotia settled her grievances without much fuss-a gentle hint to those so-called heroes of 1837 and 1838 in Ontario and Quebec that they were wrong in their agitation was all that was necessary. The aim in both provinces was independence. But, we have heard of other grievances. I can well remember the time when I sat in this House long years ago, and when gentlemen who occupy seats in the Senate, and who were appointed before they had ceased for a year to be members of parliament, stood up at these desks and declared that a law should be passed making it illegal for a member of parliament to hold a seat in the Senate, or a position anywhere else under the government, within a year after his retirement from the House. They demanded that the land should be kept for the settler in the Northwest. They said that we should have free trade in this new land of Canada, and they declaimed against robbers great and robbers small up and down the country. They also demanded that the Senate should be reformed. Most of them are in there now and it is pretty well reformed. They demanded rigid economy. There was almost a rebellion in the country because the Conservative party had an expenditure below $40,000,000, while these gentlemen have run it up to over $120,000,000. They demanded that we should have purity in public life and we have a splendid illustration of it in the government of the day. They also demanded that the question of prohibition should be placed before the public, that the people should vote on it and that' it should be carried, but their voices are dumb to-day on that question and we hear no more about it. Then we have this laudation of rebellion, but as that has been referred to before, I will not take any more time discussing it. All I will say is this, that the right
hon. the First Minister and his colleagues who are ever prone to glorify the so-called patriots of 1837-38, both of Upper and Lower Canada, are the men who forced upon a free people, people accustomed to responsible government, which the people of 1837-38 were not, upon the free men of Saskatchewan and Alberta, in 1905, an iniquitous measure which should have brought about rebellion among free men in that country if anything could have done so. What was the policy of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues in that regard? One of the demands in 1837-38 was that the assembly should have control of the revenues from the land, timber, mines and water-powers. The chief thing that the government restrained the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta from was the exercise of their rights with regard to the control of the land, mines, timber or water-powers. In 1837-38 it was right to rebel because the assembly, composed of men in both provinces who did not understand responsible government, were not given absolute control of these natural resources, while it was wrong in 1905 with a free people skilled in government. They took their rights away from them and they doled them out a pittance every year the same as a remittance man here receives from his father in the old country. Under the constitution. education belongs to the provinces, and yet this government that pretends to be Liberal, took from the people of these two provinces, in 1905, the right to control their education. Yet they will talk of the heroes of 1837-38 who had not one ground upon which to base any objection to the legislation of the time, and they will preach autonomy and responsible government. I have often thought that in their hearts they must despise these free men of Alberta and Saskatchewan for tamely submitting to these iniquities, while being ready to glorify the men of 1837.
I have not heard either of the last two speakers indulge in this criticism-perhaps the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will when he goes away down alone by the sea-but the criticism has been made of the Conservative party that we joined hand in hand with the hon. gentlemen opposite	in passing the
resolution one year ago and then have gone back upon it. Such is the language of the First Minister. Let us examine it man to man and see what we have done. The resolution reads:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
Have we gone back on that? We are standing by it to-day.
2. That this House reaffirms the opinion, repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional

relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions the payment of any stated contribution to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, in so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
We stand to it to-day. We do not believe in paying regularly and periodically a contribution to the motherland. We are in favour of paying an emergency contribution to-day to keep our flag flying because it is better to be sure than sorry, in the meantime and how cheaply we would all feel if the British fleet should happen to be defeated for lack of the two Dreadnoughts which Canada could have supplied. That is the policy we favour to-day. We are not in favour though of paying that regularly because before many years shall have elapsed some systematic form of naval assistance will have been devised.
3. This House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service.
Does the government provide a speedy service? How can they have the hardihood to ask hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to support such a resolution? There is no speedy contribution about it. We are standing by the resolution. We want something done 'speedy*.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: I do not refer to a boat going up and down grafting for hon. members on the other side; I refer to the resolution that something should be done quickly. I see that some of my right hon. friends over there think I mean the ' Speedy,' and have reference to graft, &e
This House will cordially approve any necessary expenditure designed te promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy.
Is that the policy proposed by the government-'in co-operation'? Co-operation is something mutual. This is a jug-handled, lop-sided plan. They may say: We will not go. We. on this side, desire that the plan shall be co-operative. When Britain is in trouble we will help her, and when we are in trouble we want Britain to help us. We may think that the condition of our stomachs is such that we cannot allow the navy to go and help Great Britain when our help is needed.


Joseph Pierre Turcotte: You want some millions.


Samuel Hughes: If the millions go in graft in the harbour of Quebec and in the constituencies along the shores of the counties in various parts of that province the hon. gentlemen will not kick, but so long Mr. HUGHES.
as they go to keep the old flag flying in Quebec there is a kick.
In close relation to the imperial navy.
Our policy is that our fleet should be part of the imperial navy. There is no measurable distance in connection with it.
Along the lines suggested by the admiralty.
These gentlemen in no sense have followed the lines suggested by the admiralty. Yet, they have the hardihood to ask us to support such a resolution.
Another clause of the resolution is:
In full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
But, the government in reserving to themselves the right to say whether or not that navy shall take part in a war in which Britain is engaged are departing from an essential part of the resolution of last year. The resolution concludes:
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.
The policy of the government departs from that. How can they have the nerve to stand up and ask us to join them in such a measure as they propose to-day. We are told there is no danger for the British empire. Well, Sir, what does the history of the world show. Thousands of years before the birth of Christ there was as great a nation as Britain is to-day, a nation relatively even greater. The Phoenician nation had all the liberties that Britain has to-day in many respects. Her ships traded in every sea, Carthage was a colony, Sardinia and Corsica were colonies, the Balearic islands, the southern part of Spain and parts of the British islands were colonies. The ships of the Phoenicians traded all along the northern coast of Africa, down the west coast, around the Cape of Good Hope, and to the distant Indies; their_cara-vans crossed every desert. It was that nation that furnished the Christian world with the religion of one God; it was that nation that furnished the world with the alphabet, the principles of mathematics, and the learning which has graced and benefited humanity. They had everything the heart could desire, and yet that nation fell. The Grecian states in succession rose and fell, other nations in the east rose and fell. In the year 256 B. C., the first Punic war came, Rome knew that Carthage had succeeded Phoenicia as mistress of the seas,

and Rome prepared a fleet in order to meet Carthage. Their fleets met off the coast of Sicily and 300,000 men were engaged in that sea fight, the greatest naval battle In the history of the world. The Carthaginian fleet was wiped out of existence by the fleet of Rome, although Rome was comparatively a new nation. Taking advantage of the system of boarding the enemy's fleet, which was not thought of by the Carthaginians, the latter were driven from the sea and disaster followed to Carthage. Nation after nation has risen in power and might and has gone down. And why? They all had liberty; they all had their parliaments. The statesmen of ancient Greece would put to blush the eloquence of this parliament here to-day. Gifted as is the First Minister, with his nickel-plated eloquence, he could not hold a candle to the orators of ancient Greece. In the Roman Senate addresses were delivered which are still the wonder of the world. These men had liberty as we have liberty, they had education as we have education, they had religions and creeds galore, they had,temples and churches and colonies, they had sister nations, but they have all vanished. And why? They began to live on their past records, they became self-important, they became wealthy-and gentlemen on the other side of the House tell us that the chief ambition of a nation is to become wealthy and opulent. As they became wealthy they became impotent, they neglected the principles of liberty, they centralized, they became sister nations instead of being part and parcel of the one great nation; they did not understand the principle of decentralization in non-essentials, while retaining control in a central government over matters of great national character. They forgot that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; they did not realize that while it takes a thousand years to form a state, an hour may lay an empire in the dust. Shall we, in these days, forget our duty to the empire and to humanity; shall we embrace the spirit of militarism which has been the bane of many nations, instead of upholding the principle of democratic military training under which every citizen will do hig, duty to the state, by which every boy of ten years and upwards shall be trained to shoot and every boy of fourteen and upwards be trained to command his company. Shall we not place ourselves in the position as we can easily do, of being able to put a million men in the field, each one of whom would be a good rifleman. Shall we not place ourselves in an inpregnable position in Canada, and thus become a tremendous strength to the motherland in time of war. Our duty is to unite in one great imperial federation. Oceans no longer divide, the genius of man has overcome distance, and
ships can traverse the ocean as rapidly as trains can cross the land. If you want to blockade the Canadian Pacific railway between here and Winnipeg all you have to do is to blow up a bridge on the north shore of Lake Superior, but you cannot block the pathless ocean against the traffic of ships of commerce, or ships of war.
I maintain, Sir, that for the benefit of humanity, and the building up of the empire, our duty is to stand shoulder to shoulder in a union of the whole empire. It is said that in the course of time the 3un must go down on the British empire.
I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I make this prophecy; that if the sun ever does set on the British empire, it will rise next morning on the empire of Greater Britain.
(Translation.) Now. a few words to the Prime Minister and to my fellow citizens in the province of Quebec. The population of that province is the offspring of a race whose name and practice are always in favour of liberty, e La belle France is but another name for freedom and loyalty.
As in England the Normans and Huguenots were the best citizens amongst the British nation, so the Frenchmen in Canada, at every period were characterized_ by all the virtues of good citizens; that is, they are characterized by integrity, honour, energy and enterprise; they are also thrifty, witty and courageous.
The political chieftains in the province of Quebec, in our two parties, do not show them the Confidence they deserve.
I ask the Prime Minister to stump Quebec in order to teach the good citizens in that province that the empire of our greater Britain is to continue to give them the right they have enjoyed so far. But they must remain steady and loyal in order to maintain under all difficult circumstances and against any danger, the integrity of the British empire and the majesty of the Union Jack.


Mr. HUGH H. McLEAN (Sunbury and Queens).: Mr. Speaker, this question, which is one of the greatest questions that has ever been brought before this parliament, has been so thoroughly discussed that it is difficult for one now speaking to bring forward any new matter. I did hope that this great question would be discussed without party feeling. I did hope that the two great parties in parliament, having passed the resolution of last session, would have united in carrying it into effect. As a new member, I must say that I do not like the reflections that have been made by the hon. members of the opposition on the right hon. leader of the government and on members of the government. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen do not think

that the right hon. leader of the government is disloyal. I do not believe that members of the government party are disloyal. Since I have been here I have not heard one sentiment of disloyalty pronounced by any hon. gentleman or seen any such sentiment given effect to. I know that the members of the government party are loyal, and I know that every member of the opposition is loyal. I believe that we have in the right hon. leader of the government as loyal a man as we ever had in Canada, and a great statesman. I believe that we have in the hon. leader of the opposition a gentleman of the highest integrity and character, and a loyal man. Therefore, I say that it is beneath the dignity of any member of this House to give utterance to sentiments impugning the loyalty of any gentleman here present. I am loyal; I am a grandson of a loyalist. I may say further that I am an imperialist. I say that, because I have heard a number of members declare that they were not imperialists. It has also been asserted here-what I never thought would be said in parliament -that the right honourable leggier of the government was against sending men to South Africa. Unless the government at that time had responded to public sentiment, and sent men to South Africa, so far as I am concerned, and so far, I believe, as every man in the maritime provinces is concerned, they would not have had one supporter. But I cannot find that there was any holding back on the part of the right hon. leader of the government in that matter. 1 find that the right hon. gentleman left on the 7th of October for Chicago and returned on the 12th. I find that the Boer ultimatum was issued on the 9th of October, that it was rejected on the 10th, and that war was declared on the Uth. I find that Sir Wilfrid on the 12th of October declared that he would send a contingent to South Africa even if his government were defeated in consequence thereof. Then I find that on the 13th of October, an order in council was passed to send a contingent; and it reflects great credit on the Militia Department that within such a very short time the contingent was recruited, equipped and sent. At that time no regular regiment, supposed to be ready for service, was able to get ready and sail any more quickly than the contingent we raised, equipped, armed and put on ship-board. But our hon. friends of the opposition, who have given expression to such ultra-loyal feelings, cannot have forgotten what was stated by Mr. Bour-assa, in a debate in this House in 1906. Mr. Bourassa, who is now, one might say, the Moses of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, stated this on page 98 of 'Hansard' of that year:


Hugh Havelock McLean: My attitude regarding the South African war was that observed by Sir John A. Macdonald m 1885, when he refused to the British authorities the right to enroll men in Canada for the British army in the Soudan.
Let hon. gentlemen of the opposition take that to their hearts and what do they think of it? What a howl they would nave made if that action had been taken by any man on the Liberal side! While they sat under it quietly and without a protest at that time, I am satisfied that the gentlemen who compose the opposition in this House to-day would not support a policy of that kind. Any member of the opposition who would declare such a policy to-day would be almost driven out of the party. I am sure that any man on the government side would be. But I will go on and read further what Mr. Bourassa said:
My attitude on that question was the same that Sir Charles Tapper took in 1893 when he said in Winnipeg that the idea of basing a closer union between Great Britain and her colonies upon the principle of unity in defence of the empire, was a false one, that Canada had done all she could do, all that she ought to be forced to do for imperial defence, when she fortified her own territory and developed hnr own resources by building railways in the North-west and giving communication to British troops between England and Asia.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he takes the responsibility of the correctness of Mr. Bourassa's statements?


Hugh Havelock McLean: There is no doubt that the statements made there are correct. If they were not correct, why did not some of the gentlemen on the opposition side at that time get up and deny them? The statements were made on the floor of the House and were put in ' Hansard,' and have never been denied. I have made inquiries, and I find that these statements are absolutely correct. I defy any hon, gentleman of the opposition to say that the statement made by Mr. Bourassa as regards the action of Sir John Macdonald in 1885 was not correct.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Bourassa was then the Moses of the great Liberal party, was he not?


Hugh Havelock McLean: He was not loyal enough for us, so we gave him to you. He was not loyal enough for us, because he was against our sending troops to South Africa, and so we handed him over to your party. But I do ask, why refer to irrelevant matters of that kind? Every one knows that Sir John Macdonald was a loyal man, that Sir Charles Tupper is a loyal man, an ultra-loyal man. Can there be any doubt that the right hon. the leader

of the government is a loyal man, and that the members of the government and those supporting the government, are just as loyal as any one in opposition? Can there be any doubt that, in case of emergency, in case England wanted our assistance, there would be any man on the government side who would hesitate to give it?


Mr. COWAN.: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is independence the goal of his aspirations?


Mr. HUGH H.: MeLEAN. It is not. My great grandfather fought with the loyalists, and when my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) condemned the action of the loyalists in making the sacrifices they did, in fighting for their king at that time, and then coming to this new country, rather than remain under a foreign flag, I say this is a matter which has nothing to do with the subject under debate, but which I would like to discuss with him at some other time. The Union Jack is good enough, Mr. Speaker, for me, as it was good enough for my forefathers, and I hope to live and die under the old flag.
Now, will you allow me to refer to the resolution of the 29th of March, and in that connection, I want to say this. I want to say that I, as a young member, am proud of the stand which was then taken by the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the leader of the opposition when they joined hands for the empire and agreed to a resolution whereby Canada showed her readiness to offer naval assistance to Great Britain. I listened with great pride to the speech made by the hon. the leader of the opposition in London, the 1st of July last. When he said he was true to that resolution, passed on the 29th of March, and that he hoped Canada would soon have a navy of her own, that declaration aroused tremendous applause from the vftrv large number present. The fact that Canada was going to organize a Canadian navy was the one thing which every man you met in Great Britain seemed to approve of. I listened, with approval, to the splendid speech made by the hon. the leader of the opposition on January 12. He then said:
We have no Dreadnought ready; we have no fleet unit at hand. But w'e have the resources and I trust the patriotism to provide a fleet unit or at least a Dreadnought without one moment's unnecessary delay.
I agree with the leader of the opposition with regard to the fleet unit. I say that while the providing of these cruisers is a splendid action on the part of the government. we ought to go still further, and I would like to see one or two cruisers of the 'Indomitable' Dreadnought type provided.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Hay: MeLEAN. But referring to that proposition, my hon. friends Svho say, 'hear, hear,' will not be pleased with what I am going to say now. I am in favour of the greatest assistance being given Great Britain. The reason a fleet unit should be nrovided is that, two cruisers and one ' Indomitable ' would be better than five cruisers without an ' Indomitable.' However, I am perfectly prepared to take the advice of the admiralty in this matter; and I hope that it will not be very long before we will have an ' Indomitable ' and cruisers of the highest type. But,'let us appreciate what is being done. First, we are providing four Bris-tols of the highest type of cruisers afloat. It is true that none of them have been put in commission yet. The Bristol is supposed to be put in commission this year. She is. to have a speed as high as 27 knots per hour, is to be armed with 10 4-inch guns and 2 - 6-inch guns, in addition there will be three torpedo tubes, and as regards the cruiser type, she is to he absolutely ahead of any vessel of that class. The destroyers are to be of the very latest pattern. So that as regards cruisers, with the exception of the armoured cruisers of the ' Indomitable ' type, a Bristol can handle any other vessel she may be brought up against. In case of war, we know that Germany would undoubtedly send out privateers. That great authority, Lord Charles Beresford, has said that in the hold of every tramp vessel belonging to Germany are guns which they can mount in case of need. So that having that class of the fastest cruiser, we can more than hold our own against any vessel except those of the ' Indomitable ' type.
Again, as regards the furnishing of an ' Indomitable,' the proposition of the hon. the leader of the opposition to simply give money to the British admiralty to be spent as they may see fit, does not appeal to me. Here are his words:
Giving the admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purpose of naval defence as in their judgment may best serve to increase the strength of the empire and thus assure its peace and security.
Surely, the hon. gentlemen belonging to the opposition should not approve of that policy. It seems to me a cowardly thing to simply hand over our money and not our men, and not to have any vessel of our own to take part in the fight. Not having any vessels of our own manned by Canadians, but simply sending over our money to the admiralty to invest in ships, would take from us that immediate, intimate interest in our contribution to the navy which we otherwise would have. It is quite clear that the British admiralty cannot furnish the armament and the guns for


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did the admiralty suggest that?


Hugh Havelock McLean: They wanted suggestions, and when the matter was discussed, they say: Give us the fast cruisers, the scout type, give us destroyers; place so many on the Pacific and so many on the Atlantic because we .recognize that with your double sea-board that will be better than to have the unit type. I have said, and I say it again, that personally- though I may be extravagant in this matter-I would be in favour of having a full unit on the Atlantic and, when we can af-


Hugh Havelock McLean: He says also:
The nearest British port of anv naval value to the west coast of Canada is 5,'000, 6,000 miles away. This distance" is only traversible by the largest war vessels (cruiser or battleship) at low speed. . . . The connection of the Canadian fleet with the rest of our naval forces, would he entirely dependent in war on the good-will of the only powers that, who for very many- years at least, can possibly threaten her Pacific coast. In a war with the United States, a Canadian fleet, placed as you suggest, would be at once isolated. Ia a war with an east-Asian power, the naval defence of the west coast of North America can best be carried out by a fleet operating from Singapore and Hong Kong.
If the opinions of this gentleman, for the reasons given, commend themselves to the judgment of hon. members present, they can take them; certainly, they commend themselves to me.
, Now, I wish to refer to one of the leading admiralty authorities of England as regards this question of cruisers. His article was published in the 'Fortnightly Review' for May, 1908. He says:
I advocate India and the colonies owning their own scouts, destroyers and submarines, as it would be out of the question for these types of small craft to be sent out when once war had been declared, no matter how pressing might be the need for them.
Other advantages might be enumerated as follows:-

1. Great usefulness at comparatively small expense.	. ,	, ,	.	. .
2 As the professional knowledge required is much the same in all the types of vessels here advocated, the officers and men would undergo a uniform standard of training, and would he able to take service in any type of colonial ship or boat.	.
3.	The officers would become highly trained specialists in practically one particular branch of naval warfare, and would possess an intimate knowledge of the pilotage of their own territorial waters.
1. If the scouts and destroyers were fitted with turbine machinery and oil fuel, this method of propulsion, being very simple and easily worked, would mean comparatively small complements, both below and on deck, thus enabling higher wages to be paid, and thereby ensuring a good class of men entering the service.
There is the opinion of one of the highest naval authorities in England declaring that this is the correct policy. There can be no doubt that it is the correct policy. As regards the guarding of our coasts, scouts, cruisers and that class of vessels are the kind we want for the purpose. As I have said before, they could beat any vessels below the armoured cruiser class or the protected cruiser. That being the case, I say that if we have, in addition to that, a cruiser of the Indomitable type we get practically clear of any danger through Germany sending to our coasts vessels below the Indomitable type in case of war. Take, for example, the Atlantic coast; that coast is very easily guarded. The entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence is Belle1 Isle Straits, which are narrow and 40 miles long. One or two destroyers could guard that entrance. The other entrance is Cabot Strait, between Cape Ray and Cape North, that is between Cape Breiton and Newfoundland;. With two destroyers or a scout cruiser it would be difficult for any privateer or any vessel, except one of tjie very largest class, to get through that entrance. Then practically you have, after leaving Quebec, about 600 miles of protected water before the vessel would get out on the high seas. When it was out on the high seas, as is pointed out by Mr. Hamilton in some very clever articles he has been writing in the 'University Monthly,' she would be comparatively free from attack, as to find her would be like hunting for a needle in a hav stack.
Then take the Bay of Fundy. The entrance there is only twenty miles broad. Vessels have to keep clear of Muir Ledgese, they have to pass between Gannet Rock on one side, Brier island on the other, so that the entrance there is so narrow that it can be easily guarded and protected. Therefore, I say that with a very little expense, because Halifax with
the guns she has is well protected, our eastern coast could be defended. We found at Santiago at the time of the war between Spain and the United States that a few guns on land were more effective than four or five times their number at _ sea. The obsolete guns which the Spanish had at Santiago were able to keep at bay the whole American fleet. Therefore, I say that we will be able to do what the admiralty want us to do, that is to effectually protect our own coast line and effectually guard our commerce until the ships get on the high seas.	_
A great deal has been said about the 'German Scare.' I may say that I do not	agree with many _ of my
friends on the government side that this is a scare. As far as I can find by looking into this question the action taken by Germany is a very serious one. Unless England now carries out the policy she has adopted, Germany would in a few years become strong enough to force the issue with England, and perhaps might make it very doubtful. But the result is that England is aroused now, last year four vessels were laid down and this year eight will be built.	I want to
call attention to the class of vessels England is now building. We have heard about the Dreadnought class, that is a vessel of
17,000	tons, with 21,000 horse-power, armed with ten 12-inch guns. Now they have the super-Dreadnought type, a vessel of 22,000. odd tons with greater horse-power, and some of them are proposed to be armed with 13-5-inch guns. They are laying down this year four of the largest class of superDreadnoughts. Let me call your attention to one vessel that England is laying down this year, that is what is called the Capital cruiser type. This vessel has over 80,000 horse-power. Think of that! She will have a speed of over thirty knots, and as you all know, a knot is one and one;eighth miles. She is to be armed with twelve 13-5 guns, the largest now being made. She is to be armed also with a number of 10.6-inch guns and a number of 4-inch guns. A vessel of that class with 80,000 horse-power, armed as she is and with,her great speed would be practically invincible.
Another type that England is now laying down is called the Destroyer type. It i3 called a destroyer of destroyers. Vessels of this type have a speed of over thirty-eight knots. The ' Tarter ' lately made a record of over forty knots. She is armed with four 4-inch guns, and has a torpedo tube. Here is a vessel capable of doing tremendous execution in case of trouble. These are the newer types. We remember that since the time of the ' Admiral ' class every type of battleship has been made larger until we came to the Dreadnought type. Since then, we are go-

thrift, intelligence and the prosperity of her people, illustrates to mankind the advantages of training her citizens, in their youth and manhood, to the use of arms. The habits of -discipline and the order and cleanliness of person. It is recognized today as a national characteristic, that the womanhood of that nation look with reproach upon men ignorant of military training. Germany is well to the fore in all that belongs to the twentieth century civilization. The greatest lesson of all we learn from China. There is a nation of 3,000,000,000 to 4,000,000,000 of people. Honest traders, inoffensive, and unaggre-ssive. A nation which, from its physical character, the industrious habits of its people, and its natural resources, should have been the last to arouse hostility. It neglected its defence on water, and we now see the result. The nations in possession of navies are trying to tear it to pieces and divide the spoil. Do we hear of any of these nations being worried by honest scruples? No. The whole dispute is over the division of the spoils.
Reference was made by the Minister of Railways to the splendid internal canal system of Germany, and all that has been done within the last ten years. But, now that England is aroused we need not fear any danger. We know very well that with England's resources she is now building at the rate of eight ships per year, and that she will never again allow -Germany to approach near the, danger point.. The statement of some hon. gentlemen that , there will be a war in a year or two seems to be absurd. It has never been stated bv any naval authority in England that Germany could hope to enter into successful war with England even in the year 1912. Up to that date Germany would certainly be far outclassed. We must further remember that although Germany may be building these new ships she has to take men from the farms to man them. Germany has no large coast line to support a maritime people, and the men for these ships are taken by a system of what -we would call force. They are forced to serve in the German navy, as they are forced to serve in the German army for a number of years, and while there is no doubt that after a time they do make good seamen, yet it is fair to say that even after these new ships are built it will take some years before the men are trained and before she is able to go to war with England. Now, let me point out to the House that in the year 1912, which it is prophesied by some may be the year of danger, Britain will have 22 Dreadnoughts, super-Dreadnoughts and Dreadnought cruisers; her naval programme for 1909 provides for the building of eight of the super-Dreadnought Mr. H. H. McLEAN.
type. The Navv League annual shows that in 1912 England will have 22 Dreadnoughts, super-Dreadnoughts and cruisers, as I have already mentioned. But look at the improvement in these ships. The first Dreadnought was 17,900 tons and the last four ships of the super-Dreadnought class are to be of 25,000 tons. The first Dreadnought had 23.000 horse power, but the super-Dreadnoughts are to have 45,000 horse power and a speed of 23 knots instead of the Dreadnought speed of 22 -4. They are to be armed with ten 13.5 inch guns and fourteen 6 inch guns. I might give a short description of these guns as follows:
The 16 -25-inch gun.
The principal details of the 110-ton gun are as follows: It has a bore of 16J inches in diameter, and is 43J feet long. Its projectile is 1,800 pounds in weight, and is propelled by a charge of slow-burning cocoa powder weighing 900 pounds. This gun can only be fired at the rate of one round every seven minutes, and the life of it is not estimated to exceed 100 rounds. Now obselete.
The 13 -5-inch gun.
The 13 -5-inch gun throws a projectile weighing 1,250 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 2,016 feet per second, and with a firing charge of 630 pounds of powder has an energy of penetrating 25 inches of wrought iron at 3,000 yards.
The 12-inch gun.
Next in order we come to the 12-inc-h gun, which, with various modifications of design, remains the standard heavy British naval gun of the present time. The total length of this magnificent gun is 617 -7 inches. The initial velocity of its projectile is 3,010 foot-seconds, which gives a muzzle energy of 53,400 foot-tons; the effective range against an average modern armoured warship is computed roughly at about four miles, and the extreme range is 25,000 yards, at which limit the remaining velocity of the shell would be so relatively small as to render it comparatively harmless save by virtue of its own weight.
When we remember that the latest British Dreadnought type of battleship are armed with ten of these mighty pieces of ordnance apiece, the tremendous concentration of their powers of aggression makes contemplation of the future naval battle simply appalling.
The 10-inch gun.
The 10-inc.h gun is a weapon that has been fitted to a few of our battleships, although it has never found particular favour amongst tine gunnery experts of the British navy. The Vickers' pattern of this weapon, which is largely used in the Russian, Italian, Japanese, and United States navies, is 34 -5 tons in weight, has a length of 45 calibres (464 -9 inches, including breech-chamber), and throws a projectile of 500 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 3,000 foot-seconds, and a muzzle energy of 30,990 foot-tons.
The 9 -2-inch gun.
Continuing to follow the category of primary weapons in the order of their size, we come now to the 9-2-inch gun, which is the most popular and in its way the most useful piece of artillery in the British fleet. It is

to be found alike in our battleships and big cruisers, and, whilst it lacks the shattering power of the heavier weapons against modern armour, yet its remarkable penetrative qualities, coupled with its rapid fire delivery-three rounds per minute-renders it a deadly effective gun. The Woolwich pattern, Mark X, of this type, weighs 28 tons unmounted, is of 46-6 calibres in length (extreme total 442-.35 inches), and has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 foot-seconds with a muzzle energy" of 20,685 foot-tons. The projectile weighs 380 pounds, and has a striking power at a range of 3,000 yards equal to carrying it through 25 inches of wrought iron.
The 7 -5-inch gun.
The 7-5-inch gun, of Vickers' wire-wound pattern, weighs 16 tons without mountings, is 50 calibres long (extreme length 386-7 inches), and has a muzzle of 3,007 foot-seconds, giving the projectile a muzzle energy of 12,540 foot-tons.
The 6-incli gun.
The 6-inch gun has been said, not inappropriately, to mark the strict limit to the quick fire series, although not officially so regarded. But its projectile of 100 pounds in weight is the heaviest that can be man-handled, and the result is that the weapon can be fired at the rate of twelve rounds per minute. Indeed, nothing but the necessity of waiting for the recoil to spend itself restricts the rapidity of fire delivery with the 6-inch piece. The latest (1908) Elswick pattern weight 8f tons, is 50 calibres in length (total over all 315 inches), and has the remarkably high muzzle velocity of 3,050 foot-seconds, with a muzzle energy of 6,492 foot-tons.
The 4-7 inch, the 4 inch and Small Q. F. Guns.
The biggest and most familiar type of naval ' mosquito ' armament is the 4 -7-inch, gun, immortalized by the memorable part it played in the salvation of Ladysmith. This weapon in its latest type weights 3 -27 tons, is 45 calibres in length, and throws a shell 45 pounds in weight, with a muzzle velocity of 2,925 foot-seconds, and an energy sufficient to penetrate 8 -6 inches of wrought iron at a range of 2,000 yards. But excellent as this gun has proved itself, it has been quite supplanted as a light quick-firer by the 4-inch, wire-wound pattern. This is a piece of ordnance of extroardinary range and penetrative powers for its size. Its wpight unmounted is 2,018 tons, and its length 50 calibres (giving an extreme measurement of 208-45 inches). It discharges a projectile 31 pounds in weight at a muzzle velocity of 3,030 foot-seconds, and with a degree of energy equal to penetrating 16 inches of wrought iron at the muzzle. The fire delivery of this gun is estimated at 15 rounds per minute. The 3-inch, naval gun is, strictly speaking, the smallest weapon which can legitimately be classed as big warship ordnance. Below this we come to mere popguns, throwing 6 pound and 3 pound projectiles, and machine guns, which rattle forth a hailstorm of 1-457 inch, bullets at a rate of 300 rounds per minute. These weapons are really designed to repel boat attacks, and within the limits of their effective range would prove very deadly. The 3-inch, gun referred to above, in its latest pattern (1908), has a
length of 50 calibres (156-9 inches over all), weighs 19 cwts. unmounted, and throws a projectile of 12-5 pounds in weight, at the rate of 25 rounds per minute, with a muzzle velocity of 2,700 foot-seconds, and a penetrative energy equal to passing through 9 -65 inches of wrought iron at the muzzle.
The four supeT-Dreadnoughts and capital cruiser ships are to be laid down in April, 1910, and they are to be put in commission in March, 1912. I wish also to -refer to another authority, and it may fairly be said that this authority is not prejudiced. The authority to which I refer is Pulsifer, who, in the United States navy book for 1909, gives the following as the comparative strength of the navies of Great Britain and Germany at the present time.
Great Britain.	Number.	Tons.
Battleships (10,000 tons	and	
over)	. .. 60	941,450Armoured cruisers	. .. 40	506,350Cruisers above 6,000 tons.	. .. 18	176,250Cruisers 6,000 to 3,000 tons.	. .. 48	214,700Cruisers 3,000 to 1,000 tons.	. .. 24	51,675Torpedo-boat destroyers.. .	. ..168	81,356Torpedo boats	. .. 69	15,014Submarines	. .. 67	. 19,078Total	. ..494	2,005,873Germany.	Number.	Tons.Battleships (10,000 tons	and	over)	. .. 32	436,424Coast-defence vessels	. .. 8	32,378Armoured cruisers	. .. 12	151,693Cruisers above 6,000 tons..	Cruisers 6,000 to 3,000 tons.	. .. 26	105,293Cruisers 3,000 to 1,000 tons.	. .. 17	37,626Torpedo-boat destroyers.. .	. .. 97	49,859Torpedo boats	. .. 33	5,819Submarines	. .. 8	1,600Total	. ..233	820,692
When we come to the total number of ships and the total tonnage we find that England has of firsfrdass battleships, armoured cruisers, torpedo boat destroyers, all effective 494 with a tonnage 2,005,873, and Germany has a total of 233 ships with a tonnage of 820,692.
From this it will be seen that at the present time the British navy is superior to the German navy by more than the two to one standard. It is therefore, fair to say, that at the present there is no danger from Germany as regards her navy, either now or in 1912, when these vessels aTe built, and that in 1917, England will be better prepared than ever to cope with Germany if the need should be. But, the point I want to emphasize is this:	That
in 1917, Canada, instead of adopting the policy propounded by the opposition of giving money and doing nothing else, Canada in 1917 will have at least 800 first-class, thoroughly trained men for these cruisers of ours. In addition to that we will have

I want to call attention also to our mercantile marine. At present, Great Britain stands first in the world with 12,000,000 tons odd, Germany comes second, and the United States third, and Canada at present stands ninth. But, with 70,000 more tons, Canada would pass Italy and stand sixth.
Criticism has been made regarding the building of these ships in Canada. Well, it does seem to me that that is the very best thing the government of this country could do. It excites one's ire to hear men talking about our not being able to go into this line of business. Why, we have had to bring skilled operators from other countries to start our manufactories, and Canada, in the old days of wooden ships, was able to build the best ships in the world. Scotland could not compete with her. We know that the fastest skipper ship ever built, came out of a St. John shipyard- the ' Mareo Polo.' And now when steel plate has taken the place of wood, we know that we have all the raw material necessary for steel ship building and all that we require is the plant and trained mechanics. Of course, it is not possible for any private individual at present to establish a plant large enough, but on looking over the register, I find that over 600 steam vessels now on our register were built outside of Canada and that practically very few have been built here. Take the one firm in St. John, Wm. Thompson & Company; they had fourteen steel steamships-ocean steamers-built on the other side. But as against these croakers who decry our capabilities, let me point to the example of Germany, and let me point out that Japan 18 years ago did not have a steel vessel. But Japan started to build up her navy, she got one of these big contractors from Scotland and started a plant, and she is to-day not only building her own ships of war, but also her mercantile vessels, and she is doing this to such an extent that she is now eighth in the list of countries owning ships. Germany's example, however, is still more marked. The first liner built in a German yard was built in 1887. To-day, in the German yards, are built not only her own ships, but also ships for foreign powers. They have built 757 steel ships besides four warships for foreign nations, and yet only fifty years ago, her whole navy was sold at auction.
When you think that, in 1887, her first vessel was built, when you think that it was not till 1898. that she commenced really to put down the keels and build her own steel vessels, and when you find these results, this great development of steel shipbuilding, and when you remember also that German plants were started by Scotchmen-of course the Germans rapidly learned the business, and they are able to carry it on now-why should any man say that Mr. H. H. McliEAN.
what Japan has done, what Germany has done, what other nations have done, in establishing these building plants, we cannot do in Canada? And it is a frivolous, childish objection, it seems to me, to say that it is going to cost you more to build your ships here than in England, and it is going to take you a year longer. But is it not a great thing to know that the establishment of a steel building plant in Canada, and the building of these war vessels, eleven in all, will start the steel building industry and shipyards, providing new employment for thousands of skilled men at 'big wages-for these men do get big wages? We shall be starting in Canada the biggest industry we ever had. For we are a maritime nation. Men who live by the sea, as do a number of the gentlemen present, know the enormous amount of money that is made by carrying freights. They know that for us to pay out the best part of our money to foreign ships to carry our produce is not Canadian, it is not business. Surely it would be better for us, with the enormous amount of our export business, that we should carry it in Canadian ships? A further fact is that which I have already mentioned- that over 600 steam vessels on the registry were built outside of Canada. Then, there is the point that made a great impression upon me, that nine-tenths of the cost of a steel vessel goes out in wages. Of course, you understand, there is the ore to be taken from the mines. Then it has to be smelted-and we can do that at Sydney. Then there is the work to be done on the hull, and all the rest, so that nine-tenths of the cost goes in wages to those employed in connection with it. That is a marvellous fact. It shows, when this industry is started, what a great thing it will be for Canada. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the day will come when we shall be united in one great power, forming a federation of great nations, a confederation for the purpose of consolidating power against foreign countries, and a moral influence on all international questions. Nations can only enjoy their freedom by being able to defend it. The true policy for us is to be closely united, to be thoroughly organized and equipped, and to be able to use our whole strength to the greatest advantage for the common safety of Great Britain. Canadians desire to be free and safe. It must be in an empire to which we are attached by every tie, to which we must render effective service, if necessary give our all, for the common defence, if we are to expect the forces of that mighty empire to be at our back when our lives as free people arie threatened, we should show a square front to any enemy that may attack us. We must be ready to play our part towards the security of our country, and if occasion offers, be ready to defend. For de-

fence, because every great thinker, and every man who has studied the subject, knows that we may have war upon us at any moment. Take the last words of that great statesman, Lord Dufferin, when he says:
Nothing, neither a sense of justice, nor the precepts of religion, nor the interests of humanity, would prevent any nation from attacking us at the first favourable opportunity.
And Joseph Howe, forty years ago, wrote in his essay on ' The organization of the empire
Security for peace is only to be sought in such an organization and armament of the whole empire as will make a certainty of defeat a foregone conclusion to any foreign power that may attempt to break it.
Something has been said about the Monroe doctrine. Let me say one word about it. It seems to me that the plea of the Monroe doctrine has been effectually answered and the doctrine shattered. We must not forget that for us to depend on the protection of the United States would be a cowardly position for us to take- that we should wait and ask the United States to keep away any bad people that want to come against us. It would be very doubtful whether the United States would be able to do it. But what would be her price? It would mean that we should give up our independence. We should go into the United States to bear a part of the enormous expenses they are under. Our provinces would not receive the subsidies they are receiving; our industries and manufactures would no longer flourish, and perhaps she -would take away from us all our raw products to manufacture them over there. That would probably be the price she would ask.
We have not received from the United States very much consideration in the past. In 1785 we had trouble with them- an invasion. In 1812 there was another invasion from the United States. Then, there was the Fenian raid in 1860, and of the enormous sum of money that we had to pay for the defence of Canada, not one dollar did we get back from the United States. There was the Trent affair; there was the New Brunswick matter, the Aris-took war, when our friends in Nova Scotia volunteered to send us 10,000 men to help us. That, of course, is not a matter mentioned now, but it was very acute at that time. That trouble was over a little bit of territory they wanted to get away from us. There was also the Venezuela affair. About the 1st of January, 1896, President Cleveland issued his message in reference to a dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. It was couched in the most hostile terms, most insulting in its character. Among European nations it would have 1214
been accepted as a declaration of war. This was approved of by the United States as a whole. From 42 out of 45 States messages of approval came to President Cleveland, with offers of the services of their militia to be used in the invasion of Canada. It shows you what we could expect from the United States in case we got into a tight corner. But we hope, of course, that we shall be able to get along in peace and quietness with the United States. We shall be able to get along with the United States while we respect ourselves and while we show that we are able to defend ourselves. I am not one of those who believe that, in case the United States attempted to invade us, she would have an easy time. With a smaller number of people we have been able to hold our own in every invasion and to beat the United States in every fight that has come up. I am not saying this as a rag to the United States, or a chip on the shoulder or anything like that, but it is fair to say that since 1785 every invasion of Canada was 'brought on us not by out fault, but by the aggression of the United States and without excuse. The Venezuela affair, of course, was the worst and latest. But we ought to dwell in peace with the United States, that is our desire, we have never in the past given any occasion for offence, we do not in the future intend giving any occasion for offence. We hope to live with them as friendly neighbours should live. But I repeat that I believe if it did come to an invasion by the United States they would find that we could hold our own as our fathers did before us and would be able successfully to defend ourselves.
And now in conclusion let me ask you to support the establishment of a Canadian navy, so that we can -quote with truth the words of Kipling:
Carry the word to my sisters,
To the Queens of the East and the South,
I have proved faith in the heritage By more than the word of the mouth. They that are wise may follow 'Ere the world's war trumpet blows,
But I, I am first in the battle,
Said Our Lady of the Snows.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the House at this hour of the night, but I do not care to give a silent vote on this question, which I consider of such importance to the country. I must say in reference to the hon. gentleman, who has just taken his seat, that I do not intend to criticise his speech very much, because it has been a speech most of which could very readily be credited to this side of the House. I must say that those who have spoken of what may be considered a crisis, in the light and jocular manner that some gen-

tlemen opposite have spoken of it have received their answer from the hon. gentleman. I must attribute to my hon. friend a good deal of courage. I can see by his speech and by his training that he is a fighting man and he has had a good deal of courage to charge the fighting man of the government, the Minister of Militia, with cowardice. I think that the Minister of Militia has said that the Munroe doctrine was of great interest to us, that it was a great protection to us and the hon. gentleman (Mr. H. H. McLean) says it is cowardice to say that. He has a fighting quality about him. He criticised the statement made that it will cost more to build a navy in Canada. To whom can we attribute that statement? His leader was the first man who mentioned that in the House, and he said it would cost 30 per cent or one-third more to build a navy in Canada than in England. I think he is a good honest critic of the other side of the House.
I do not think long speeches will build a navy, I am rather inclined to think they will delay it, but some things have been said in this House with which I do not agree. A good deal has been said about launching the country into militarism. A navy is just the opposite of militarism, and if you wish to go back in history, you will see that the battle of Trafalgar hindered the greatest military organization that this world has ever seen. What did Pitt say? That England had saved herself by her exertions and she intended to save Europe by her example.
They say that we want to build this navy in Canada. That is a laudable object, but perhaps it is the lowest possible ground on which you could put this question today. If there is a crisis then the most effective way of meeting that crisis is our duty, wherever it may be. I shall not endeavour to prove whether there is a crisis or not, but the prominent public men of England, of both political parties, men not apt to lose their heads in a crisis, have indicated to the world that there is a crisis. Then the duty of Canada is to assist in thwarting the purpose of whoever intends to bring to England that crisis. Does any one pretend to say that the proposal of the government will in any sense meet that crisis? Does any one pretend that a navy or dock-yard started this year in Canada for the purpose of building war vessels in the next five or ten years will meet that crisis? Does any one pretend to say that if we had our navy ready to-morrow and fully equipped it would in any sense assist to meet the crisis? If there was trouble between Germany and England-and God forbid there ever shall be any such trouble-a great naval battle would take place and that battle would not Mr. BRODER.
last more than fifteen or twenty days at the most, then where is your Canadian navy to assist England? The result would be that England's ports would be blockaded. If Germany became victorious, England's ports would be blockaded, and the Canadian navy would be as helpless as an infant in the cradle to help England in the crisis. The bounden duty of Canada is to rise in her loyalty to the empire and to British connection and to do her the most effective service if there is a crisis as we are told there is.
We have heard a good deal from the opposition side of the House from the right hon. leader down to the smallest singer of the song, and what has it been? The 20th century for Canada! Look at our great resources', look at our great revenue. The 20th century is Canada's. They would thus lead England to great expectations and hopes in reference to Canada's assistance to the empire and when they come to offer their gift, what is it? In the first instance it is a flat refusal. Who makes that refusal? The right hon. gentleman who leads the government of this country. He said in this House a few days ago, as an answer to the proposition from the leader of the opposition, that the matter should be submitted to the people, he said it had been before the country. How has it been before the country? In 1907 the right hon. gentleman in the conference absolutely refused to do what he is proposing to do to-day. I am not asking him to take my statement, I shall read what the right hon. gentleman did say in the conference in answer to a resolution moved by a gentleman from South Africa. I shall read the resolution and shall show that the Premier of Canada flatly refused to vote for it, and out of respect to his refusal that resolution was withdrawn. Then he went to the country in 1908, making this refusal and the country endorsed him; hence, they must have endorsed his refusal. Then, it is necessary that we should go to the country with his present proposition. Let us see what he says: Dr. Smart!, a colleague of Dr. Jameson, moving the following resolution:
That this conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the protection of its trade, 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 such contribution towards the up-keep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-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.

That embodied the proposition that is before the House to-day in a sense. What did the First Minister say in answer to that only two and a half years ago?
I am sorry to say, 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. The government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. Ic is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter.
The disproportion is too great between the mother country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise^ in the mother country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed ro a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
What was before the country was his flat refusal to do anything in any respect. Then he says that this matter, having been before the country, there is now no neces-[DOT] sity of submitting it to the people. We hear a great deal with reference to the right hon. gentleman's attitude by hon. members of this House, who endeavour to square it with his past record; we hear him eulogized by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who say that his name will go down through the annals of history when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are not heard of. Well, it is to be hoped as he lived in history and ceases to act, his record will appear more consistent. Why, is it necessary that we should have some interest in the navy? They say:	You are going to
givj $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 to England, and you will never see your money again. Is it not right that Canada should do something in recognition of the service which England has rendered this country in protecting her shores with her navy? Oh, well, they say, we want everything done in Canada. A few years ago hon. gentlemen opposite were not very anxious to have everything done in Canada. Now, they have changed their minds. We remember that a British shilling was not worth as much as an American dollar to hon. gentlemen opposite. British connection has been our protection and a contribution of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 will have a wonderful moral effect upon the world. We will have for our protection more of a navy than we can build in Canada in the next twenty years. It will be a notification to the world
that the mother will be protected by the children that surround her in recognition of her past service. We talk about Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, &c., but there are no people in this country who are more interested and I believe more sincere in their wishes to maintain British connection than the French people of Quebec. Why? They realize that British connection means the continuance of the solid liberty which they possess. They do not wish to run the risk of having any change in that respect. Is there any necessity of our recognizing our obligation to British connection if you wish to speak of it in that way? I believe that it is the great bond that holds us together and gives us our security, liberty and permanence. What does it mean? The British navy means the great police force of the world. It does not mean militarism. It means that it has made it impossible for piracy to continue on the high seas. It means that it has been made impossible for the slave trade to continue, and it means that no citizen is so well protected and guarded in his rights as the man who is able to call himself a British subject. For these reasons, if for no other, and there are no higher or more consistent reasons, Canada ought to recognize the obligations which she owes to British connection and show that she is prepared to stand to the utmost against the world and do her duty to the empire to which she belongs. Is there a man in whose breast it does not awaken pride and respect to realize that he belongs to the British empire? Lord Rosebery said that it was the greatest secular force that the world had ever seen in the interest of peace, harmony and good. Are we not to lend our assistance and aid, our moiety and our arms, if need be, to continue that great moral force which secures to Canada and to all the people of the British empire that peace and prosperity which every one now enjoys under the Union Jack? The navy of England is regarded as one of the greatest factors contributing to the public peace. Are we to have no share in it? That is the simple question before the House to-day. We are going to have a navy which is going to be built in Canada. When are you going to construct the guns in Canada with which to equip these great vessels? Has the Minister of War any idea when we will be able to build these guns in Canada? When will you be able to make the plate to put upon these vessels in Canada? You talk about putting Canadians on these vessels, and rightly so, but the quickest way of putting Canadians on these vessels is to put them on British training ships on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, drill them there and have them ready for your navy -when your navy is ready to float. The Minister of Militia and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken have talked a great deal about

manning these vessels with Canadians. How many of our permanent militia are native born Canadians, can you tell me? Why, the Minister of Militia stated today that only twenty per cent were Canadian born and yet we hear a great deal about putting Canadians upon these vessels. What did the right hon. gentleman say when he went on to talk of the navy and our fighting qualities? He turned round to his friends and he said: You need not fight if you don't like, you have to volunteer first. I suppose he intends that for the province of Quebec. The probability is that the right hon. gentleman does not intend to fight and his friends don't intend to fight. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind about that, because, I believe he made that statement with the express intention that it should go abroad that some one else should do the fighting, while the government built the navy. Well, I think that is about what we will get. There is a great deal said about Germany and I am not going to pitch into Germany. I think Germany is able to take care of herself. There is no doubt a great deal of activity in Germany in shipbuilding, but a great deal of that shipbuilding has been for her inland waters, and she carries to-day four-fifths of her inland commerce by water instead of by rail. She has trained her men in the inland waters and she has given to her people cheap freight, and in that way a great impetus to her industries. That is a legitimate purpose for Germany to pursue. Her object is to get colonies, in which she can place her people under the German flag, and that is commendable. ' England stands prominently in the world as a great colonizing nation, and the only successful colonizer, and other nations are no doubt jealous of that. That jealous feeling must permeate the German people to some extent and the example of England in that respect is no doubt a legitimate example for Germany to aim at. There is no doubt that Germany desires to secure possession of the Rhine to its mouth, including Holland, but there is no room for German settlement in Holland, and the great object of Germany is to get room for her people under her own flag. There is another question that has not been much talked about- and you would think after the talk we have had in this House for the last three or four weeks there could not be a subject in theology or history that has not been touched upon-but, we have not talked much about the position of the American people in regard to their maritime affairs. When we hear the government and their supporters talking about war vessels, and what they are going to do and all that, it reminds me of some people who were getting ready for war and who declared: We will hang our colours on the outer wall Mr. BRODER.
and if the enemy comes we will run away, but if the enemy does not come we will bleed and die for our country. The Americans are a great people, 80,000,000 of them; aggressive, energetic, wealthy, ingenious, but what about their shipping?- When you take away the lake shipping of the United States they have very little left. It is possible to have a navy, it is possible to have all that accompanies a navy, and yet not have that shipping and commerce which a nation should have. The Americans have no continuity in their naval policy, and in that they are different from England or Germany, or the other European countries. They will bring in a large estimate and reduce it, and they will bring in a small estimate and increase it, and the strange thing about shipping in the United States .is that while 50,000,000 bushels of wheat are shipped from Baltimore yearly, only 10,000 bushels of that is shipped under the flag that sheltered the grain while it was growing. They have 1,200 ships leaving New York every year, laden with American commerce for the ports of the world, but only seven of these ships carry the American flag. No wonder that one of the American senators said:	Just think of it, ten cruisers, eight
Dreadnoughts, and nineteen battleships, guarding eight merchant ships in the Pacific. That is a beautiful picture is it not? Is that the kind of thing we want in this country? You talk about war and of sending your navy over to help England, why, England would have to send an escort over to help your navy to cross the ocean to get' ready to fight. If we were a small country surrounded by water, and having a population of 7,000,000 we might build a navy, but we are a sparsely settled country with an enormous area of land and we are proposing to do what there is no necessity for doing in the interest of this country and which is not in the interests of British connection and the empire either. It means that you will spend $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, or $5,000,000 this year and two, three, or four millions next year, and you have got to continue doing that or your navy will become obsolete. That is a serious question before this country to-day. If we had 20,000,000 people it would be a different question altogether. Now, from all I can learn, far and near, the verdict of the Canadian people is: We don't want a navy built in this country to-day, if there is necessity to do something to help the motherland in the crisis, and let the matter end there for the present. That is the opinion of the Canadian people. We have heard a great deal about this country, and that country, and the other country, and before I sit down I want to say that the strongest card we can play for the assistance of the empire and for the maintenance of British connection is to show to the world that we

will be ready to act and act promptly, and if we do that, hostile nations will stay their hand before they think of attacking the motherland.
On motion of Mr. Warburton the debate was adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The House will be moved into Committee of Supply to take up the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 18, 1910.