1910-03-02

Mr. ROBB:: In view of the report from Dr. J. T. Donald, expert analyst and assayist, on the use and quality of explosives employed in district ' I<Y of the Transcontinental Railway, and his report of the principal causes of the accidents on construction work of the railway, have the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners considered the advisability of issuing a circular forbidding the employment in the handling of explosives of all workmen who cannot read printed instructions in either the French or English language?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM:: The matter is under consideration.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY SLEEPING CAR CONDUCTORS.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Have orders been given requiring the conductors of sleeping cars on the Intercolonial railway, residing in Montreal, to remove to Halifax, or at leiast to live there when not on duty?
2.	If iso, who gave these orders, and why?
3.	Why does not the same order apply to Mr. Archibald, superintendent of the department, who remains at Truro?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No. Sleeping car conductors are required to lay off between runs in Halifax.
2.	Orders are given by superintendent of parlour, sleeping and dining car service by instructions of the board of management.
3.	It is not considered necessary.

PORT HOOD HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. RHODES:
1.	What amount has been already expended oil the breakwater to close the northern entrance to Port Hood harbour, Inverness county, N.S., and the amount for each year?
2.	What amount has been spent on the Port Hood side, and what amount on the Port Hood island side?
3.	Has the wrork been done by tender and contract, or by day's work?
4.	Under what foreman or foremen was the work done, and what total amount was paid him, or each of them?
5.	What distance has been built from the above on the Port Hood side, and on the Port Hood island side, respectively?
6.	What distance is there of channel still to fill in, and what is the greatest depth of water ?
7.	How much does the government propose to spend this year, and will it be spent by contract?
8.	What is the original estimate of the government engineer for the whole of the work?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1. 1903-04			 $ 2,968 85
1904-05			 19,942 43
1905-06			 9,999 91
1906-07			 14,885 13
1907-08			 14,999 37
1908-09			 15,000 98
1909-10			 15,012 31
	$92,808 98
2.	Port Hood side, $77,796.67; Port Hood Island side, $15,012.31.
3.	Day work.
4.	James McDonell, foreman, $3.50 per day, $2,212.87; Isaiah Watts, sub-foreman, $2.50 per day, $1,119.38.
5.	Port Hood side, 1,660 feet; Island side, 540 feet.
6.	(a) 2,400 feet; (b) Greatest depth at extreme low water between the two works, 19 feet.
7.	(a) Amount voted for fiscal year 191011, $40,000.	(b) It is proposed to have
the balance of the work done by contract.
8.	The resident engineer submitted various estimates ranging from $165,000 to $482,000 according to character and height of work. These plans, however, were not adopted, and the chief engineer recommended loose brush and stone work, estimated to cost $215,000.


INVERNESS HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. BLAIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to spend any money on making a harbour at Inverness, Nova Scotia, this season?
2.	Has any amount been already spent on this work for land, and to whom, for timber, and for foreman's fees?
3.	If the work is done this season, will it
be by opening up a channel to Melsaac's pond, or in the rebuilding and repair of the old piers outside?
4.	How much does the government propose to spend this season on this work?
5.	Has the government any word of serious damage being done to the old piers by a late severe storm ?
6.	What is the government engineer's estimate for building and extending pier and for dredging boat channel to Mclsaac's pond, respectively ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	There is an item in the estimates for the purpose, and it is hoped that the work may be proceeded with.
2.	The government having been obliged to expropriate the land required, work of construction was necessarily delayed; there-' fore the appropriations granted so far by parliament have partially lapsed, the only yearly expendituresTieing as follows:
Year.	Appropria- tion.	Amount	Expenditure, Nature.
	$	$ cts.	
1907-8..	10,000	70 60	Survey of land and legal services.1908-9..	10,000	70 00 Foreman's fees. 611 31* Timber. 229 63 Stone, hardware, &c.	1909-10.	4,700	750 79 Land and costs-D. J. McDonald. 520 69 Legal services, witness fees. | &c. 20 00 Foreman's fees.	3.	Reconstructing and repairing old protection work on east side and possibly excavating to one foot at low water.4.	Amount voted for fiscal year 1910-11,

5.	No.
6.	Reconstruction	$12,324New channel	piers	
39,970Dredging	9,400


SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.
Mr. BEST:: 1.	What was the number of sessional or temporary employees of the House of Commons on the 25th of January last, and by whom were such appointments made?
2.	What was the authorized number of such employees at said date?
Sir WILFRID LAURlER:
1.	The number of sessional or temporary employees of the House of Commons on the 25th of January last was 175. These appointments were made by his honour the Speaker of the House.
2.	All the said appointments were authorized.


CHAMBORD CUSTOMS OFFICE.
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Was an office of customs opened at Cham-bord? If so, in what year and for what reason ?
2.	In what year was it closed, and why ?
3.	Who are the persons who asked for its discontinuation ?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Chambord Junction was established as a customs outport from 1st May, 1897.
2.	The customs outport at Chambord Junction was abolished by order in council of 22nd October, 1901, with a view of promoting economy.
3.	The official reports received through * the customs service led to the discontinuance of the outport.


METABETCHOUAN POSTMASTER
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Has Mr. Jean Gauthier, postmaster at Metabetchouan, been removed or has he resigned? If so, in what year and why?
2.	Who are the persons who asked for his removal and resignation?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1.	Mr. Jean Gauthier was removed from the postmastership of Metabetchouan in October, 1902. The office had for some time been very badly managed and had on several occasions been the subject of official inquiry and report. No improvement being shown in the management, it was found necessary in the public interest, to make a change in the postmastership.
2.	As stated, in answer to No. 1, the change was made after official investigation, as a result of repeated complaints made to the department in regard to the unsatisfactory management of the office. Complaints were preferred by the following individuals: Mr. George Perron, Mr. Joseph Dore, Mr. Wilfrid Cote, Mr. Edouard Montminy, Mr. C. P. Renauld, Mr. S. Bouchard, Mr. W. Ratte, Mr. J. Couture, Mr. J. Desmeules.
INDIAN AGENT AT POINTE BLEUE. Mr. GIRARD:
1.	Has a person named W. Donohue, Indian agent on the Pointe Bleue reserve, been removed? If so, in what year and why?
2.	Who are the persons who asked for this action of the minister?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: W. T. A. Donohue was removed from the position of Indian agent for the Pointe Bleue reserve in the year 1902, by order in council of 23rd April of that year, as result of an investigation into irregularities connected with the conduct of his agency.
2. The department has no data to enable it to answer this question.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


POSTMASTER AT DELISLE.
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Has Mr. Alfred Gagne, postmaster at Delisle, been removed or has he resigned? If so, in what year and why?
2.	Who are the persons who asked for his resignation or removal?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Mr. Alfred Gagne was removed from the postmastership of Delisle in November, 1903. Numerous complaints were received in regard to the management of the office, which an official investigation proved to be so unsatisfactory as to render it necessary, in the public interest, to make a change in the postmastership.
2.	Several petitions were received on the subject, one very numerously signed petition from the mayor and councillors of the place, recommended the appointment of the present postmaster.


POSTMASTER AT DOLBEAU.
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Has Mr. J. Tremblay, postmaster at Dol-beau, been removed or has he resigned? If so, in what year and why?
2.	Who are the persons who asked for such resignation or removal?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	A change was made in the postmastership of Dolbeau in May, 1909. Complaints were made to the department in regard to the management of the office and an official investigation revealed so serious a state of mismanagement that it became necessary, in the public interest, to make a new appointment to the postmastership.
2.	The mayor and secretary-treasurer of the municipality and others were complainants in the matter.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY COMMISSION-COUNSEL.
Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Has counsel ever been employed by this government, or paid out of the public funds of Canada, to represent or act for witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee, or to represent or act for the Transcontinental Railway Commission, in respect of the examination of witnesses before such committee? If so, who are such counsel, and when were they paid?
2.	For whom were they acting and what services did they actually render?


George Perry Graham: The information sought is too voluminous to be given in the form of a reply to a question.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: It stands as a notice of motion. [DOT]


Mr. FIELDING.: No.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Do I understand the minister to say that this question has been answered?


George Perry Graham: The information asked is too voluminous to give in the form of a question. If the hon. gentleman moves, it is all right.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) wish it to stand as notice of motion for a return?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


LAKE ST. PETER WORKS-FOREMAN ROY.
Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Were any charges laid against Ernest Roy, foreman of works on Lake St. Peter? If so, on what date were such charges laid?
2.	Was an investigation held? If so, by whom, and has a report been handed to the department showing the results of such investigation ?
3.	Will the department place a copy of said report on the table of the House?
4.	Is Ernest Roy still in the employ of the government? If so, in what capacity, and if still employed, what is his salary now and what was it when charges were laid?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Yes. On the 8th September, 1906.
2.	Yes. By Victor Gaudet, Esq., barrister, of Montreal. A report has been presented.
3.	The report was presented to the House on the 11th May, 1908.
4.	No.


'COTTON'S WEEKLY.'
Mr. HERRON:: Is the Postmaster General aware that a paper ailed ' Cotton's Weekly,' published at Cowansville, P.Q., claims that it is being unjustly discriminated against in the matter of excessive postal charges? If so, what grounds are there for such a claim?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: A communication has been received from the publisher of ' Cotton's Weekly ' respecting the rate of postage chargeable on copies of his publication. There has been no discrimination, and, in the view of the department, no ground for complaint exists. I might explain further: The department was informed that the publisher of ' Cotton's Weekly ' had sent various bundles of his paper to different post offices addressed to other than regular subscribers. It appears that the postmaster of Cowansville, instead of collecting postage at the transient rate of one cent per four ounces, allowed such bundles to go through at the bulk rate of one-quarter of one cent per pound. The department has contended that persons who subscribe for fifty or one hundred, or a similar number of copies, of
but a single issue cannot be regarded as regular subscribers, and, therefore, that such copies can only be transmitted by post at the transient rate of one cent per four ounces, or fraction thereof, to each separate address. The publisher has recently written resenting the action taken, and a reply dealing fully with his inquiry is being sent to him to-day, to the effect that he is not in any manner being discriminated against, but is enjoying the same privileges as all other publishers, and not in any way knowingly treated differently.


NEW BRUNSWICK MAIL ROUTE.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	When were tenders called for the Mill-edgeville-Holderville mail route in New Brunswick ?
2.	Who were the tenderers, at what prices did they tender, and who got the contract?
3.	Was the contract given to the lowest tenderer? If not, why not?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Per annum.
1.	February 19, 1909.
2.	(a)Joseph M. Sleep	$636
William Sleep	 690


Thomas L.: Martin	 690
Edgar Miller	 700
John Harrity	 707
H. A. Currie	800
(b) Mr. Thomas L. Martin.
3.	The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, but he failed to provide the necessary security and the department was obliged to set his tender aside.


STEAMER ' HUDSON.'
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Has the government or anv department thereof recently purchased a steamer in St. J ohn, called the ' Hudson ' ?
2.	If so, what was the price paid, and for what purpose is she to he used?
3.	What are the dimensions and tonnage' of this steamer?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$3,600. For patrolling the lobster fishery.
3.	57 feet 7 inches long, 12 feet 6 inches beam, and 4 feet 7 inches depth; 33-59 gross tons.


PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the Minister of Railways received any complaint or complaints as to the alleged unfair manner in which the Railway Commission has purchased its supplies?
2.	Has the minister any information which would indicate that the contractors on the Transcontinental railway are compelled to purchase their supplies from any one firm, or is he aware that such is said to be the case?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	It is not unusual when public bodies or governments are purchasers of supplies or goods, for dealers who think they should sell a greater quantity of such supplies and goods than is purchased from them, to *make complaint, and the Minister of Railways has had the usual experience in this respect.
2.	No.


POULTRY DEPARTMENT, EXPERIMENTAL FARM.
Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: 1.	How many men are employed in the Poultry Department at the Central Experimental Farm, and what is the salary of each?
2.	What amount of ground is given up to this department ?
3.	How many fowl are there at the farm at pi'esent?
4.	What is the revenue from this department ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: 1.	Five, with salaries of $1,500, $1,300, $500, $605.31 and $515.70, respectively.
2.	3-05 acres.
3.	323.
4.	Revenue :Fiscal year 1908-9,	$620.91;
10 months, fiscal year 1909-10, $350.87.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (Victoria and Haliburton. Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I beg, with your permission, to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the regulations of the National Rifle Association of Great Britain and Ireland, in which discrimination is made against the official arm of the Canadian militia. I regret that the Minister of Militia, owing to illness, is not here; but as the matter is of very great urgency, I would be pleased if the right hon. the First Minister would kindly bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Militia.
Leave being granted,
Mr. HUGHES.: ture sight, which it is found expedites shooting. The National Rifle Association passed this regulation:
Subject to the provisions set out in this subsection, an additional backsight may be used, or either of the backsights as issued may be removed, by withdrawal of the hinge pin only, and another backsight may be substituted for the removed backsight.
That would permit the use of the rear aperture sight; but it could be used only on a rifle which had already this rear aperture sight, so that by the removal of the hinge pin it could be used. They might as well have put in that regulation that no one could use the rear aperture sight except on a Lee-Enfield or a Lee-Metford rifle. Objection was taken to the fact that the Canadian rifle had a different rear aperture sight; but it having been authorized by the Minister of Militia, it was therefore within the rules, and objections were reluctantly withdrawn.
As to the success of the long Ross rifle, I may be permitted to point out a few of the winnings last year. It seems impossible that these can be a mere matter of chance. I do not want to take up time giving reasons why the Ross rifle is superior to others, but any of those skilled in the use of rifles can easily explain why. At Bisley last year it won the McKinnon cup, for the first time in history, with a score of 1,609 out of a possible 1,800. It won the Kolappre cup with a score of 765 out of a possible 840. It also won the Graphic cup with a score of 35 out of a possible 35; the Daily Graphic cup with a score of 35 out of a possible 35; another Daily Graphic cup with a score of 35 out of a possible 35; the Jubilee trophy, with a score of 2,375 out of a possible 2,640; and the All Comers aggregate, with a score of 167 out of a possible 175.
In the province of Quebec the long Ross rifle swept the entire match. In the Ontario matches, in the Tait-Brassey match, it took the first six places in Toronto last year. In the Osier match, it made a score of 49 out of a possible 50, and took the first five places in the extra series No. 1. In the Great West Tobacco match, it took the first two places, and in the Militia Aggregate, the first three places; and in the All Comers Aggregate, the first four places.
At the Dominion Rifle Association Meet, in the Bankers' match it won the first seven places, except the second. That could not be a matter of chance at all because the same class of men shot all round. In the Governor General's match, it made a score of 198 out of a possible 210. In the Bisley aggregate it took the first four places. In the Tyre match it took the first


Samuel Hughes: But, now there is a change. The new rule provides that the rifle authorized by a colony shall not be used until it is submitted for endorsation, thus keeping the people in suspense until within three months of the match, and the National Rifle Association may take six weeks to come to a decision. Here is the rule:
The council have decided that no service rifle of any pattern other than the official pattern in use in the British army be admitted in service rifle competitions unless an officially specimen of such rifle be deposited with the National Rifle Association at least three months before the commencement of the Bisley meeting and approved for use at the Bisley meeting.
You must walk up three months in advance and say here is the rifle authorized by the Dominion, in use by the troops of the Dominion, manufactured in the Dominion, which swept Bisley last year and put the Lee Enfield out jo-f existence, and yet you have nevertheless to walk up hat in hand and say: Please, will you let me shoot -with it next year?
The other objectionable part is that the Ross rifle must be approved for use at the Bisley meeting. What we should insist on is that the rifle authorized by the Canadian government should be admitted to the competition at Bisley without any demur. Otherwise, no Canadian riflemen should go to Bisley. I think this whole business is engineered in Canada by conspirators in the pay of the small arm companies of England to discredit the Canadian rifle and make it appear that there is something crooked about it, when there never was a straighter transaction. What do we do? We adhere to the British caliber and a -303 bullet. What we should have is a -280 bullet, that is what we want. Still, in order to be able to use the same ammunition in any part of the world, we adopt the -303. We should have a rimless cartridge. The British use the obsolete rim cartridge. We maintain the old pattern so that the soldier who uses the Ross rifle may use the same ammunition as is used in the Lee-Enfield. We maintain these obsolete ideas merely to comply with the standard set up. But, moreover, only last month, the British government themselves have come out with the statement that their rifle is obsolete, and they are going to change it at an early day. Yet, they want to force us-no, I am not speaking of the British government now, but of the National Rifle Association, which is a sort of private institution-that association is endeavouring to force us to
give up the use of our long Ross rifle. But the self-respect of this government cannot rest under that rule. -Mr. J. D. REID. How are you going to make them change?


Samuel Hughes: I am very glad my hon. friend has asked that question. How are we going to make them change?_ Let the Canadian boys stay at home, if the British government will not step in and take action. The British government allow a lot of their officers to take part as range officers, and thus save the association thousands of dollars every year. Let the government be notified that the use of these obsolete ideas in regard to rifles does not meet with the approval of the Dominion of Canada. Then, if our boys go there, let them carry the rifle bearing the official stamp of the Dominion of Canada, and with the order in council in the pocket of the commandant of the team. They go on the ranges and say: ' Here is the official certificate, and here is the rifle bearing the stamp of the Dominion of Canada.' That is is all that should be necessary from any .colony in this empire, and no self-respecting colony would tolerate the demand of more. If they do not agree to that, so far as I am concerned not a Canadian rifleman will fire at Bisley this year or any other year until these gentlemen are brought to time. If they cannot be brought to time by reason, why, we can bide at home, shoot our own matches, and get along without them. We have shown at Bisley what the Ross rifle and the Canadian boys can do.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I desire to add just a word to this rifle controversy. I have no intention of detaining the House, for I know that it is desirable to go on with another debate. I do not hold a brief for the Ross Rifle, nor do I hold a brief for the private manufacturers of the Lee-Enfield rifle, which latter, I believe, are at the bottom of this trouble. We must look at this matter fairlv and sensibly. Rifle matches, to my mind should afford a test of the marksmanship of the men and of the qualities of the rifle as well. We all know that the rifle, at the present moment and all over the world is in a transition state. The Boer war showed the necessity of improving, not the shooting quality of the rifle, but the sights and the means of manipulating the sighting with a view to giving greater effectiveness than had up to that time been attained at the long ranges. The old sights on the Lee-Enfield are almost identical with the sights on the old Brown Bess. The most experienced sportsmen and marksmen know that in order to obtain the highest degree of skill in the use of the small-bore rifle some improved methods of sighting must be adopted over those in vogue during the Boer war. While I do not wish to take any particular part in the

controversy, I may make a brief statement of the matter. The difference between the Lee-Enfield rifle and the Eoss rifle is largely a difference of the action, and the action has nothing to do with the shooting properties of the rifle, but is simply a matter of the mechanism that puts the cartridge into the barrel of the rifle. The shooting qualities depend entirely unon the quality of the barrel and also on the sights, plus ' the man behind the gun.' Now, the whole trouble with the National Eifle Association is that any Canadian who wishes to go to Bisley where he must fire the Lee-Enfield rifle or the Lee-Metford rifle must go down in his pocket for an expensive rifle manufactured by one of two or three well-known private makers of rifles in the old country. If he does not do that, he stands no show in the matches. After our men went to England, immediately after we had adopted the Lee-Enfield-which was different from the rifle they had, the Lee-Metford-our men carried off prizes to about the same extent as last year. Mr. Hayhurst carried off the Queen's prize, and did it with a rack rifle-not with a private rifle. This caused great clamour amongst the manufacturers of rifles in the old country, for it is an extensive business with large interests, as can be seen by the prizes offered for those who shoot a particular rifle. The British government then adopted the Canadian Lee-Enfield.
My view of the whole matter is that the self-respect of both countries should see to it that these matches are made contests, for rifles as well as of skill. This is necessary for us, and Great Britain, in order to have rifles more modern than any other nation. The. English rifle is entirely obsolete. I agree with the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, (Mr. Hughes), on that point-its calibre is too great and the partridge is useless, for it is a rim cartridge, instead of cannelured, and besides the sights are altogther obsolete. In view of the fact that this whole question is in a transition state, I think the self-respect of both countries and of all colonies that compete at Bisley should insist on virtual free trade in the matter of rifle shooting. If any colony insists on adopting a certain pattern of rifle, it must necessarily, in my opinion, carry a bayonet. I think that was the chief fault of the short Eoss rifle. But the short Eoss rifle was as good as the territorial rifle which is the standard arm of the British soldier to-day. I claim, as I said that there should be free trade in this matter, and that Canada should insist that the rifle she adopts, whether the Eoss rifle or any other pattern, shall be authorized in these matches, so long as the ammunition and the bayonet are . the same as those in use in Great Britain, and that the length of the rifle we fire is not too great. Also, marksmen should be permitted to experi-Mr. J. A. CUEEIE.
ment with their sights, in order that some sight may be invented which will make this rifle deadly accurate up to two thousand yards. The old open rifle sight is not accurate for more than six hundred yards, and everybody knows that in modern warfare the casualties occur at from about 1,300 down to 1,000 yards. A man must be able to use a rifle with deadly accuracy at 1,800 yards. What the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton says is right; this rifle which they want to have used at Bisley is of an obsolete pattern. The rifle with which the British troops are armed is the territorial rifle, the short-barrelled Lee-Enfield, which they adopted after the Boer war. They cannot and will not use that arm at Bisley, because it is not nearly so good as the rifle they formerly had. Therefore, they want to" insist that we should follow their method, they want to compel our riflemen to purchase expensive rifles from the old country manufacturers of the match rifles. It seems to me that this is all a matter of ' Great is Diana of the Ephesians.' I do not care in this matter to use such strong language as that of my hon. friend from Victoria" and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes), but it is not right to compel our marksmen to pay up to $60 or $70 for a rifle in the old country which is no better than our standard rifle with which we carried off prizes, greatly to our credit as I think. We are no more breaking rules than they are, because the rifle that they use at Bisley is not their official arm. I think the time is opportune for us to make a protest. And, in view of the fact, that the British army is about to change their weapon-and possibly we might change also-this match at Bisley this year should be an open competition both as regards the rifle and as regards the sights. From the experience thus gained, the British government and this government will be better able to judge the right kind of rifle to choose. Unless rifles aTe subjected to the test of these great matches we cannot tell which one of them is the best. I might say that it is a matter that concerns every nation in the world to know which, new rifle is to take the place of the old. The Japanese have adopted a new automatic rifle which fires ten shots automatically. The new Mauser fires seven or eight shots without reloading, by simply pulling the trigger. The recoil of the rifle after a shot is fired is used for reloading. These changes have been adopted in rifles now in use. But the most important question of all is to know what form of sight we are going to use, and in order to develop the ingenuity of mankind, and help our soldiers to perfect a good sight, we should insist that they be allowed to use whatever sight can be adopted to the rifle, that might be used as a military sight. I am glad this ques-

tion has come up, and I hope the National Rifle Association will not stand for the welfare of the English private rifle makers against the interests of the empire.


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: I think, with all due respect to self-respecting nations and Diana of the Ephesians, that we have here a tempest in a teapot. I think the real question before the National Rifle Association to-day is the question whether Mark II. double star, Ross rifle is the standard arm of the Canadian militia. I maintain it is not the standard arm of the Canadian militia to-day, and 1 base my statement on answers to questions which I have asked during this session. As to how many of this Mark II. double star rifle have been ordered, I was told that 500 had been ordered. Now it is not intended surely to arm the Canadian -militia with 500 Mark II. double star rifles; if it is, it is only for the purpose of issuing this rifle to . rifle clubs and to sharpshooters in different regiments so that they may compete, if necessary, with the rifle associations here and abroad. In doing this, I think the department is taking an unfair stand, because it is not every one who has a Mark II. double star, which is, I may say, a very good rifle. I think the fact of its being a good rifle is due largely to the fact that the Conservative party have been insisting upon the Ross rifle being perfected. I think if the Conservative party had not insisted on this matter the militia of Canada would be armed to-day wtih the Mark I. rifle, which is a very inferior brand of rifle. I think the only question before the National Rifle Association of England to-day is whether this rifle is the standard rifle of the Canadian militia or not. If it is the standard rifle of the Canadian militia, further orders would be given for this rifle, and we would not find so few rifles of Mark II. being ordered, but we would find an order given for enough rifles to arm all the militia with .it. Now, as to the idea of conspirators throughout Canada who are said by the hon. member to_be in the pay of the small arms companies of England, and aTe consequently objecting to the manufacture of the Ross rifle, I think this is only a delusion which exists in the imagination of some people, whose form of paranoia may lead them ultimately into the belief that they are actually Ross rifles themselves, doing business at both ends simultaneously.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to express my regret that my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Militia and Defence could not be in his seat to-day. I appreciate the fact that my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) has given a great deal of attention to this matter, which is one of so much importance, and that he should not delay to lay it before the public. I do not pretend to be an authority on militia matters, but 144
it seems to me that the facts which he has advanced are worthy of consideration, and I will ask my colleague to give them special attention.


Samuel Hughes: I thank the First Minister for his approval. I am not surprised to find that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) is so well posted on the reasons actuating the Rifle Association of Britain in their improper action last year. We know to-day that the National Rifle Association had piles of newspapers about two feet high, and of questions put by the hon. member in the House of Commons here,- and of letters written by gentlemen who should know better, and who should be above such things. All these letters were written to the National Rifle Association, and for what purpose? Was it done for the purpose of improving rifle shooting in the empire? No, but to prevent the use of the Ross rifle at Bisley. These are facts which can be substantiated at the proper time and place. Why is it said that this is not the standard arm of Canada? When Britain sent her troops to Matabelaland with 1,000 short Lee-Enfield rifles, was it not jfhe standard arm of the empire? It was used in war by the British troops, and it was used, not after two years of testing, but after two weeks of testing, yet the government sent the troops into action with these rifles. Nobody would pretend to say *that a man, because he carried one of these rifles in Matabelaland and presented himself at Bisley, should not have a right to use that rifle. I may inform the House that there are 1,500 of these long Ross rifles ordered, which is an infinitely greater number for Canada relatively than 50,000 would be for Great Britain.
My hon. friend says that he speaks for the Conservative party. The Conservative party, let me inform him, was not behind the conspiracy against the Ross rifle. A few irresponsible gentlemen in the party were in that conspiracy, but the Conservative party was not behind it. And let me inform my hon. friend that before he ever opened his mouth in this House of Commons, for or against the Ross rifle, criticising it one way or the other, every change that has been made in the rifle today had been proposed, and had been practically carried out, and was being experimented with, more than a year before he ever came into the House, much less before he opened his mouth on this question. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the various marks of the Ross rifle. There are three marks of the Ross rifle. There is Mark I, which was the first rifle; then there is Mark II, which rifle is in the hands of the soldiers, and the shooting from which has surpassed any shooting done by the Lee-Enfield rifle. The shooting from that Mark II rifle in the hands of the soldiers through-



out Canada last year, was infinitely ahead of any shooting that was done with the Long-Lee-Enfield rifle. Then there is the 'Mark II**' rifle, whose record I have given you from Bisley, and which surpasses any other rifle that has ever been made in the history of the world. I shall not detain the House any further than to say that although we have three marks of the Ross rifle which I gave to the House some years ago, taking the long Lee-Enfield, the short Lee-Enfield, the long Lee-Metford and the short Lee-Metford, some 30 different marks. We have not four or five changes, but hundreds of changes in one part or the other, in the construction of these rifles, yet we never object to them. Competitors' are allowed to come and shoot with any service rifle they like at the Dominion or any other ranges in Canada. We claim that when the Dominion of Canada puts its stamp on a rifle as the rifle of the Dominion of Canada and furnishes the committee with a copy of the order in council authorizing that rifle, there the duty of any self-respecting colony should end, and the National Rifle Association of the British empire should be too big a British institution to be worked and run around by any rifle company, I care not what it may be.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: As the hon. gentleman has used the word 'conspiracy', in relation to my connection with, this discussion, I wish to sav that any connection I have had with the discussion of the Ross rifle has been actuated by a desire to see in the hands of the Canadian militia a good, safe, sound and efficient rifle. I have no interest, as some other people may have, either with the company or as A. D. C. to the Minister of Militia; I am simply here to see that a good, safe and efficient rifle is put in the hands of the militia, and by taking a stand against the first brand of that rifle issued to the militia I think I mav safely say we have been successful in having at least 200 changes made in the rifle. To-day the result has been the production of an excellent shooting rifle, but a rifle which experts claim is not an efficient service rifle, that is the Mark II**.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to impugn the motives of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington); I shall let his actions speak. If he can assure the House that he has not been instrumental in inspiring the Rifle Association of Great Britain to refuse the use of the long Ross rifle I will be only too glad to accept his explanation; but he cannot do it.	[DOT]
Motion negatived.


Samuel Hughes: 


PRECAUTIONS AGAINST RABIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN, Might I ask the Minister of Agriculture what the recent regulations of the government are in respect to requiring dogs to be muzzled. This regulation applies, I understand, only to western Ontario. What agreement is there between this government and the government of Ontario in respect to the enforcement of the regulations? Has my hon. friend any news to communicate to the House as to whether this regulation is likely to continue in force for any considerable length of time?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER.: The Department of Agriculture in its administration of the Health of Animals Law has the authority to issue an order placing any. particular part of the country under regulations which may be formulated to protect the health of animals. The provincial authorities have certain powers in regard to the protection of the health of human beings. These powers are largely exercised through by-laws of- the municipalities, or orders of the local or provincial health authorities. The outbreak or epidemic of rabies in the western part of Ontario assumed a dangerous form, not only to dogs and other animals, but to human beings and seemed to call for some action. The director-general of the Veterinary Branch of my department communicated with the provincial authorities of Ontario, and after visiting Toronto and discussing the matter with the provincial authorities, it was agreed that the Department of Agriculture here should issue an order putting certain parts of the province of Ontario, in which there seemed to be danger, under a regulation for the muzzling of all dogs that were at large. Unmuzzled dogs were required to be kept in and tied up. The provincial authorities issued at the same time an order from their department by which the municipal authorities of the province were to enforce our order and their own similar order. The object of both authorities issuing similar orders was that there seemed to be some doubts in the mind of the legal authorities as to which department had the full control, and in order to make sure that there would be no mistake and no difficulty in the enforcement of the orders the provincial authorities and the Dominion authorities issued identical orders covering the same area, and the provincial authorities undertook to enforce these orders through their municipal officers and machinery.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is it expected that this order will continue for any considerable length of time?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are not in a position yet to note any condition of affairs which would justify a cancellation of the order.


John Allister Currie: Is there any possibility of compensating farmers whose stock are destroyed by rabies in western Ontario? It is very unfortunate that a poor farmer wakes up in the morning and finds that a mad dog has entered his premises, and has bitten several cows and possibly his horses. The first he knows of it one of his cattle takes this disease, the farm is quarantined, the veterinary officer orders the destruction of the cattle and horses as they develop the disease. I understand the law permits compensation in the case of rabies, the same as in the case of hog cholera and glanders. No compensation has been given, and no attempt has been made, to sift the cases and give compensation to the sufferers, many of whom are not guilty and may not even own dogs. The whole amount of compensation that would be paid would possibly not amount to more than $8,000 or $10,000. Has the minister the matter under advisement, and can he say that some system may be devised that would afford relief to these people?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think in such a case as the hon. member describes the owner of the cattle would have recourse against the owner of the dog,


John Allister Currie: A mad dog runs perhaps fifty miles in a night and nobody knows whose dog it is.


PERSONAL EXPLANATION-MR. EDWARDS.
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the attention of the House to a question of privilege. In yesterday's issue of the Toronto ' Globe ' there appeared a very lengthy editorial. I shall not quote the whole editorial, but inasmuch as it referred to myself unfairly I shall take this opportunity of correcting some misstatements. In referring to myself it says:
His blind partisanship is revealed by the fact that he made no allusion to the position of Messrs. Monk and Bourassa. He preferred to quote the alleged utterances of Mr. Tardi-vel, who is dead, and of Father Hamon, who is not a French Canadian. The correctness of his translations even from the utterances of these gentlemen were denied by his own fellow-Conservative, Judge Doherty. I
I wish to state that as regards my reference to the first of these works I gave my authority, the Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Quebec. I have only this to say: that the amount which I said had been given, $300, was given on the authority of the Provincial Secretary out of the vote for education, for prize books, and if it was not used in that way then the government of Quebec at that time stands convicted of a misappropriation of public funds. In regard to my
144J
reference to Father Hamon's work ,1 wish to say this: I was incorrect in saying that the extract was altogether from chapter 18. Two-thirds of the extract that I gave is a literal translation of what is contained in chapter 18; the other one-third is not contained in chapter 18, hut is the substance of parts of chapter 17. Therefore, the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) was ' quite correct in saying that the part of the quotation to which he took exception, was dot to be found in chapter 18. I was incorrect in saying that it was all from chapter 18; the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) was quite correct, I repeat, in saying that the particular part of the extract to which he took exception was not to be found in that chapter.


Samuel Hughes: You did not make the translation.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not. I have the book here, and I am perfectly willing to submit to any gentleman in the House who is able to translate from the French, and I think he will verify what I say. I wish also to take exception to the editor of the Toronto ' Globe ' accusing me of a wish to raise the race cry; and I think it comes with very bad grace from the editor of that paper. My memory carries me back to a memorable election which took place in the province of Ontario, a very bitter election in fact, the bitterness of which may very well be indicated by a pamphlet which was circulated by the Liberal party at that time, and which was given expression to in the Toronto ' Globe,' and one verse of the poem contained these words:
Beware the French Canadian horde,
Who robbed you of your just reward,
Ontario, Ontario.
I think any allusion of the kind I have referred to comes with very bad grace from a paper like the ' Globe.' As regards the reference to the member for Jacques Cartier and to Mr. Bourassa, I wish to say simply this, Mr. Speaker, that I do not share the Nationalist views of Mr. Bourassa, and neitner do I share the separatist views of the editor of the Toronto 'Globe.' But I respect Mr. Bourassa to this extent at all events, that he is a man who expresses his opinions fully and freely, and I despise the editor of the ' Globe ' as a fawning, cringing sycophant, who advocates a policy of separation and which, to use his own words ' should be advocated in such a way as to attract little attention.'
I do not think the 'Globe' is quite fair in wishing to deny to me the privilege of expressing my views, because, Sir, when the ' Globe ' gets into a tight place through following its well known policy of misrepresentation and calumny, its editor is . very quick to show the yellow streak in

him and to whine like a whipped cur for the privilege of the press.


THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting . the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before opening my remarks on that important question, I wish to refer to certain arguments employed by hon. gentlemen on the other side in support of their position. If we are to accept the statements of the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Beland), and for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Boyer), universal peace, the safety of Canadian trade, and even the supremacy of Great Britain, axe all dependent on the presence, the coming in the near future, on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans of that great naval force represented by Canada's imperial fleet.	_
Now is not that awful? And where will these good farmers, their electors in Beauce and Vaudreuil, be compelled to go in order to sell their eggs, potatoes and onions? Strange to say, they only thought of that quite recently, and goodness knows what wonders of imagination they have already accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, we will try and reassure these good folks by saying to them:	My
good friends, in time of peace there will hardly be any change. You will sell your eggs just as you did before. Only you will please to lay aside a little percentage out of each dozen, just a few cents, to enable you to pay the cost of those floating fortresses and the salaries of the great and high officers who handle them.
In time of war, your fleet will have to be protected by the British navy, or else it will soon be blown out of existence.
What amuses me, Mr. Speaker, is to hear all these great pacifists of 1896, to whom I shall refer presently, shouting ' To arms, Canadians ! Nations are arming around us! The United States, China and Japan are arming themselves all around us ! To arms, Canadians! '
Close your ears, dear hon. member for Maisonneuve. For polishing warlike implements and treating us to a smell of powder in time of war, such colonels as the hon. member for Vaudreuil have no equals.
What sounds rather strange is to hear such constant appeals to the memory of Cartier. Here is a statesman who by his death, gained a great deal of praise from hon. gentlemen opposite. Cartier was a far seeing politician. He has endowed his country with great and lasting benefits. But as far as defence is concerned, and I Mr. EDWARDS
challenge contradiction on this point, I have no hesitation in stating that in his military legislation he never had in view anything further than the- defence of Canada, his ' own beloved country.'
I am glad to notice the admission made here last night by the member for Laval (Mr. Wilson), that even if we were to strike out sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Bill, the fleet would have to take part in the imperial wars. Such is my own opinion and I must tell the hon. member that he is making my task quite easy, because my intention is to demonstrate that very fact.


Mr. WILSON.: In case of emergency.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) At all events, Mr. Speaker, by keeping silent, I voted for the resolution of the 29th of March, and yet, I shall vote against the Bill. I shall also vote against the proposal in amendment. I am in favour of the subamendment and of that only.
On the 29th of March, the German peril was the outcry. The right hon. Premier said: Germany is preparing to treat England on the ocean as she has treated France on land in 1870. He recently stated at Toronto, and he repeated in this House, when he introduced his Bill, that the German peril had ceased to exist. If the German peril justified the resolution, we have no more need of the latter. The Bill itself has no more reason to exist, and neither is there any justification for the military navy.
The resolution referred to a Canadian naval service for national defence. The Bill contemplates a military navy which, in time of war, shall be put at the disposal of the empire.
In my estimation, national defence means the defence of Canada. I am a British subject, and I am proud of it, I am a Canadian, and I am doubly proud of it. Canada is a part and parcel of the empire, but within the empire, each component part has its duty especially assigned to it, and Canada's duty is the defence of our homes, of the country, for the country and for the empire, and for my part, when I speak of my country, I mean Canada.
If there is no more German peril, we have no need of being in such a hurry to establish this military navy and put it at the disposal of England. After all, is it likely that Canada will before long have a naval war on its own account? I do not think so. Evidently this fleet will only be useful for the wars of England. It will only exist for that purpose.
In time of peace it will not be useful. The hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) stated at the imperial conference of 1907 that Canada had her boats for the protection of her fisheries. In time of war, will it really be useful to England? The question is disputed and is very doubtful. It will evidently be a fleet destined to serve in

imperial wars and the efficiency of which) will be more apparent than real.
I shall vote against the Bill because it involves the recognition of military imperialism, because it aims at having that principle recorded in our statute books. 1 shall vote against the amendment because it involves the same principle and because I do not admit that there is any emergency under the present circumstances, I do not wish to justify the motion of the leader of the opposition. I have just said that I am against it. But I believe, in all sincerity, that it does not involve such serious consequences as the government measure. It involves an expenditure not of $25,000,000, as stated by hon. gentlemen opposite, but of only 18 or 20 millions, the cost of two Dreadnoughts, without consulting the people, because it assumes that there is a case of emergency. Furthermore, the policy to be carried out later on would depend upon that appeal to the people. The proposal of the government involves an initial expenditure of 15 millions, with a yearly expenditure of $7,157,000. Then, everybody knows that this military navy will cost, later on, more than 100 millions, with a proportional yearly expenditure. And in that policy there is no provision for any emergency which might arise within three or four years._ ' La Patrie,' a Montreal newspaper, which is in favour of the government's scheme, published the following despatch from Washington, dated January 14th last, which shows the extent of the consequences which may result from the policy to which the Dominion is being committed :


MILITARY NAVY.
[Stage Direction]
This question is hotly discussed in the United States.
(Special despatch to 'La Patrie'.)
Washington, January 14,-1The Canadian Navy Bili as introduced by Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier is being discussed with great interest in diplomatic and naval circles. While the diplomats hold that the present debate shows the dependence of Canada as regards Great Britain in case of war, the naval officers are of opinion that Canada is binding itself to an undertaking much more costly than her people think, and that the Canadian navy will have no importance unless the Canadians are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. You cannot have a navy with a few vessels only. Such is the opinion expressed by a distinguished naval officer, and he adds that shipbuilding is not the only expenditure to be considered and that the recruiting of the crews and the general organization are sources of expenditure which call for the most serious consideration. Others express the opinion that it would have been preferable for Canada to have built six or eight vessels of the most modern type and to have made a present of them to England. A certain group even go so far as to pretend that the United States would defend Canada in case .of war and that the Dominion had no reason to fear
an invasion in the future. Sir Wilfrid Laurier having declared that any war with England means war with Canada, many persons are of opinion that any war with Canada would mean war with the United States.
The sub-amendment, which calls for a referendum to the people on a question of such importance, is the only proposal which meets my full and entire approval.
Personally, I believe that the policy to be followed by Canada is, and will be for a long time to come, the policy which has been followed ever since 1863, admitted by British and Canadian statesmen such as Gladstone, Disraeli, Salisbury, Sandfield, Macdonald, Cartier, J. A. Macdonald, Blake, Mackenzie, until the days of Chamberlain, and which is limited to the defence of our land, to the defence of thle empire on Canadian territory, so as to entirely dispense the mother country from any such trouble and care.
Up to date, three different modes of contribution to the defence of the empire have been recognized and accepted, both by England and by the colonies. First, a contribution in money or materials. Secondly, a local fleet which, in time of war, shall be put at the disposal of the empire. Thirdly, certain local works, which, if they were not built by the colonies, would have to be paid out of the British treasury. Canada has adopted the last mentioned mode and has contributed to the imperial defence in that way until the present day. Now it is proposed to make a change and adopt the second mode of contribution.
If it is thought proper to do this, let there be an appeal to the people. It is only fair, and there is ample time to do it, for there is no more German peril, as admitted by the Premier himself.
Then, if it is found that, by reason of the circumstances, another kind of contribution must be given for the defence of the empire, it seems to me that there would be much to do and to settle previously, as between the empire and the colonies.
So long as the colonies have no voice in the chapter, and until they have their word to say in the council of the empire, which decides of war or peace, no system devised to make the colonies participate in the general defence will have any chance to live or to last.
For my part, I have very little confidence in this kind of vague, optional and indefinite support which certain colonies are now giving to the imperial defence, without ceremony, and in proportions more or less generous and accentuated, with ostentation, in certain cases, on the part of some colonies, as if they sought to humiliate others. It will not produce any durable affect unless it engenders friction, rivalry, hatred, dislocation and rupture of bonds which unite the colonies to the empire.
We are not a nation; we are simply a
[Stage Direction]
self-governed colony, making our evolution within the bounds which unite us to England with a proconsul who represents the point of junction. It is all very well to say the contrary in election time, to flatter the people, or after a banquet among the fumes of wine which lead to boasting, to overestimation, and to the burning of frankincense.
Our treaties are made through the intervention of the British diplomacy, our own ministers being, however, allowed to act freely, just as the master often allows his subordinate to act, and feels very much amused when he sees the latter put on airs as if he was a real ambassador.
Our constitution of 1867, defines our station, the part we are to play in the empire, determines our rights, our powers and our obligations. Thus, on the question under discussion, section 91, sub-section 7, traces our line of conduct-authorizes the parliament of Canada to create a militia and a naval service for the defence of the country .-just as sub-section 5 of the same section authorizes the establishment of a postal service for Canada.
Under those powers, could we establish a postal service for New Zealand? Evidently not. Could we create a naval service for the defence of Australia? No more.
' Could we create a naval service for the defence of England, when our constitution authorizes us to do so only for the-defence of our own country, Canada? I do not think so. Unless through a fiction, it were held that the defence of England is the defence of Canada. Such an interpretation would be improper and unacceptable.
We are a portion of the empire; but our duty, the part we have to play as concerns the defence is limited to Canada. Everything is restricted to Canada; to the defence of our own country we have but the powers which are delegated to us, and those powers allow us to legislate only for the defence of Canada,
The Militia Act of 1906 is based on those powers, and could be construed only in the light of those principles. So, in section 2 of the Militia Act, paragraph B, should the word ' emergency,' which means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, be construed as meaning a war; an invasion or an insurrection, real or apprehended outside of Canada, as in India, for instance? I do not think so.
As to the naval service, are we clothed with larger powers? No, it is the constitution itself which grants us that power. Why then should we take larger powers under this Act than those contained in the Militia Act passed by parliament in 1906.
Our Land Militia Act is known as: ' An Act respecting the Militia and Defence of Canada.'
The present Act should be intituled: ' An Act respecting the Naval Service and De-Mr. NANTEL
fence of Canada. The words ' and defence' have been omitted and it merely reads:
' An Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada'
Subsection 7 of section 91 seems to admit of no other idea but that of defence; it seems to eliminate for Canada all wars except that undertaken for the defence of Canadian territory.
In the Militia Act there is no similar clause to clause 18 of the Naval Service Act. Still, under section 69, chapter 41, Revised Statutes of 1906, the Governor in Council may place the Militia, or any part thereof, on active service beyond Canada, as well as in Canada, provided it be for the defence of Canada.
When this Bill was brought down, it was stated that when England is at war, in any part of her empire, Canada is at war. .
Theoretically, that axiom is true, in so far as Canada could be attacked; but practically speaking, it is neither correct nor should it be taken in an absolute and strict sense.
Then, there is a permit which should be well understood and made clear to us; namely, in case of war, when and where should Canada be set in motion, to participate in the war?
Under the constitution of 1867, according to the letter and the spirit of the Act, and the construction placed upon it, as well as by practice and custom, Canada, so far has never had to go to war, except for the defence of her own territory, while at the same time she participated in' the defence of the empire, in compliance with the part she had to play, and as she had been called upon to do.
When Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war. Be it so; but there is a distinction; to be made between civil or intestine war, and offensive or defensive war. Should a civil war in England or in Ireland, or an insurrection in India break out, would Canada be at war? I do not think so.
In the case of an offensive war of England, a war of conquest; say against Belgium, would Canada be at war? I say no. We are under no such responsibility, anl we should beware of assuming any. Section 91, subsection 7, provides only for defence. A defensive war? Just so, the British North America Act provides for it and imposes upon us such responsibility. Let us defend the Canadian territory, within its limits and beyond those limits. Then if, by defending Canada, we happen to protect the empire, so much the better. Let us in that way promote the defence of the empire, according to our means and with all our strength.	'
In order to achieve this end, that is to say the defence of Canada, while at the same time protecting the empire, or vice versa, we need no more provision than

that which is already ambodied in the Militia Act. Under that Act we may defend Canada, by placing our militia on active service, even beyond the limits of Canada. Through a certain fiction of the law, we could even send our militia to tight on the coasts of England, should it be desirable to prevent an attack being made upon Canada by the enemy, we could send our troops ahead to fight against the enemy. Under the Act, as it is worded, the [DOT]Governor in Council may simply declare that, in thus sending our militia beyond Canada, his intention is. to prevent an attack being made upon Canada by the enemy and thereby to' provide for the defence of Canada. The Governor in Council exercises that power and discharges that duty, under his own responsibility to parliament and that is all.
But because it would be justifiable for Canada in a defensive war, in a war waged by England upon a powerful enemy, to go to her assistance by contributing men and money, in order to prevent an attack being made upon Canada, it would not be warrantable to participate in a war of conquest, when Canada has no quarrel nor any ground for a quarrel, nor any fear of an invasion and it would be impossible to plead the defence of Canada.
Were the wording of this Act similar to that of the Militia Act, and especially were clause 18 eliminated, it would be just as easy to do with our naval forces what we are now doing with our land force, under1 the same responsibility. Those naval forces could be sent beyond Canadian waters to fight the enemy, and participate in the defensive wars in which Canada or the defence of Canada might be concerned.
Then there would be left no room for doubt; the control of the navy would be similar to that of the Militia; the constitution would be safeguarded and the present policy would be the very course followed by Sir George Etienne Cartier, whose name has been invoked, when this Bill was brought down.
In order to make of this Act the counterpart of Cartier's Militia Act, the preamble ought to be amended and clause 18 struck off; then the only thing it could be reproached with would be that it is from twenty to twenty-five, years ahead of the times.
By embodying clause 18 into the present Act, this legislation is given an imperial character and it is thus intimated that the intention is to amend the Militia Act in the same direction, by introducing into it a similar provision. And the conclusion which is inferred therefrom is this: that the intention is to take part in all the wars of the empire, whether offensive or defensive wars; that the end aimed at is to establish solidarity between Canada and
England; that the intention is to place Canada at the mercy of England, every timq England may go to war; now, such a policy is at variance with our constitution, ancj cannot be applied, so long as the relations between Canada and the empire remain what they are, or the constitution remains what it is now, and so long as Canada has no voice in the council which will be called upon to decide those wars. It is the infringement of the principle: no taxation without representation.	_	_
If the defence of Canada is what is aimed at, while occasionally lending a helping hand to the empire, as I explained a little while ago,, that could also be done without clause 18, by the Governor in Council under the ministerial responsibility. Then, clause 18 serves no useful purpose here.
The hon. Minister of Militia said the other day: ' For the navy as well as for the militia, there is no doubt that, in a case of emergency the Governor in Council would not want to take action till the meeting together of parliament. That would not be necessary and such is not the intention of the law. The militia may be called out for active service whenever required by critical circumstances, but the law provides for the meeting of parliament. Should parliament then pronounce itself against the action taken by the government, the ministers should resign.'
I think that this Ts the right construction. But what leads to confusion is that, on the 15th of November last, the _ right hon. the Prime Minister, when- replying to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, said:
' My hon. friend also said that if we were to build a navy we would be drawn thereby into European wars. Need I say to imy hon. friend that whether we have a navy or not, we do not lose our rights to self-government; that if we do have a navy, that navy will go to no war unless the parliament of Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it there.'
The doctrine propounded by the Minister of Militia seems to me sounder than that laid down by the Prime Minister. The Governor in Council takes action for the navy, just as for the militia, although the wording of the law be somewhat different; then parliament comes in and gives or withholds its sanction and there is an end of it. The meeting of parliament does not involve any other remedy; the downfall of the cabinet or their remaining in power. In time of war, it would be better not to drive the government out of power; and there would be nothing left but for parliament but approve and to pay.
It is none the less true that clause 28 which is not to be found in the Militia Act, as the Minister of Militia told us, is not necessary in order to empower the Governor in Council to call out the militia for active service, for the service of the
[Stage Direction]
King, for the defence of Canada, within the limits of the country as well as beyond those limits. Why then should that clause 18 not be eliminated from the Naval Service Act, and thus be deprived of its imperialistic character? Should that clause remain in this Act, undoubtedly it will be also embodied into the Militia Act and we shall have military imperialism, carried into action.
The hon. the Postmaster General, cited here, the other day a pretty definition of the word ' imperialism ' given before the Canadian Club at Quebec by his Excellency the Governor General of Canada. Has the minister been entrusted with the special duty of imparting this precious definition to the House? I do not know, but all the same I congratulate him; he has discharged his duty very well. By the mouth of the hon. minister, as a preparation to his definition. Lord Grey tells us:-
Is there in the world a people more privi-1 edged than the people who inhabit the fine province of Quebec? Tour laws, your language are under the special protection of the British Crown. In return for so many privileges and advantages, the Crown exacts nothing from you except sentiments of loyalty. The word ' imperialism ' does not imply active intervention from England in the government of tills country; the word * imperialism * symbolizes the power of each of the units of the empire and absolute u#ity in each of these units.
I desire to say to the hon. minister, whether he be or not authorized to express the views of the noble lord: Our feelings of loyalty in the province of Quebec towards the British Crown are well established and they cannot be shaken. We were loyal in 1/75 and in 1812, we are loyal to-day and we will die in loyalty. We regret,' however that certain parties seem constantly to question that feeling of loyalty.
It may be quite true that the right hon. the Prime Minister may in former times have said more than he should during his travels to Boston in the matter of annexation.
The Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: (Translation.) Annexation?


Mr. PAQUET.: (Translation.) Independence.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Annexation. . . At least that is what I understood, that at that time independence meant annexation; but that should not be counted against us. He was at that time in the cold regions of the opposition; those were days of rampant democracy, as Mr. Bourassa says, when the premier himself despised medals and badges which he called tin pot decorations.' He .desired to scale the heights of power; that was all. Times have changed.
Let us return to imperialism, a word Mr. NANTEL.
which does not mean loyalty. There is a great difference between them. In spite of the euphemistic and optimistic definition of the word imperialism that I have just read, in spite of all my loyalty, I decline to accept any such definition any more than I could be made to accept the doctrine of free trade in the name of loyalty. I cannot avoid stating that military imperialism is the enemy of Canada and of the empire.
The Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, father of 'hat doctrine, has given us a different definition. ' Imperialism or the empire,' says he, ' is trade and trade is the empire.'
But in truth imperialism as it is sought to impose to-day is a union, a solidarity between the colonies and Great Britain for trade, defence and war, under imperial control and dominion, without representation of the colonies in the councils of the empire which decide as to peace and war, it is, therefore, militarism begetting pauperism as it exists in Europe and particularly in England; I repeat it, such an idea is inimical to Canada.
It is also inimical to the United Kingdom and to the empire, because it will end by bringing about the disaffection of the colonies.
Great Britain lost her finest colonies in 1776 because she sought to impose upon them ' taxation without representation.'
What difference is there between the taxation of the colonies for the benefit of the empire	the direct method of taxation, and that which consists in obliging them to tax themselves for the maintenance of armaments to be used in defense of the empire and for wars of the empire? Is it not the same thing under a less forbidding aspect, that is imperative, ruinous hideous taxation?
The fact is contrary to the principle of autonomy, whether it be sought to force the payment of the money directly or indirectly by the maintenance of ships of war, that fact remains unaltered.
As far back as 1778, by the statute 18, George III, chapter 12, England, repealed the tax which caused all the harm in the thirteen colonies and consented to molest them no more; but this came too late to put an end to the revolution; the cry of independence had been raised. The effect was useful, however, as concerned the other colonies. England adopted a magnificent colonial policy resting upon the principle of autonomy and the most absolute colonial liberty, the control exercised by the metropolis became gradually less tangible and more and more of a moral influence. This was the secret of the success of England's colonial policy; and what a splendid policy it was! Colonial autonomy, defence of the colonies at their own expense and consequently at a cost corre-

spondingly less to the British government. By this system, the British fleet was untrammelled, the immense British domain could be freely patrolled, commerce protected and food stuffs brought in for the inhabitants of the British isles, while a base was to be found at every fortified colonial post.
The consequences of a return to the former system might be most unfortunate. The Anglo-Saxon resents the idea' of taxation without representation. Empires do not exist eternally. The British empire has been preserved by its wise policy and if in the future that policy is abandoned , for that followed by other empires, its fate may also be the same. The new system will not last as long as did the old.
When the military budget of Canada becomes unduly large-it represents at present $7,000,000 for the militi^ alone,-when the present Bill becomes operative, 15 or 16 millions will be expended for the building of the fleet and the annual expenditure for the fleet will be about $7,157,000, with a gradually progressive increase; this will be a yearly sum of $14,157,000 which will probably be doubled within a few years. The amount is enormous if it be considered that not quite half a million is voted for agriculture. When the war budget of Canada shall have reached the proportions of that of an independent nation, when Canada has a fleet, Ontario may begin to grumble as well as Quebec and the west, the cry of independence may be raised. It may be that the cry may not at first be raised by a Canadian from Quebec, but that it may originate in the other provinces for history repeats itself, and the liberty cry in 1837 and 1838 came from Mackenzie as well as from Papineau. The breaking of the colonial bond will then be close at hand. The burden of war will have proved too heavy for a young country obliged to attend to its population, organization and development, while at the same time furnishing money, men and blood for the wars of the empire.
The blue book: 'Naval and Military Defence of the Empire ' is not an ordinary official publication; it is * a plan, a programme, imperialism in action.
Everything seems to be determined, concerted, decided, ordered and settled. All these polite suggestions and requests are none the less formal and imperative, and I see there written in letters of fire: You must bend or be broken.
That programme will be adopted, the Bill will pass, soon the Militia Act will be so amended so as to place our land forces on the same footing as those we have on the sea.
When our army and navy are so organized that at the slightest invasion, insurrection or apprehension in India, for example, they may be placed at the disposal of the imperial authorities, or rather when, in time of war, they will always be at the disposal of the empire, our autonomy will be a vain word, it will have ceased to exist.


Hon. J. BUREAU.: (Translation.) Will the hon. member allow me to put a question?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Certainly.


Jacques Bureau: (Translation.) The hon. member fears that our autonomy will have ceased to exist as soon as we have a navy, yet he asserted a moment ago that this autonomy did not exist and that it was spoken of only on the hustings and at banquets where the fumes of wine had let loose men's tongues.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) There is a great difference between tne two positions. We have autonomy, but not that independence as a nation of which so much has been said. That is a boast to be used on the hustings and at banquets. We are not an independent nation since we are under the control of a governor appointed by England.
In fact, in order to comply with the suggestions of the military and naval authorities of Great Britain, we are creating a fleet to be used by England in time of war, and can it be supposed that in any case of war those forces would be withheld from the very purpose of their creation. Such a contention cannot be seriously sustained.
When Canada builds a fleet at England's request to help in time of war, that fleet will go to war every time there is a war. That is certain.	,
Such a conclusion is the more easily reached if it be admitted that the word ' may ' is imperative when the prerogative of the Crown or the execution of the laws and wishes of parliament are concerned.
An argument in favour of this interpretation is found in the wording of the Bill. On examining closely sections 17 and 18, the following words will be found at the end of section 17: ' or when it is considered advisable to do so;' these words have been omitted in section 18, as it was desired to get*rid of the restriction.
Then, in time of war, will any government or cabinet be found to give it any other interpretation? No, never. If in time of war, it were sought to make the word ' may ' imperative, as wall invariably be done, will anybody object to such ah interpretation? No, never. The present Prime Minister will be the first so to interpret it, if we may judge by what he did at the time of the Transvaal war. _
The word ' may ' in section 18 is, therefore a mere delusion.	_
The programme is being carried out and it will be carried out. Not with good grace.

I would be unjust if I stated that the prime minister bows gracefully to this necessity.
On the contrary he complies with a very bad grace and I believe that he is acting against his better judgment. He may be doing so unwillingly, but he is complying none the less. He is an imperialist, albeit an unwilling one and while denouncing imperialism


Mr. LAPOINTE.: (Translation.)	Will
the hon. member allow me to put him a question?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) With pleasure.	-
Mr.' LAPOINTE.	(Translation.)	The
opponents of the navy bill in the province of Quebec contend that there is an understanding between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition on this question.
I would like to have my hon. friend's opinion on the question.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) My answer to my hon. friend is that on this side of the House, we are allowed to entertain different views from those of our chief. I do not know if they enjoy the same privilege on the other side, but we have it here.


Ernest Lapointe: (Translation.) That is not an answer to my question: in your opinion does an understanding exist or not?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I know nothing about it; I was not there.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Bourassa was the only one present, I suppose.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) My hon. friend could ask that question from the right hon. getnleman.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Translation.) There is none.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) There is two kinds of imperialists; those who profess imperialism openly, avowedly; they stand erect and are moved by their convictions; they are entitled to our respect. Others wear masks and disguises; they think that they are obliged to preach ftn-perialism in a spirit of conciliation, not to say of weakness; they are to be pittied, to say the least. I am inclined to think that on the present occasion, the right hon. Prime Minister is an imperialist against his will, as he has been in 1899, when he sent volunteers to South Africa.
We all know that he sent volunteers to South Africa, after having solemnly declared that he would not send any. He had to let them go grudgingly. In the bottom of his heart, he cursed that war, but he took part in it because he was compelled to do so.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: On the 17th January, 1901, at the New Reform Club of London, the Hon. Lloyd-George said: ' The Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in a public speech, the other day, stated that Canada was an independent nation, and yet, that colony pretending to be independent has sent troops in South Africa to crush down the independence of men who have an equal right to the independence that Canada claims for herself.'
Later on I have heard the right hon. Prime Minister eulogize that campaign and state that the Boer war was a just one. I did not suppose then, and I do not suppose to-day that he was in earnest; his mental tendency does not lean that way. If he became convinced, it is by persistent efforts and under the strain of circumstances. The right hon. gentleman, it is my sincere conviction, is an imperialist against his will, and what is more astonishing, is that he speaks against the imperialists.
But I say without the least hesitation that the most dangerous of all imperialists are the disguised imperialists, because people are not on their guard, because they do not show their hand, because they instill their doctrine drop by drop, as a deadly poison.
Unhappily, the province of Quebec has sent here to many adepts of that doctrine, imperialists against their will, disguised imperialists, ever ready to bow passively at the command of the big chief, and not enough, on this side of the House, of antiimperialists to check effectively the tendencies of the ultra-imperialists.
Mr. Jules Edouard Prevost, editor of ' L'Avenir du Nord ' of Saint Jerome, whose liberal -orthodoxy cannot be doubted, Mr. Prevost, the recipient of numerous favours from both Liberal governments,., the bestower of patronage in the county of Terrebonne ....


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) And who is to-day a member of the Council of Public Instruction.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: . and who in that capacity, sits with the bishops of the province. Mr. Prevost has been appointed lately to the Council of Public Instruction, by the Hon. L. Gouin, Prime Minister of the province of Quebec. Mr. Prevost is a good Liberal, a descendant of the 1 Lions of the North,' who have fought the battles of the party in that part of the country since 1854. That- same Mr. Prevost has conscientious scruples about that naval service Bill. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to: quote what that gentleman wrote on the question, and my hon. friends from the other side will not complain that I quote only Conservative papers. The folio-wing editorial was published on the 21st January last:-


NAVAL SERVICE BILL.-A DESIRABLE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Prevost begins by a comparison between sections 69 and 71 of the Militia Act, and sections 18 and 19 of the Naval Service Act, and says:
The Militia Act is intended for the defence of Canada, the Naval Service Act is intended for the wars of the empire generally.
Since we are not admitted in the councils where the wars of Great Britain are decided, since we are not represented in the British diplomatic service where international conflicts originate, we think that it should be left to the Canadian Parliament to decide e. the opportunity of our participation in the wars of the empire, before the government can dispose of our ships and our men.
We base our theory on the old english saying 'No taxation without representation.'
The help that Canada mi*ht decide to give to the mother country will never be so necessary and urgent that the Governor in Council will not be in a position to foresee the situation early enough to call Parliament together before interfering.
It would be quite different if the defence of our territory was in question, and we see no objection to section 69 of the Militia Act, nor to section 17 of the Naval Service Act, where the power granted to the Governor General in Council affects exclusively the defence of Canada.
In our opinion the order in which sections 18 and 19 are given, should be charged so as to give parliament the undeniable right, before engaging Canada to decide upon the opportunity of our participation to a war of the empire declared without and perhaps, against our parliament's consent.
In that way we should preserve our autonomy without disowning our obligations.
And further:
Our rights and our obligations would be more in accord. That is all.
So much so, that the Bill, so drafted, would be more in conformity with the national policy so ably and so energetically pursued by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
You will please note that the question here is not as to the principle of the Bill, but as to its application.
Just as we have openly and firmly recognized our obligations towards Canada and our ally Great Britain, we proclaim with the same energy, the same frankness, our sacred rights, as a self-governed country.
We do not retract a single word of what we hiavo published on the question of a Canadian navy. As a citizen of Canada, as an ally of Great Britain, we see in that proposition a necessary obligation which Laurier will make as light as possible for the country.
And further again:
But we want and we ask that Canada upholds her right to judge and her freedom to act
That is a fundamental principle that Laurier has affirmed more than once and that should not be departed from.
The government, it is true, are responsible to parliament who will approve or disapprove .their decision taken in ' critical circumstances.'
We concede that. We also admit that the Bil, as drafted, does not completely fail to recognize the legitimate exigencies of our autonomy. But, if parliament must be consulted, why not consult it before the country is involved in an imperial war, rather than after ?
We say it again ft ig not possible to suppose a case. ..
Here is the conclusion:
This objection is a serious one, but .not without a resolution.
Let parliament be called together before all participation from our port, in a war of the empire, and let it decide by a division taken 24 hours later, if yes or no, Canada ought to participate in that war.
In asking that the Naval Service Bill be so amended, we are inspired by the broad British principles upon which rest our constitution and our autonomy, and we were greatly surprised to read in the speech delivered in the House of Commons by the leader of the oposition, Mr. Borden, on the 12th January last, the following sentence:^
J'ai 6t<5 un peu surpri® de la declaration que le tres honorable premier ministre a faite dans les premiers jours de eette session lors-qu'il a dit quo si nous creons une marine ca-nadienne, quo eette marine ne prendrait pas part a aucune guerre de la Grande-Bretagne avant que ce parlement y donne son consen-tement. Je suis heureux de voir que mon honorable ami abandonne eette attitude au-jourd'hui, ei je le comprends bien.
Contrary to the views entertained by Mr. Borden, we deplore that change of front.
We believe that all Canadians subjects, be they English, French, Irish or Scotch, would be unanimous to approve a law reserving to the Canadian parliament, the right to give its consent before saddling the country with the burden of a war, and the most ^painful of all contributions-the contribution in blood.	.
Once more we say: No taxation without representation.
I am free to admit that*the situation is a difficult one, that the right hon. gentleman stands between two fires. I can understand that he thinks it proper for him to be more or less nebulous as said Mr. Bourassa, to conceal, to dissemble his thoughts.
It is not an easy task to build a navy which Canada does not need and will not need before twenty or twenty-five years; to build a navy for Great Britain, to comply to Great Britain's exigencies, to Great Britain's injunctions, given in the form of suggestions, and to say in the same breath that this navy will or will not participate to the wars of the empire, as the parliament sees fit. Surely it is very hard for one to preach military imperialism, to lay down its most fundamental principle, and
[Stage Direction]
to say and make believe that one is fighting military imperialism.
On such occasions, one must accomplish wonderful feats and display a prodigious suppleness; one must have recourse to biblical language and indulge in parables. One must even go to the length of borrowing the words of Jesus of Nazareth who, knowing that the end was near at hand, was weeping over Jerusalem.
But instead of going to Jerusalem, the right hon. gentleman went to Toronto, and there he exclaimed:	Oh, Toronto! oh,
Toronto ! thou that killeth the prophets, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings! Cannot you see the scene from here, Mr. Speaker? The good people of Toronto, sticking to the sides of the leader of the government, and the right hon. gentleman, trying to warm them "up under his wings. During the process-, he gives them a lecture on feudality in the Middle Ages; he explains the meaning of sovereignty and suzerainty. But the good people of Toronto, were not satisfied, and did not understand him. And now, it is the prophets of St. Jerome, represented by Mr. Prevost, which do not understand him, and threaten to disregard his teachings.
Sir, the war fleet is established and created as a help for the wars of the empire, and evidently to be placed in the hands of the imperial authorities, in time of war, although this may not be mentioned in clause 18. And when parliament will have a chance to approve or blame the government, the fleet will be far away, wrecked and in the bottom of the sea perhaps.
But why speaking, what is the use of those texts which can be differently interpreted? Why, sir?
. In order to keep the power of Quebec in her illusive hope and pay her with words; for the purpose of giving a chance to the Prime Minister to go and tell his good Quebec friends: ' My old friends, I built a war fleet, because I could not help it. But I did not forget you, just listen to me; that fleet is yours, she will not be called to help England except on your consent, when you will be willing to allow her to go, when your parliament will be willing to let her go.'
And in Ontario, to the people of Toronto, who kill the prophets, he will say: * My friends, you know me, you understand better than that, I had this fleet built for the defence of the empire. It is the raison d'etre of that war fleet. The fleet is England's property as well as my heart, my own being and my whole person, I am " British to the core." '
Why not playing the cards on the table, why not tell frankly what is the aim in view? If it were believed that it may be
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: necessary to change the policy followed so far in this country as regards the question of defence, and that England really needs another participation different from that which Canada has given so far for the defence of the empire, and that she has a. right to have it, let it be openly known;, let us work effectively and endorse the responsibility of our action.
Would it be given through irony of fate, to the right hon. Prime Minister, he an imperialist in spite of his own will, to crown his work not with a national railway, but with a war legislation; with the institution of militarism, which he is to establish under the great principle of conciliation, a principle which he has adopted and wishes to follow to the end, and which will cause him to sanction a compulsory conscription, a compulsory military service in this country, if he would be called to do so by that government beyond the sea.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear!


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Sir, the German peril? I find there are two German perils. There is the industrial and commercial German peril, the most dangerous for England. Canada is powerless against that peril. If England is not sound in that point, let her strengthen herself, and apply a suitable remedy. As for the other, the military peril, I do not believe in it.
I am in good company, because I am with the Prime Minister.
The latter German peril sounds to me as an imperialist attempt. The noble Lords do not believe so much in the German peril as the endeavour to make others believe in it, because if they did so, they would not have opposed the Budget in a critical time, because such an opposition might have brought about a disaster, and fatal consequences for England. The return to power of the Hon. Lloyd-George has decidedly convinced me that the people of England are not so strong believers in the German peril as we are in Canada. I am. positive that at least the majority of the English people does not believe in it, and that same majority of the people of England is not so fond of imperialism and militarism as we seem to be in Canada. And I cannot but help to come to this conclusion, when I think of .that Lloyd-George, whom the English people have returned to power, that Lloyd-George who never missed a chaq.ce to protest with his eloquent voice, against the South African war, and who was, they say, so cynical as to scoff the British troops' defeat. Since that time, the English people was kind enough to give him his confidence and maintain him in power, as a consequent reward. I do not believe in the German peril, because France will not consent to the desertion of England. although England closed her arms in

face of France's disaster in 1870; because I believe in the European equilibrium which is worth something better for national peace than the school of peace; because, those who are the opponents of ancient and modern butchery are gaining ground. Imperialism is the enemy, and is called to do more harm than profit to England; it might hasten the German or any other similar peril.
Sir, shouting again and again, with all means, here and there, everywhere: Let England rule the waves, le^ her hold her supremacy on the seas; she must have it, it must be her own against all comers; supremacy is her right! And for such a maintenance of supremacy, let her group, all her colonies around her and be furnished with fleets and invincible armies.' All that noise is, in my opinion, wrong diplomacy. The principle is lovable, but it was useless to blare it out so loudly. If they had maintained it quietly, I mean that supremacy on the seas, and had taken the necessary means for its maintenance, without awalrening up all echos, I believe the result would have been better. All that noise has contributed to.the fast building of Dreadnoughts by the rich and powerful nations, and that state of things may finally weary the two countries, if they keep on so sturdily. Moreover, if, at the present time, those untimely roarings, those appeals to the colonies, -would be put to an end if. we showed more calmness and self-control, it could likewise stop.
A wise and loyal Englishman, who offers no ground foT suspicion-I speak of the editor of the ' Witness,' of Montreal- wrote what follows:-
Those who use this argument surely fail to see that there is in it a challenge to all the other nations, that it call for hostilities at their address, individually, a provocation to dispute Great Britain's supremacy if possible. There is in it a claim which is impossble to keep up if the nations, including the united States decided to set against it. It is impossible to make, without proof any statement of a more dangerous or injurious nature than this to Great Britain.
Justice and fair play do more honour and give more credit to a nation than the armaments and Dreadnoughts. It is this justice and this British fair play that gives Great Britain its force more than would do its men of war. Let England keep and firmly hold its supremacy on sea, but it must not be boasted of too much. On the contrary, let her be seemingly ignorant of the fact and conduct herself with other nations as though she was not superior, or as if she was ignorant of that supremacy. By this means she may keep it longer. As soon as this justice and this fair play become an object of suspicion to other nations, there could be no possible supremacy. In life, a man who defies everybody finds his superior. Napoleon had for a
long time European supremacy, he at last found his way to Ste. Heliene through Waterloo. The grouping of colonies around England with their Dreadnoughts will defy other nations.
I believe that the imperialists who wrote a lot of things besides their appeal to. the colonies, and in so saying could lead people to the bdlief that there is some weakness about England, and such being only in their own imagination, do a very bad turn to the mother country. There is no worse enemy than an imprudent friend to a nation or a policy.
On this subject Mr. J. A. Macdonald, editor of the Toronto ' Globe,' chief organ of this government, one of the delegates to the imperial conference of the press in London last June, relating his voyage impressions and his visits in the streets and suburbs of London and other English cities, has been one of these imprudents in making following picture:
The thing, he .says, that impressed me most, the thing that stands out as the background of every reminiscence, was the bloodless, mirthless, hopeless face of the common crowd. He declares that the pale, sunken faces of the nameless city crowd haunt one like a weird. He says: We could not shut our eyes or steel our hearts to that Britain which is out of work, which may not even want to work, and which has long forgotten haw to play.
The social problem in England, Mr. Macdonald says, everywhere is appalling almost to the point of despair. Wherever we went, it forced itself upon us. The least dangerous aspect of it was that hollow-eyed procession of the homeless of London kept moving along the pavements by the police in the early dawn, waiting for the opening of the soup kitchens. London, Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh-each had its distinctive features, but everywhere the marks were deep of disease and degeneracy in body and mind and morals.
In some of the smaller places where the industrial percentage is large, Mr. Macdonald continues, or the occupation unhealthy-as in the black country or the pottery-making communities-the blood-noisoned workers present an appearance that to unaccustomed eyes is simply ghastly.
In places like Portsmouth, where we drove through the streets after viewing the greatest array of warships ever presented in the whole world's history, the human sediment that littered the doorways and lanes crowded out of mind all thought of Britain's glory.
It was hard to exult over the spectacular realism of the sham-fight on the shore with those haggard skeletons of lifes real conflict shuffling before our eyes uncheered and uncheering on the street.
Mr. Macdonald adds: ' Sheffield staggered all the delegates. Its residental districts and its neighbouring hills are good to see. It is a hive of industry. Its name the world over is a warrant for good steel. But its human specimens! The conditions of the poor may, perhaps, be worse in other industrial centers in England, but certainly no delegate to the im-

perial press conference had. ever seen the like in any white country overseas or even imagined it possible within the limits of human nature.
He says again: ' What struck every observant delegate was the utter blankness of the faces that looked up at us from the pavement, or down on us from the windows, with scarcely enough capacity for human interest to wonder who we were or what we wanted. Block after block it was .the same. Never a sign of humor. Never even a flash of human envy. Stooped shoulders, hollow chests, ash-coloured faces, lightless eyes, and ghastliest of all, loose-set months with bloodless gums, and only here and there a useful tooth. Literally hundreds of women between seventeen and seventy crowded close to our motor cars that day, and the marks were on them all. Those toothless mouths of men and women and children told the story. One touch of disease made the whole crowd kin.
* What do .you think of it? ' asked a London reporter of a Canadian editor. ' It's hell,' said the Canadian. And his companion from Australia could not suggest any other fitting word.' Finally Mr. Macdonald says:	' How
long will a great nation go on breeding weaklings? How long will such a nation remain great? And how long will it be counted safe for Canada to admit the human output of Britain's drink-cursed slums? '
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, such statements cannot be justified. I rejoice that their author is not a French Canadian from the province of Canada. If they are without foundation, their author is guilty; if they are founded on fact, he is indiscreet. If that description corresponds to reality, the inference is that an economic and social reform is of greater urgency in England than armaments or the building of Dreadnoughts. Because, after all, such specimens of the human race are not likely to spread terror in the enemy's ranks, even with the help of any number of Dreadnoughts.
And that reform, it is the British authorities who are in a position to effect it, not the colonies. There are numbers of landlords in England holding large areas, in some cases extending over 175,000 acres, while swarms of human beings fill the suburbs and slums of London and other British cities. If only those great landowners would dispose of those lands in favour of the people and workers, recruits would be forthcoming as by magic from all parts of England. It is in the ranks of the ploughman who tills the land at the sweat of their brow, that soldiers are to he obtained ready to fight like lions for the defence of the territory In time of war. As for us in Canada, who have nothing to do either with pauperism or militarism in England, let us endeavour to keep aloof from both these scourges.
I oppose with all my might such legislation; I openly expres my opinion, I would express it in the same manner in Ontario Mr. NANTEL.
and in western Canada, as well as in the province of Quebec, In doing so, I do not consider myself disloyal to the British Crown, neither am I appealing to race prejudice.
I shall now read an extract from the ' Daily News,' of Peterborough, dated the 27th December last:-
The French Canadian newspapers, without exception, are deeidely viewing this question from a narrow race standpoint. They are repugnant more than ever to the idea of closer relations with the empire. French Canadians are breaking party ties to subserve race interests. Should it be necessary in connection with this issue to go on the battlefield, we are ready. Canada is part of the British empire; any attempt to change that state of things, will terminate in war.
I shall not express any opinion regarding the author, as I do not wish to say anything disagreeable. I shall be content with stating for the information of the ' Daily News ' and other papers, which had taken tile lead in that kind of thing, that such writings are not likely to improve matters and forward their view of the case. The French Canadian Conservatives of the province of Quebec are not breaking away from their party; they remain faithful to the policy followed by Macdonald, Cartier and Sir Charles Tupper when the latter lived in Canada. The French Canadian Conservatives of Quebec are not changing their policy; those who are open to the charge of so abandoning the old policy are imperialists of to-day, who no longer follow in the footsetps of the statesmen I have mentioned.
The views I have expressed have partisans and advocates outside of the province of Quebec, and why should not the people of the province of Quebec have the liberty of making known their opinions on a question of such importance. Why, who would expect us to put up with the denial of such a right?
The French Canadians of Quebec have never spoken nor written on the subject in stronger language than some Ontario people, for instance, contributors to the ' Weekly Sun,' of Toronto, the ' Farmer's Advocate,' ' Farm and Dairy,' * The Grain Grower's Guide,' Prof. Marshall of Queen's University, Prof. McCurdy of Toronto. The latter is not a resident of the province of Quebec, and his opinion cannot be lightly set aside, holding as he does professorship in a university of the standing of that of Toronto. The same may be said of Prof. Marshall of Queen's. I shall read a letter which Prof. McCurdy wrote to tb* Bight Hon. Prime Minister oh November 11 last. It is rather long, but I am anxious it should apear in 'Hansard':-

Canada and the World's Peace.


Prof.  J. F.@: McCurdy has addressed the following open letter to the Premier:-[DOT]
The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of Canada:
Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I venture to address a few words to you and tx>
as many as may be of the people of Canada upon the question of the creation of a Canadian navy, because, so far as I have seen, no attempt has as yet been made to set forth in a succinct form the most obvious arguments against the immediate building of a navy from the standpoint of the common people of our country. To be as concise as possible, I shall present the statement in a series of propositions:
1.	In all our conferences with the imperial government, and in all legislation affecting matters of imperial concern, our first consideration should be regard for the well-being of Canada, for the sake of Canada herself, and also more remotely but not less really for the sake of the empire. Loyalty is good, but patriotism is better. We have no direct responsibility for the empire as a whole, whose policy we cannot control, and whose real and fancied difficulties we have done nothing to bring about. We are responsible to our fellow-citizens for the destiny and fair name of Canada. Canada is the home of our people and our most sacred trust, and where our treasure is there will our heart be also.
2.	Expenditure upon Canadian war vessels, such as will ultimately satisfy the demands of agitators in England and Canada that hold the popular ear, will go far to ruin our country financially, just as the present draft upon the people of England is bringing England herself to ruin, according to the Statement of the British premier. Let Canada avoid the malestrom while it is yet plain sailing.
3.	The motive of the demand for a Canadian navy is not Canada's own needs, but the possibility of foreign wars, or rather of a foreign war, in which it is remotely possible that England may be engaged. We do not need warships to protect our sea coasts or lake shores. ' Our natural enemy,' the United States, is now regarded as our natural ally. She has also been recognized as the inalienable friend of England in declarations recently made by the English government in connection with the so-called two-power standard. On the other hand, we have constant occasions of friction with the government of the United States, which warships, in the place of revenue cutters, would render much more serious and perhaps dangerously irritating.
i. We have no voice in the making or unmaking of foreign wars, or in the policy of the empire generally. All the more should we consider our moral obligations both to ourselves and to the empire.
5.	Our obligations and our self-respect as citizens of Canada make it out of place for us to involve ourselves and our children in wars over whose beginning, conduct and ending we have no control. To do so is to forfeit our Canadian birthright.
6.	The fact that some of the wars waged by England, within our own recollection, have been of doubtful justification, makes it incumbent on us in every case to consider well
the motives and grounds of England's wars before pledging ourselves to take part in them. To quote from an editorial in one of Toronto's dailies, ' the brain and brawn of Canada must have her quarrel just.'
7.	The power now dreaded is Germany. A war between England and Germany would be the greatest crime and folly in modern history. Both the victor and the vanquished would be humbled and crippled almost beyond repair, and they would deserve and receive the condemnation of a wrar-eursed world.
8.	If England and Germany go to war, both would be about equally to blame, because, apart from other considerations, principles and motives of humanity and tolerance will play little or no part, though these two countries have been the leaders of the world in Christian civilization. Canada cannot afford to aid and abet such a war by practically intervening at a moment of only half-abated national excitement.
9.	What England most needs from Canada is not ships and money, but respectful, sympathetic counsel and possibly solemn warning. At this moment, the best way for us to ' think imperially ' is to take account of England's obsessions of panic and other signs of national weakness and lack of self-control, which no munitions and men-of-war can counteract. England's worst enemies are not her armed competitors. Her foes are those of her own household. If a modern Isaiah were to arise in England, he might say of her: ' The w-hole head is sick and the whole heart faint.' Millions of England's population are unfit to serve their country with head or hand or heart, and that in large measure because of economic and social conditions fostered by those who are foremost in their clamour for a' vigorous foreign policy. The most pressing question for England .is not who shall fight her battles, but who shall do her work.
10.	Canada is seemingly predestined beyond all other countries to a mission of peace and good-will to men. By systematic co-operation with England in military and naval expenditure and armaments our thoughts and impulses will be habitually turned to war, and, poisoned by international jealousy, and suspicion, the most promising democracy which the ages have evolved will be diverted from pursuits of peace, and our country will be made a less desirable home for the war-burdened people of the world.
11.	Germany is now held to be England's enemy. A few years ago France was placed exactly in the same position. Are England's supposed enemies always to^ be our enemies also? Are we always to think mechanically and automatically and along zig-zag lines? Let us try to see and think clear and straight on the deepest and the most vital problems of our relations to the empire and to the world.
12.	It was at a time of panic in England that the original resolution of the Canadian parliament was adopted. Since then there has been^ some time for consideration. As we are not' yet committed to the building of warships, the question should be taken up more soberly in the light of changed conditions. The arguments used by the advocates of the immediate construction of a Canadian navy consist largely of traditional generalities, and are chiefly addressed to the preju-

45G3

a resolution of sympathy for the Irish cause and the Home rule, and that resolution was comunicated to the imperial parliament. We got an answer to the effect that we should meddle with our own affairs, and to-day something would be said against us if we thought, to some extent, of meddling with our own affairs.
If we are called upon to support together with the English people, part of the defence of the British Isles, called the heart of the empire, it is obvious that our lot, our task shall be more onerous than that of the population of the Isles. Our condition is, economically, different. The Isles are a country which is already built up and organized, their population has only to live and to defend itself, whereas, here, in Canada, everything remains to be done, created and organized. Will they help us doing that work? Yes, perhaps, by lending us money. But then, if they are rich enough to lend us money, they do not need us for their defence. " It is said: ' this policy_ has been before the public for a long time.' What free and easy talk?. What audacity? I was about to say: what shamelessness? Mr. Speaker, who has set before the country this war policy and this navy question for a long time? Is it the honourable Minister of Marine who, as another St. John the Baptiste, would have prepared the way to that war policy when he said, on the floor of this House, on the 22nd of April, 1896 (Hansard, session 1896, vol. II, page 6171):
Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the proposition now before us be carried, without protesting loudly against its adoption.
, The government asks us an estimate of one million dollars for the purchase of rifles.
It is sufficient that we need this million of dollars to pay a certain debt contracted towards the English government;, debt that would have been contracted during this present session. I regret, Mr. Speaker, to learn that on this occasion the government had bought these rifles from the English government and not from an individual, nor from a particular company, but that he has bought these rifles from the English government and that the same government asks us to be repaid. Is that the kind of protection promised by England to Canada? Is that the situation which is destined for this colony? I think that we have the right to expect another treatment on the part of England.
Parliament is asked to spend this sum of $1,000,000, when our debt is already over 300,000,000 dollars. I think this debt is sufficiently high and that there is no use of propounding a jingo policy, and increasing by that fact, by a few millions of dollars the debt of the country without justifying in any serious manner the expense. I don't think that this expense is needed under the Mr. NANTEL.
circumstances, and I, for one, I will strenuously oppose the vote of that sum.
And the elections of 1896 were made in the province of Quebec on that question, appealing to every prejudice against the Conservative ministry who had thought proper to spend $3,000,000 for the armament of our militia and the defence of Canada. And the most ardent and zealous in this campaign of prejudices were the Minister of Marine and a few friends whose names I will not mention because they have received their reward, some by seats on the bench and others by lucrative positions. The organ of these gentlemen, ' l'Electeur ' of Quebec, superseded since by ' Le Soleil '; published amongst other extracts which I will read, an article to the applause and delight of all these gentlemen, the great peacemakers of the time, and to-day don't mind laying upon the counftry an expense of over fifteen millions for battleships, guns and rifles. * l'Electeur ' father of the ' Soleil ' said this:
Why these armaments? Why fight for England ?
Why all these armaments said ' l'Electeur ' if w'e are not to have any war?
And why fight for England? Their electors must not forget that these high and great chiefs who are always anxious to show themselves more patriotic than are others, more loyal than other,?, always ready to launch the country into wars for the benefit of others, will not be those who will bear the burden.
These rifles, these guns, will have to be manned by the electors. You are looked upon as only fit food for cannons.
The Tuppers, the Angers, the Taillons will sit quietly in their cabinets, and will send you to death joyfully, while they will drink champagne. Once more why have all these rifles, these bayonets, if these Tuppers and Co. do not meditate some underhand work? They will send your sons to Africa or Asia whence they will never come back.
If you vote for the ' bleu ' candidates, you approve of all these preparations for war. Does the government come to your help when some casualty icomes upon yon, either a flood or a fire? And they have spent $3,000,000 for rifles.
Vote for Laurier and his candidates if you want your country continue in peace, and we do not want to be sent some day to foreign countries, leaving at home onr wives, our children, and our dear ones.
Spirit of ' l'Electeur,' spirit of Ernest Pacaud, how7 much you must have trembled when you saw' Canadians departing for South Africa, not by the orders of those w'hom you were denouncing in 1896, but the supreme will of the right hon. Prime Minister, whom they admired and adored. They must also shiver on seeing this sinister juggling with millions, organized and prepared by the same first minister to burden this country with cannons, engines of w'ar, murder and destruction, which so

haunted with fear at that time the patriotic and ardent Pacaud.
Spirits of the Dorions, the Lafiammes, the Jolys, the Merciers, the Marchands and the Frechettes, you must be tempted to cry from your outer world to the hon. gentlemen opposite: 'You vilify, you taint the memory of Papineau in your organ,
' Le Canada,' that Papineau, father of all of us who have praised him to the skies, Papineau the founder of the ' rouge ' party in Lower Canada, and this only to demolish his grandson, because he refused to sacrify to opportunism, because he had the courage to remain firm and attached to the tradition of the past, and retain the liberty of speech of olden times.


Mr. TALBOT.: (Translation.) It was the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton who attacked Papineau.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) You now exalt Cartier whom we have together vilified and despised, for the sole object of justifying your naval law with the Militia Act, which you misrepresent. You adore what you have burnt, and you burn what you have advised.
Have the ways not been prepared for this policy by the first minister, when, on the 15th April, 1902, he said in this House:-
It would be the most suicidal jjolicy that could be devised for Canada to enter into the vortex in which the nation of Europe, England included, are engaged at the present time, and which compels them to maintain great military armaments. Sir, what is the relative position of Great Britain and Canada? Great Britain is one of the foremost nations of the world, in many way, perhaps, the foremost nation, certainly tire head of the greatest empire which exists to-day, the greatest which has existed since the Roman empire. Great Britain, by reason of her situation, has to maintain a large and permanent army. Hon. gentlemen are aware how repugnant to the British people ever was the necessity of maintaining -a standing army; hon. gentlemen are aware how the English people have constantly fought against that idea, but they have been forced by events, forced by the position the empire occupies in the World to maintain a standing army. Today the principal item in the British budget is the expenses for naval and land armaments, and my hon. friend says that Canada should follow in the same course, that we should, that we should take part in a scheme of naval military defence! Sir, Canada is in a different position. Canada is a nation with an immense territory, but with a sparse population of five and a third million of souls, scattered over an area 3,000 miles in extent from east to west. The principal items in the budget of Canada are what? Public works, the development of the country, the construction of railways and harbours, the opening of ways of transportation. This is the work to which we have to devote our energies and I would look upon it as a crime to divert any part of that necessary expenditure, to the suj>-1454
ply of guns, cannons and military armaments generally.
But we must be fair. ' Le Canada ' of Montreal, a paper who looks solely through the eyes of the Prime Minister, who obeys at the lift of his finger, reproaches, in its issue of the 17th of February, to the ' Devoir,' the paper of Mr. Bourassa, that he does not quote integrally, quote the speaker of the Prime Minister in this circumstance, and specially to omit this part of its speech which I will read:
Certainly we must improve our own militia, and we have a scheme before ns to-day for that purpose; we must look after our own defences. But there is all the difference in the world between undertaking this military expenditure and embarking in such a scheme as is embraced by my hon. friend's vast conceptions.
And also of not saying a work about the memorandum which the Prime Minister presented in London a few months after and which concluded in this way:
Presently the expenses of Canada for the defence of the country is limited to militia; the Canadian government is exposed also to hear some expenses for the creation of a marine.
Mr. Speaker, when making these declarations which I have read from the speech and from the memorandum, declarations which after all related only to the defence of Canada, has the First Minister declared that he intended to put them to execution so briefly? At a near date, and that it would be a part of the programme at the next elections, either of 1904 or 1908? Has he given to understand that the war navy would be put at the service of the empire in time of war? No, never, neither in 1904 nor in 1908, a single word has been uttered that would mean that. But in the meantime, in 1907, he said and his Minister of Marine said also:	Let us begin by the Minister of
Marine.
Colonial Conference, 1907, page 487, 8th May, 1907.


Mr. BRODEUR.: There was a discussion in previous years to the effect that we should contribute something directly to the British navy. I may say with regard to that, there is only one mind in Canada on that question, and if it was necessary I should he able to quote the remarks made lately in an article published by Sir Charles Tupper, who is certainly one of the men best qualified to speak in Canada, upon the question. I think, perhaps, I might mention what he said in regard to that. He said: ' It is known that from the outset I have felt the interests of Canada and the true interests of the empire to be opposed to the demand for colonial contributions to the imperial navy,' and ' I maintain that Canada has discharged that duty in the manner most conducive to imperial interests.'
So it shows that both sides of politics in 1 Canada agree with the policy which has been

going on for some years there. He adds, also, in that article that ' Canada protects her
fisheries by her own cruisers.'
9th May, 1907, p. 47. Dr. Smartt: 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 mate such contribution towards the upkeep of the navy as may , be determined by their local legislatures-the contributions 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.
Page 548. Dr. Smartt.


Wilfrid Laurier: 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 the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. It is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter; the disproportion is too great between 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 to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
And the resolution of Dr. Smartt was lost owing to the adverse attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada. And on his return the right hon. gentleman had the satisfaction of reading in his organs that he had saved Canada and Canadian autonomy.
It is evident, therefore, that the policy was not 'before the country, and had not been accepted by yie Prime Minister, neither at the time of the 1904 election, neither at the time of the 1908 election; that neither he or his ministers were thinking of submitting it to parliament, since they never uttered a single word on the matter at either of the elections of 1904 or 1908. Indeed, they were opposed to it at the time. Not only that, but I have no hesitation in saying that the position taken by the right hon. gentleman during the imperial conference of 1907 accounts" in a great measure for his success in the province of Quebec at the 1908 election.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
Mr. NANTV*
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Speaker, up to the time of the sending of a conting-i ent to South Africa, in 1899, the Prime Minister was actually an anti-imperalist, and in no uncertain way, just as our Canadian statesman had been without distinction of party, in times gone by. In 1899, after flatly refusing, he gave way, he hauled down the flag, although still contending that such action should not be considered a precedent. Since then, he has time and again taken a stand against any participation on our part to imperial wars.


Mr. M. BEAUPARLANT. (Translation).: Will the hon. member allow me to put a question?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly.


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: Does the hon. member consider that the question of the building of the navy, which is now under discussion is the most important question that has come up in Canadian politics since 1902?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I believe so.


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: Does the hon. member approve of the stand taken by the hon. the Prime Minister at the conferences which took place in London in 1902 and 1907?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The policy followed by the Prime Minister in 1902 and 1907, as regards the navy has been approved, because it was on the same lines as that followed by all our statesmen.


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: If the stand taken by the right hon. Prime Minister at the conferences of 1902 and 1907 commended itself to the hon. member, and if the navy question is the most important that has come up in Canadian politics since that date, may I inquire from the hon. member whether in 1908 he was up for election as a supporter, or as an opponent of the government?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) The hon, member is perfectly well aware that I was not a candidate of the Prime Minister or I would not occupy a seat on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, I am at a loss to answer such a question, and I wonder if my hon. friend knows exactly what he is driving at?


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: (Translation.) You were returned as an opponent of the Prime Minister whose position you approved?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) The Right Hon. Prime Minister opposed me in the course of that election. He even came to Ste.-Therese and elsewhere, and was well re-

presented by supporters of his. But the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe is perfectly well aware that not a word was spoken in connection with the navy at the elections of 1904 and 1908.
In 1902 and 1907, as previously stated, the Prime Minister took a decided and effective stand against militarism. But, in 1910, he gives up the sponge just as he had done in 1899.
Mr. Speaker, in years gone by, when the Prime Minister was sitting on this side of the House, he was fond, during the great debates of 1880 and 1884 on the question of the Canadian Pacific, of trotting in at all times his famous wizard, whose devilish incantations was to his mind the only satisfactory explanation of the policy followed by "his then opponents.
Mr. GERVAI'S. (Translation.) What wizard?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) One moment and you will hear enough of him. On September 21st, 1880, he spoke as fol-_, lows:
Like the wizard in the legends whose life was at all times imperilled by the scratches and bites of his strange progeny, he has brought to life a monster who threatens to take his life at any time. . .
They have taught us to look on the government as that servant in the Scriptures who answered every call and went whither he was bid.
In 1884, the right hon. gentleman once more called in his magician. I find the following at page 441, vol. 1, of ' Hansard ' for 1884
We can see no other reason than this, that the government are to-day controlled by a power mightier than they. They are like the wizard of old, who, through his incantations, gave life to a monster which made him its slave and in the end destroyed him. The government are in the hands of a company which it must obey, just as the servant in the Scripture, to whom his master said: 1 Go, and he goeth; come, and he cometh.'
I thought it desirable, Mr. Speaker, to quote these utterances, even if it were the sole object of recalling to the right hon. gentleman old-time memories, and point out to him how unmerciful he was in his attacks on his then opponents. I sincerely Hope, Mr. Speaker, that these evil spirits, these magicians, these goblins, will not trouble our public men of to-day, and flit about over their heads. That i3 my sincere prayer, and may the powers above grant it.
In regard to this important question, our friends on the other side show some anxiety as regards th e province of Quebec, any hypocritical tears fill their eyes. They fear that through its present attitude, that province may put herself in a state of isolation. Indeed, these hon. gentlemen have become over scrupulous and wise. Fear is the beginning of wisdom; they have not shown the same reserve or nicety in the Manitoba school question, or in the Riel question, when the right hon. gentleman was intent on shouldering his 1837 musket; or again, throughout the elections, from 1896 to 1908 inclusive, when hon. gentlemen opposite made the most of the race and jeligion cry, crying out unceasingly to the electorate: Vote for a Frencn Canadian, one of your own people, a Catholic who should be given a preference over a Protestant or Orangeman. Mr. Speaker, let me say to these gentleman in closing: You have sown the wind, you will reap the storm. When principles are lacking, expediency is the only door left open.


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat, I would like to ask him a question.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Go ahead.


Charles Avila Wilson: (Translation.) Does the hon. member for Terrebonne intend to support the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) at the next election?
Mr. NANTEL (Translation.) I may say in answer to the hon. member for Laval that on this side of the House we are free to differ from our leaders. We have opinions of our own. We stick to principles in preference to mere expediency. .


Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, at this late phase of th,e discussion on the Bill now before the House, I hope I am not expected to take up seriatim the various statements made by the previous speaker (Mr. Nantel) in support of the sub-amendment submitted by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). However, I do not wish to leave the impression that the arguments, or so called arguments, brought forward by him are uncontrovertible, and with that object in view, I may be permitted to refer to a few of them.
The hon. member, I observed, opened his remarks by stating that he was in favour of the creation of a navy for the defence of our coasts, but not of a navy to be under the control of England. That statement seems to be for circulation in the province of Quebec; but in that case, it seems to me that instead of coming to the conclusion to which he has come, that is of voting in favour of the sub-amendment, he should have decided to support the Bill now submitted to this House considering that it provides for that very control of our government over the Canadian navy.
I shall now rapidly go over the notes I have taken while listening to the remarks made bv the hon. gentleman for Terrebonne. He stated that the proposal made

by his leader (Mr. E. L. Borden), if adopted, would lead to results less objectionable than those which would follow on the passing of the Bill. Nevertheless, he has just stated that he is in favour of providing a Canadian navy. Now, as we all know, the Bill provides for that contingency, while the hon. leader of the opposition contends, in his amendment, that the Bill is not far-reaching enough. That is the first inconsistency which strikes me in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Terrebonne.
Then again, the hon. gentleman says that under the British North America Act, this House has not the power to provide a navy for the defence of the empire, but solely for the defence of Canada. The hon. member is a lawyer, and a few words will be sufficient to show that-if he will pardon me_ for so stating-he cannot be taken seriously. The British North America Act was passed to define the respective powers of the Canadian government and of the governments of the various provinces making up confederation If; as the hon. member suggests, there is a provision in the Bill whereby the Canadian navy will be made to serve as part of the imperial navy, we are making a gift, and there is nothing in the constitution to prevent us from making such a gift to England. No such clause exists.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) If my hon. friend thinks that we are making a gift to England in providing a navy which is to take part in the wars of the empire, he must approve also of the proposal of a money contribution, without involving the principle of imperialism. Does he really believe that we are laying down a principle of imperialism by making a gift to England in the shape of a money contribution?


Mr.   KOY@: (Translation.) I do not hesitate to answer no, and when I say that it is a gift, I am merely repeating the arguments of the member for Terrebonne in order to show their inconsistency.
Now, the hon. gentleman is of opinion that the Bill would be much better if clause 18 was struck out. But he holds that even then the measure would be premature. It seems to me that it is precisely that very clause which protects the rights that the hon. member wishes to preserve for the province of Quebec, for it is therein provided that the government reserves the right to send out the navy whenever it sees fit to send it out.
A great part of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Terrebonne aimed at showing that the leader of the government and all his supporters are imperialists. I believe that such remarks ought to apply to the hon. gentlemen sitting on his side of the House.


Mr. CYEIAS  BOY@: That the Canadian government might provide a force of cruisers and destroyers comprising four cruisers of improved ' Bristol ' class, one cruiser of the ' Boadicea ' class, and six destroyers of improved River class.
Such is the opinion and the suggestion of the admiralty, and it has been accepted by the Canadian government. Therefore, any contention that- the government has not acceded to the wishes of the admiralty is futile and unfounded. Many other details were discussed and finally the whole was ' unanimously agreed to.' I am quoting from the report of the decision of the conference. I will now continue to read from the amendment:
The proposals of the government do not follow the suggestions and recommendations of the admiralty and in so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the empire in time of war are ill-advised and dangerous.
1, also have always understood that it was in case of the empire or any one of the colonies being a war, that the admiralty wished to obtain help from the colonies. It is for that reason that the Bill says ' in critical time,'1 or ' in case of war,' so that instead of withholding the naval forces of Canada, as stated in the amendment, the Bill provides that those forces may be sent out. By the way, Mr. Speaker, you can see in that part of the amendjnent a good answer to be made to the contention of those who, together with the leader of the opposition, are working against the adoption .of this Bill, of those speakers apd newspapers in the province of Quebec and elsewhere who, in order to promote a cause which has nothing to do with the fulfilment of a duty, are making never ending dissertations with regard to ' shall ' and ' may ' or peut ' and ' doit.' He, the leader of the opposition, contends that the government may withhold the naval force, while the contrary is affirmed in the province of Quebec. Any means whatever, are good for such people.
' Ill-advised proposals ' are the words used in the amendment. Has the hon. leader of the opposition any doubts as to the soundness of his own judgment, and of the judgment of every member of this House, or of the judgment of those who will succeed us, that he should be unwilling to leave to parliament the discretionary power which the government intends that it should have?
Those same provisions offer certain dangers. I hfave always thought that the creation of a navy was caculated to ward off danger. Such is the opinion of the British admiralty, even though that opinion were not shared by the leader of the opposition. But I know that it is his own opinion, as in another portion of his amendment, the only condition required by him previous Mr. CYRIAS ROY.
to the discussion of the project of a permanent navy is that it should be referred to the electorate. He would be loath, I suppose, to present to the people a measure fraught with danger.
The amendment goes on:	[DOT]
The proposals do not insure that unity of organization and of action without which there caii he no effective co-operation to any common scheme of empire defence.
In giving expression to that opinion, thje mover of the amendment seems never to have read clause 48 of the Bill which
says:
The Naval Discipline Act, 1866, and the Acts in amendment thereof passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom and now in force and the King's Regulations and admiralty instructions now in force, shall apply to the naval service and shall have the same force in law as if they formed part of this Act.
If the rules of discipline, the King's regulations and the admiralty instructions form part of this Act, how may any one seriously pretend that this Act does not insure unity of organization and of action, a.nd that there can exist no effective cooperation.
It is a most singular coincidence that, last year, th(e leader of the opposition, with all his followers including the member for Jacques Cartier, gave his support and approbation to a resolution to the effect that the House would cordially approve of any necessary expenditures designed to promote the speedy organization of a Can-dian naval service.
This House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service.
Now, this year the House is seized with a Bill providing for such a naval organization, but the hon. gentleman will have none of it. He was ready to approve of anv necessary expenditure, but is no longer willing that parliament should make any expenditure with that object in view. Last year a plebiscite was out of the question; this year a plebiscite is an absolute necessity, but when should it take place? He does not say so; and still he speaks of ' the impending necessities of the empire.' But to cap the climax, when the hon. gentleman is making his speech, he thinks that the government does not go far enough, and when he drafts his amendment, he does not even think to suggest the creation of the navy which he means to have. In order to please his friends of Jacques Cartier and of Terrebonne, he proposes to consult the people, but about what project? I would not like to say that the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about, but I may well say that he does

not know bis own mind; and it was with good reason that the Minister of Militia explained to the House why that change of mind had happened and how the hon. gentleman had got into that trouble.
I now come to the last paragraph of his amendment. ' In the meantime,' that is to say when the hon. leader of the opposition shall have made up his mind, ' the best means of discharging the immediate duty of Canada,' which means that later on important business will be dealt with,
' and of meeting the impending necessities *of the empire,' here is that sublime means,
' consists in placing without delay at the disposal of the imperial authorities such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two Dreadnoughts.'
Now then go it: I have just said that he felt loath at spending a small portion of our yearly income fcr the org-anization of a Canadian navy; and now he is ready to borrow $25,000,000, to be spent not in this country, as the government intends to do, but to make a gift of it to England. Did you notice, sir, that the word ' Dreadnought ' had been inserted at the end of this amendment just to please the extremists of his party who are always clamouring for Dreadnoughts? Personally, he is not anxious to have any, for, down to the end of his amendment, he says, ' giving to the admiralty full discretion to spend the said sum, at such time, &c.,' therefore, he is not quite sure about those ' impending necessities,' ' and for such purposes of naval defence,' for apy purposes whatever, that is quite immaterial to the hon. gentleman, he forgets that this money was offered for Dreadnoughts; 'for such purposes of naval defence as in their judgment may best serve to increase the united strength of the empire.'
Yes, union is strength; but surely, all the - members of the opposition did not combine their efforts in order to give strength to such a colourless amendment.
All the Conservative member^ who have addressed the House did state that they would support the amendment proposed by their leader. Let me tell them that they have very little pride. It cannot be said that they are urged and induced to do so by the allurements of ministerial promises and favours; but what may safely be said is that they are zealous party men, burning with a zeal which nothing can damp, not even a feeling of the heart or a breath of their intelligence.
But I also said that I would try to show that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier ' had not been happier than his leader in the statement of his views.
This Bill, to his mind-I quote his own words- ' with the exception of clause 18, does not present any very striking feature; it is the extension of legislation which we
have had in a diminished form upon our statutes ever since the mother country called upon us to assume our proper share of the burdens of defence. Elsewhere he tells us that ' it is impossible to grasp and to thoroughly understand the meaning of a policy which the right hon. Prime Minister has not explained to him.' Further on, he says: ' This policy, is absolutely new and novel,- differing in every way from any policy enunciated or suggested before, and as to the real meaning and import of which the people have been so far kept in the dark.
What a mass of contradictions! How are we to believe now that the intelligent gentleman (Mr. Monk), the mover of an amendment to a bill, the meaning and import of which he does not grasp, can speak with authority on the question?. This Bill ' does not present any very striking feature,' and yet he is impressed by clause 18. The Bill has not been explained to him; he does not grasp its meaning; still he admits that it contains a policy that is absolutely new and novel. That proposed policy cannot be new and novel, if, as he says, ' it is the extension of a legislation which has already been placed upon our statute-books.' Nevertheless, the hon. gentleman tries to show that this policy is new and novel, and with that end in view he gives quotations from newspapers.
As we are called upon to interpret the provisions of this Bill and not the statements of newspapers, let me rather quote a few words from the speech delivered by the Hon. Mr. Asquith, at the conference of 1909, and which the hon. gentleman himself did quote. Here is what the Prime Minister of England said:
This conference was of a purely consultative character. The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are that, while preserving the complete autonomy of each dominion, should the dominions desire to assist in the defence of the empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homogeneous imperial army.
As regards Canada, it was considered that her double sea-board rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed according to the amount of money that might be available, that Canada should make a start, with cruisers and destroyers.
It is those decisions of the imperial conference that are embodied in this Bill. There is nothing new in all this, and such has always been the policy ot the Liberal party: the safeguarding of our autonomy and loyalty to the empire.
The hon. gentleman asks by his amendment that the people be consulted. Have the electors changed thbir minds since 1908? They were consulted when it was decided to build the transcontinental and we all know the nature of their answer.

A member of parliament has something else to do here besides moving amendments to bills. The mandate he hjas received at the hands of his electors is quite sufficient to enable him to vote in the passing of new laws, and were we to be called upon to go before the people, whenever there arises a new question to be decided, there would be no end to elections. Is it necessary to have a plebiscite and to consult the people, in drder to know' whether they are willing that the government should consult parliament when a new W'ar breaks out in the empire? The government is only doing what the House last year with one voice and without any plebiscite, decided what it should do. We know the people's opinion just as well as you do, gentlemen of the opposition pro forma, and we have not found that the people is anxious to be consulted, no more than the people from the other British dominions.
To put the public under the impression that this is a new policy, an innovation, the hon. gentleman stated in his speech that the Canadian delegates at the conference of 1909 fully endorsed everything that related to naval defence.
His political leader, on the other hand, thinks that the representatives of Canada did not follow the suggestion of the British admiralty. Both the hon. gentlemen state what is contrary to the truth; the hon. member for Jacques Cartier does not even attempt to substantiate his statement. But in order to convince us that the delegates yielded to the demands of the British authorities, he sums up all the conditions required from the colonies that desire to establish a fleet unit.
The hon. gentleman also v'ent in a disquisition bearing on the word ' suzerain,' used on a certain occasion by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and all this in order ' to show the province of Quebec what lurks behind the government mea sure.' Whether this word was rightly applied or not, the use of a word cannot change the terms of the present Bill nor the decisions of the imperial conference. The delegates of the various dominions had been called together in order to be consulted as to the intentions of the dominions which they represented; the responsibilities assumed by those delegates had to be submitted for approbation to the respective parliaments of these dominions, and in the famous clause 18 of this Bill which the hon. gentleman seems to find fault with, we find the words: ' The Governor in Council may.' Should parliament pass this Bill it will not be in pursuance of an order of the sovereign or the suzerain, if you like, but it will be enforcement of a suggestion of the sovereign, represented by his ministers. It is a pact or a convention which both parties must respect. He who makes a promise


Cyrias Roy: binds himself, after acceptance of the promise; but he does not bind himself beyond what he has promised. After having agreed to do a certain thing, a dominion cannot be forced to something else, unless the relations between that dominion and the empire be severed. Under our constitution, the sovereign can disallow our laws, but he cannot modify their terms.
. In the light of these incontestable principles, the three conclusions arrived at by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier are illegal, invalid and void and it is right to call public attention to them in order to prevent the errors they contain from spreading. He says: 1. We will be more closely bound by the foreign policy of the British government and will, therefore, undertake to support by force of arms its action abroad. 2. If we approve of the plan submitted by the Imperial Defence Conference we will be bound to take part as belligerents in imperial wars. 3. We will be held responsible for Great Britain's engagements towards foreign nations.
In short, the hon. gentleman's argument rests upon nothing when he contends "that we have undertaken to take part in all the wars in which England may be concerned, the contrary being stated in section 18 of the Bill. Let us, therefore, set aside as idle phraseology all the instances given by the hon. member of circumstances under which we might be obliged to go to war and his declaration that we explicitly ' guarantee the integrity of the empire.' The hon. member for Jacques Cartier points to the declaration of the right hon. the Prime Minister that ' When Great Britain is at war, Canada is also at war.' The present bill is not required to make such a statement true. The government of a nation has a right to make use of all the resources of her colonies, without liow'ever infringing upon their constituencies, if they have any. But apart from this consideration, should not a colony which enjoys the advantage of the protection, prestige and generous policy of the dominant power, in its own interest and from motives of gratitude, place its resources at the disposal of its benefactors? In that sense it is true that Canada, like all other British possessions, is at war when Great Britain is at war. When theTe is a question of duty at stake, whether that duty arise from gratitude or from interest, or from both, the members of this House are bound to accomplish it. It is not necessary in such a case to consult the people; on the contrary, our constituents would blame us if we hesitated to accomplish that duty, especially when it is enacted that our navy shall be used only when we so desire it, ' if at any critical period the Governor in Council wishes to place the navy at His Majesty's disposal.'
In support of the same contention that

we will be for ever bound, the hon. member quoted the Ontario ' Sun ' that ' if the Canadian people are bound to bear the responsibility of British policy, their attention will be more and more turned from Canadian to English affairs.' If such were the case it might suit some of our Conservative friends who are ardent partisans. It is in no case a gratuitous insult to the people of the province of Quebec and of the other provinces to state that they are not sufficiently educated to perceive that they are being led away from the path leading to their own interests and aims.	.
The hon. member quoted another extract from the same paper: ' There exists a plan conferring upon the government power to send the Canadian land forces wherever the central authority may desire.' The hon. member should be well versed in Canadian policy; has he discovered any such plan? If it exists why has he not disclosed it to the people? No, the statement is without foundation and the question which arises is always the same. If any such plan exists, before carrying it out the consent of the government and of parliament are required. Moreover, our Militia Act says the contrary as to our land forces.
Here is another bad reason: 'We have neither control over nor representation in the British parliament which makes war and peace and guides our destinies.' If we were represented in the British parliament would he then favour the government's measure? Would he who refuses to take any part in the wars of the empire be better satisfied if we had four or five members in the great imperial parliament? Does he suppose that we would be then in a better position than he is now in a House of Commons called by the Governor in Council to decide as to the advisability of taking part in any special war?
In another part of his speech the hon. member admits ' that Canada is obliged to provide for its own defence and that the duty should be carried out.'
He must therefore be in favour of the present Bill. Canada faces two great oceans. It is possible to defend the country against any enemy without a navy?
The hon. member mentioned the name of Sir George Etienne Cartier in an attempt to prove that former Conservative leaders never contemplated the creation of a navy, except for the defence of Canada. We find here another proof that the question is not a new one. The very memory of that great Conservative leader is a reproach to the hon. member. Cartier did not consider it necessary to appeal to the people when he first submitted the Militia Bill to the House. In doing so he was not at first in accord with the feelings of the majority in his province, but appealing to the interest
of the country in its own defence and also to Canada's debt of gratitude to England, he won the people over to his views. In doing so he did not hesitate to make use of the same arguments as might have been used in any other province. If he still lived, he would not be the man to shirk his responsibilities by demanding a plebiscite. He would declare that in consequence of our increased wealth the time had come to create a Canadian navy for the protection of Canada and also, as he said in his lifetime, to offer England out of gratitude all our available resources in time of need.
The hon. minister also mentioned in his speech the reply made by the Canadian cabinet in 1862 to a communication of the Duke of Newcastle concerning the sending of a military contingent. The principles stated in that answer are precisely those contained in the present measure, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will allow me to submit in his name that reply to his leader. The hon. member will not object as he said himself in his speech that ' the whole note the Canadian cabinet is a protest against the principle that the military and naval forces of Canada should be submitted to any control but tnac of the legislature that established them.'
The hon. member next descants on the attitude of British governments in the past in negotiating treaties concerning Canada. He is perhaps right in claiming that we have not always obtained justice and it is probably for that reason that thanks to the persistent efforts of our distinguished leader we have obtained almost complete liberty as regards our treaties of commerce. Why should he have made such a digression when he had only to show, which he did not do, that a plebiscite was necessary before beginning to discuss this measure' All this may be useful in proving his erudition, but will not in any manner help to prove his case.
Many other similar contradictions would be found were we to take the necessary time for dissecting the speeches of our opponents on this question of the navy. But I have held long enough, Mr. Speaker, the attention of the hon. members who have listened to me.
Let me therefore sum up: Although a Canadian of French origin, I am none the less disposed, as are all my countrymen of the same origin, to help the mother country inasmuch as the condition and resources of the country allow. The empire is not now at war; should such a case unfortunately occur before our navy is fully built and equipped, it will then be time for the parliament of Canada to decide as the nature and amount of the help to be sent over.
Certain opposition newspapers and leaders are endeavouring to mislead public

opinion as to the loyalty and sense of duty of the French Canadians. It is of the utmost importance that the position we intend to take should be well understood. In compliance with a desire expressed by the admiralty, we think that we should increase our share of imperial burden in proportion to our resources. But, contrary to the impression sought to be conveyed to the people of Quebec, we have no intention of beginning a career of militarism. They are deliberately deceiving the public, those parties who, speaking without any sense of responsibility, declare that the policy of the government will entail expenditures which will cripple our public works. Without our present revenue of one hundred millions, as the hon. the Finance Minister has declared, it will be possible, without resorting to a loan, to provide for the building of our navy and also for the normal development of our natural resources.-
But the government will never agree to give of the slightest portion of responsible governments, of that autonomy which we enjoy, by consenting to waive the right of complete control in the future over a fleet built by us and with our own money.
What can be the meaning of this sudden seal for placing our fleet under the control of the empire, even in times of peace, when we find that in a memorandum from the general staff, it is stated to be the ' duty of each self-governing portion of the empire to provide as far as possible for the security of its own territory.'
Some have gone to the extent of spreading throughout the province of Quebec the falsehood that the government is building a fleet with the view of obliging every person able to bear arms to take part in the wars of the empire. In the face of such an absurdity we are obliged to explain that those only who desire to take service in the navy will be called upon to go to war if the government and parliament of the day so decide.
I need not add, Mr. Speaker, that I will vote against both amendments in support of the government measure.


Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, that so much thought and energy and wealth are still being devoted throughout the world to the invention, construction and operation of instrumentalities designed to destroy our fellows shows that as a race we have not entirely emerged from savagery, nor yet within measureable distance of the millennium. That- such conditions and others akin thereto obtain nineteen centuries after the advent of the Prince of Peace shows that from a finite viewpoint the upward movement of humanity is exceedingly slow. It will thus be seen that I am not one of those who believe that war


Cyrias Roy: or preparations for war are per se essential to the highest weal of this or any other country. While it would seem that all right thinking men regard the horrors of war as too terrible to contemplate, and deplore _ the many evils incident to the preparations for war, still we must adjust ourselves to world-wide conditions, and to escape the greater must manfully endure the lesser evil. And there are greater evils than war or preparations for war. There are grounds for the belief that the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it. A few months ago. at the launching of a great battleship by the Japanese government, one of the ministers declared that the ship would be used to maintian peace in the far east. At the same time they liberated a large cageful of white pigeons as an emblem of peace. Mr. Roosevelt, when president of the United States, said:
' I hail the building of the American navy. Our voice is now potent for peace, and it is so potent because we are not afraid of war.' A few months ago our own King declared at Liverpool that the best guarantee for peace was thorough preparation for war.	.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the conditions in which we are more immediately interested? One hundred and fifty years ago Canada became a part of the British empire, and it seems to me that the'first question -we have to ask ourselves is: Do we desire that Canada shall remain a part of the British empire? Do we appreciate the privileges and advantages of being a part of the British empire? Is the British empire worth preserving? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, we are imperialists; if they are not so	answered we	are	sepal-artists; andwhen the	Prime	Minister	of' this country	says,	as he	did	the	other day,in introducing this Bill that he did not pretend to be an imperialist and did	not	pretend	to	be	an anti-imperialist, the two positions are absolutely inconsistent. He is either an imperialist or a separatist; there is no middle ground between the two. I say that one hundred and fifty years ago Canada became a part of the British empire comprising today the United Kingdom, the four great self-governing nations of Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, and numerous other smaller possessions scattered over the globe, senarated from the centre and from each of the parts by thousands of miles of water. The high seas are the world's highways of the different parts of the British empire, and the continuance and integrity of the British empire depends upon the safety and security of these great highways. The United Kingdom for two hundred and fifty years, ever since the Dutch fleet bade defiance to the British fleet in the Thames river, has been mistress of
the seas. Russia, Sweden and Denmark in 1801 challenged the supremacy of the British navy at Copenhagen, and challenged it in- vain." France and Spain in 1805 at Trafalgar challenged the British navy, but. in vain. The continuance of Canada as a part of the British empire depends upon a continuance of the supremacy of the British navy. We have a country growing up near the United Kingdom, a country that has developed more strength during the past fifty years than any other country in Europe, the German empire, a great people, an intelligent people, a moral people, a skilled people, a thrifty people; sixty-five millions of them, and increasing' at the rate of a million a year; with an army of four millions of soldiers who could be put in the field in a few hours. There is but one obstacle that stands between the ambition of the German Emperor and the leadership of Europe, and that one thing is the British navy. With sixty-five millions in Germany, and increasing at the rate of a million a year ,and her lands nearly all occupied, Germany must emigrate her surplus population or burst. Where are they to go? It is the ambition of the emperor of Germany that when his people emigrate from Germany, they shall go to a place where they shall still be under the flag; that is, Germany must have colonies. Where is she to get them? Where are there any colonies that she desires? Only those that are held by the British empire. In the year 1900 the German people undertook to rebuild their navy, and in the preamble of their naval Bill they put these words:
Germany must possess a battle fleet so strong that a war with her would, even for the greatest naval power, be accompanied by such danger as would render that power's position doubtful.
' Even for the greatest naval power '- read between the lines. What is the greatest naval power to-day? It is the British navy. So that, in the preamble of their Naval Bill, the Germans say practically that they must build a navy stronger than the British navy. Why? Can any one suggest for one moment any reason for building this navy except to be prepared to challenge the British navy. Such a navy is not necessary to protect Germany's coast, and there is no other navy in the world that calls on Germany to build such a navy as she is building except the navy of England. Therefore it seems to me perfectly clear that what the German people are aiming at is to have a navy stronger than the British navy for the purpose of challenging it. And if they succeed in getting such a navy, and if they should challenge the British navy and the German admiral should come off triumphant in the North
sea, where the fight would be bound to take place, that would be the end of the British empire as it is constituted to-day. There can be no question about that. The Germans are systematically going to work to educate their people in favour of a great navy. How do they go about it. They build a battleship and give that ship the name of some inland city or town. The one I have in my mind they christened the ' Nuremberg They built a model of that battleship and sent it to the city of Nuremberg in Bavaria, over 300 miles from the sea. The model was placed in the city hall, the people were invited to come and inspect it, and they came in hundreds and they said: This is our battleship; this is the ' Nuremberg In that way the whole people of Germany are becoming imbued with the desire to possess the greatest fleet in the world. For what purpose? For the purpose of challenging the British navy. There can be no other object.
We have had a good deal of evidence brought forth to show that there is no ground for alarm.' Newspaper clippings have been read by the score, brought to us second or third hand, and written in the old country during the excitement of an election campaign. One hon. gentleman read a letter from some one who had put in a few weeks in South Africa. Another read what purported to be a copy of a telegram sent by some unknown individual in the old country. We all know how much reliance can be placed upon political statements written during the excitement of an election campaign and published in party organs, whether on the one side or the other. We all know that little if any reliance can be placed upon these, and for that reason I do not propose to read newspaper articles written during the excitement of an election, but I want to read a few words delivered by responsible statesmen in the English House of Commons at a time when there was no political campaign on hand. You will find the few words I am going to quote from Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the English * Hansard ' on March 9, 1909, page 50. Sir Edward Grey said:
We desire by a just, fair and reasonable statement of our position to get not victory but confidence. Let me review the situation in that light. First of all, the House and the country are perfectly right in the view that the situation is grave. A new situation in this country is created by the German programme. Whether that programme is carried out quickly or slowly the fact of its existence makes a new situation. When that programme is completed, Germany a great country close to our own shore will have a fleet of 33 Dreadnoughts. That fleet would be the most powerful which the world has ever yet seen. . [DOT] [DOT] That imposes on us

the necessity of rebuilding the whole of our fleet.
Consider that for one moment. The German programme proposes to build thirty-three Dreadnoughts. A country with which she is now in close alliance, Austria, has eight Dreadnoughts; and if a war were to occur between Germany and England, Austria would be in the line with Germany, so that England to-day requires to rebuild her navy, requires to build at least fifty Dreadnoughts, which are to be the great battleships of the near future, to meet the German programme. What does that mean? Each Dreadnought costs about $10,000,000, and the complements of smaller vessels in each case, cost3 another $10,000,000. Fifty Dreadnoughts and their complements at $20,000,000 each, means $1,000,000,000. That is what it will cost to rebuild the British navy. And that British navy is to be rebuilt for what? Not for the mere purpose, as these statesmen said in the House of Commons, of protecting the British isles, but for the purpose of protecting the remotest part of the British empire. It is necessary for the British exchequer to expend $1,000,000,000 in rebuilding a navy to protect us as well as to protect the British isles. Are we to take advantage of that expenditure for our protection, at least during the next twenty years while we shall be constructing our navy, and contribute nothing towards it. That does not strike me as being self-respecting or honourable.
i.US see w^at Mr. Balfour, the leader of the Conservative party, said in the British House of Commons:


NAVY ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
I therefore do most earnestly beg the government and the committee to consider not indeed in any spirit of panic, but with a full recognition of the absolutely novel and as I think alarming circumstance in which this country finds itself whether they cannot do something with the enormous resources which we have at our disposal in the way of the building of ships, guns, mountings and armaments, and our power of finding the necessary funds for dealing with the question of national defence. I ask them not to hesitate, not to delay, but to use to the utmost and as quickly as possible without paltering every possible machine which they have at their disposal for restoring to this country what I greatly fear \ve have temporarily lost-not that two power standard which is far beyond question in this debate, but the one power standard in the matter of ships of first-class power which for the first time in our history seems to be slipping from our grasp.
And Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, said on the 16th of March, last, as reported on page 962 of the English 'Hansard' :
If any one will refer to the speech I made a year ago, he will see that I said, with some
Thomas Wilson Crothers: confidence, that whereas it would take the Germans 30 months to build one of these ships, we could do it in 24. I was not, of course, committing myself precisely to the number of months, but I did maintain that we had a substantial advantage in the rate of construction, which would always enable us to quickly overtake them when the event occurred. I am sorry to say that is not the case. I believed it to be the fact at the time at which I spoke, but there has been such an enormous development in Germany, not only in the provisions of shipyards and slips on which the hulk or fabric of a ship can be built or repaired, but in what is still iflore serious-in the provision for gun mountings and armaments of those great monsters, those Dreadnoughts, which are now the dominating type of ship-such an enormous development-and. I will venture to say this without attempting to excite anything in the nature of unnecessary alarm in this country-such an enormous development as to be so serious a development from our national point of view, that we could no longer take to ourselves, as we could a year ago with reason, the consoling and comforting reflection that we have the advantage in the speed and the rate at which ships can be constructed.
He said also, in the same debate:
I made two assumptions which have turned out, I shall not say to be inaccurate at the time I made them, but which have not been verified by subsequent experience. I admit it to the full. I got my information from the best possible sources, and I am perfectly certain that the admiralty had taken every means in their power to satisfy themselves of the actual facts. What were these two assumptions I made? The first assumption was that the German paper programme was one that might not be realized and certainly would not be exceeded. That has turned out not to be true, because it is undoubtedly the case that during the autumn of last year there was an anticipation with four ships which belonged to the German programme of 1909-10, in the sense that orders were given, materials collected, and it may be in one or two cases, possibly in more, ships were actually laid down. It was in view of that most grave, and to us not only unforseen but unexpected state of things that we had to reconsider our programme of the present year. When we had that state of things brought home to us, it was a great surprise to us, I confess-the falsification of one of the hypotheses on which we had hitherto proceeded. The discovery of that state of things made it necessary to reconsider our programme and to submit a different set of proposals to parliament.
Now, I wish to read a little authority for the benefit of some of our friends on the other side of the House, which they may appreciate even more, perhaps, than that of the statesmen whose views I have just read. I desire to quote a short quotation from the Toronto 'Globe', which my hon. friends opposite will probably accept as a very good authority. The 'Globe' of 24th March, last, said in its leading editorial :

British feeling for Germany until the last few years has ever been friendly and admiring. Germany's feeling for Great Britain, as was manifested during the Boer war, has been jealous and unfriendly. This unfriendliness reached its climax when Britain and Trance recently entered upon a friendly understanding. The policy of Germany since the war of 1870 has been to isolate France in Europe. The friendly relations with her neighbour across the ohannel have been openly and avowedly resented by the Berlin war party.
The German nation has gro-aned for years under the weight of military preparations. Without lightening that burden an ounce, the Kaiser and his advisers have superimposed the burden of creating a groat navy. There is not another nation in Europe which, if in the same position as Great Britain, would allow another nation to prepare an engine for its destruction without asking for explanations and an understanding. There is not another nation in Europe which would impotently stand by and sec an instrument forged for its destruction. They would seize the reptile while it was still weak and strangle it.
But that is not the British way. They have instead endeavoured to keep pace with German activity in augmenting naval power. The contest has become a desperate one. It is a contest between a nation of 65,000,000 and constantly growing, with a nation of 42,000,000, from which its sons swarm across the seas year in and year out. War is deprecated, but, as a matter of fact war is in progress. The contest in sliip-building is war. If the mother country were engaged in a deadly conli'ot, Canadians could not get across the ocean fast enough to the aid of the motherland. The Canadian exchequer would be open to the last dollar in such a cause. But we must recogn-nize that our aid is as much needed now as if a physical war, instead of a war of shipbuilding were on. Germany appreciates that if ever she is to challenge British supremacy and break up the British empire, now is the time.
This is from the Toronto 'Globe', I would ask my hon. friends opposite to remember :
Every year is adding to the might of the British possession, and ten years hence would be too late. The colonies can show by prompt and decisive action that it is already too late. They have it in their power to proclaim to all the world that the empire is one and indissoluble. It will be a stroke for peace, for the moment Germany perceives that the strength and resources of every colony have been cast into the scale, from that moment she will see that she has lost the game. She began her programme too late. It is Canada's duty, from every point of view, our affection for the land of our fathers and our own self-interest to take prompt and praotial action.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the author of that article is one of those whom the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Cong-don) so modestly and elegantly referred to ac 'old women of both sexes'. I shal1
have occasion to give my hon. friends opposite some more light from the Toronto 'Globe' before I finish.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, we have for a hundred and fifty years been living under the protection of the British navy. No one for a moment will dispute that. We propose to live under the protection of the British navy. Even hon. members opposite will admit that they cannot construct anything in the way of a navy, that would protect this Canada of ours, in less than twenty years. They will admit that, during the next twenty years, at least we Canadians are to be protected by the British navy. And we have never contributed one dollar to the construction or maintenance of that navy; we have never promised to contribute one dollar to the construction or maintenance of that navy; we do not propose now, under the Bill before the House, to contribute one dollar for the construction or maintenance of that navy.
Now, the Prime Minister in introducing this. Bill spoke about the position that was taken at the imperial conference of 1902.
The Postmaster General was good enough to put upon ' Hansard ' the whole of the material part of that memorandum of 1902. The Prime Minister said, at page 3032:
This was in 1902, nearly eight years ago, and for eight years this policy of the present government has been ' before the country. From this policy the present government has never deviated. This policy we affirmed again at the imperial conference pf 1907.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look, for a moment and see whether these statements are true. We will examine the memorandum of the Imperial Conference of 1902, we will examine the memorandum of the British Conference in 1907, to see whether these statements are true. The Postmaster General was kind enough to place upon ' Hansard ', at page 3114, the material parts of the memorandum of the Imperial Conference of 1902. The substance of it is this:
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval system of defence as well. They are willing-
Now notice the condescending generosity in this proposition:
-they are willing that these expenditures should he so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which she now bears.
Wasn't that generous? What is the proposition? The proposition was that:
We are prepared to consider a naval system of defence as well.
We are prepared to consider it. Five

years afterwards there was another imperial conference, in the year 1907. I do not remember whether the Postmaster General was a member of the government during those five years, or any part of the period from 1902 to 1907; but if he was, I am asking him if the government, during those five years, considered this proposition that in 1902 they declared they were prepared to consider. Now there is nothing in that memorandum of 1902 promising to do anything more than to consider the question, that is the whole thing. Did they consider it during those five years? I do not know whether they did or not. If the Prime Minister was here I would ask him. The Minister of Finance is here, perhaps he knows whether the Cabinet, during those five years between 1902 and 1907, considered a naval system of defence as well. He does not answer.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not making a speech.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have the report of what occurred at this general conference in 1907, and I' think I shall be able to show that although they promised to consider it, they said they were prepared to consider it in 1902, I think it is fair to assume that they did consider it during those five years, and I think the action they took in 1907 shows that having considered it for five years, they came to the conclusion that tney would do nothing. Now let us see. At page 541 of that report you have a motion moved by Dr. Smartt, one of the members of that conference, the Commissioner of Public Works for Cape Colony. He moved a resolution in these words:
That this conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire-
Is that something, Mr. Speaker, we can all agree to?
-to the defence of the empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy-
Do we all agree wdth that?
-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 upkeep 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 seriices, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty, and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.
Now, where was the representative of this government when that motion came up? Remember they told the British government in 1902, five years before, that they were prepared to consider the establishment of a naval force. Here was a proposition Mr. CROTHERS.
submitted by Dr. Smartt, recognizing the duty of the over-seas dominions to make a contribution towards the up-keep of the navy. You cannot get out of it by saying that it was a proposition to give a money contribution
The contribution to take the form of a grant of money, or the establishment of local naval defence or such other services.
Or in such other manner as would suit the circumstances of each dominion Now what was the evidence of their having considered the matter for five years? We find on the very next page, 542, the remarks made by the right hon. leader of this government in opposition to that motion. Here is his language:
SIR WILFRID LAURIER. I am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution.
We cannot agree to give money, we cannot agree to establish a naval defence, we cannot agree to do anything. The right hon. the Prime Minister stated the other day, as I have just read to you, that they reaffirmed the proposition in 1907 that they would establish a navy. Let me give you some more:
I am sorry to say that so far as Canada is concerned we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in that respect in cur country before committing ourselves to a general claim. We have too much to do otherwise. . . . For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
Now there you have, in the year 1902, the Prime Minister of this country telling the British government that they were prepared to consider a system of naval defence, and after considering it for five years, he says, I am against a monetary contribution for the establishment of a naval system or any other service, and we do not propose to do any more than we have done.
In the face of that we had him in this House the other day saying:
This was in 1902, nearly eight years ago, and for eight years, this policy of the present government has been before the country. From this policy the present government has never deviated.
Was that a deviation from it in 1907 when the right hon. gentleman declared: No money, no battleships, no tin-pot navy even, no nothing? In the face of that he comes before this House on the 3rd day of February, .1910, and tells us that in the year 1907 at this conference he reaffirmed the proposition that was made in 1902:
This policy we affirmed again at the imperial conference of 1907. We affirmed it again last year in this House when the question came up for concrete and immediate action. This

policy is embodied in the Bill now before this House, and by this policy the present government stands or falls.
What did Dr. Smartt say to Sir Wilfrid Laurier after he made those observations, after he refused to give any money, after he refused to establish a naval force, after he refused to do anything, saying we have too much to do otherwise? Dr. Smartt said:
I thought the wording of this resolution would have specially met your views, because towards the up-keep of the navy it may take the form either of a grant of money or the establishment of a local defence force or other services.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
I have said all I have to say on the subject.
That settled it, we will do nothing, I won't even discuss it with you any further. Then the report proceeds:


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


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


Thomas Aaron Hartt: I think it is a great pity we do not pass something. We have done so much in the way of pious affirmation, that I am anxious wTe should do something of a practical character.
I should say so. Then the discussion continues:


Wilfrid Laurier: It can be passed if there is a majority. Eor my part I must vote against it.


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


Thomas Aaron Hartt: Yes, I suppose so.


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


The CHAIRMAN.: I think we had better not proceed any further just now.
The motion was allowed to drop.
If you will pardon me for repeating for a moment, because I want to impress this thought upon your mind and upon the minds of my hon. friends who are in this House, and through this House upon the minds of the electors of this country, that we have had our Prime Minister in this House declaring that he confirmed in 1907 the proposition that he made in 1902, and I think I have proved to the hilt from the record that he did nothing of the kind. Instead of confirming the proposition in 1907, which had been made in 1902, he absolutely and positively refused to do anything. And this has another aspect: the statement that- the Prime Minister made the other day is invoked as a reason why the people of this country should not be consulted before we enter upon this interminable expenditure of the construction 146
of a Canadian navy. He has said to this House, his organs throughout the country, and his supporters in this House are repeating it, that this proposition has been before the country for eight years and has never been varied during that time, that he confirmed it in 1907. What are the facts? The facts are that the people of this country in 1904 paid no attention whatever to what had been done in 1902. We all know it was not a subject of discussion on the public hustings at all, but- even if it were discussed what was done in that year was cancelled in the year 1907 and prior to the last election. The last announcement the people of this country had from the right lion, gentleman on the question of a navy was: Vte shall do absolutely nothing. That was in the year 1907. So I say that we have done nothing, we have never promised to do anything, we have absolutely refused to do anything, and we do not propose now to do anything to strengthen the royal navy.
I overlooked something, the government did promise to do some little thing when they were over there in 1907. Sir Wilfrid Laurier left the matter of addressing the conference largely to Mr. Brodeur. At page 138 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
Mr. Brodeur will speak for Cauada.
And Mr. Brodeur proceeded to speak and to tell the people there how much we had expended in protecting our fisheries and in establishing a hydrographic survey, etc., but not one word that they would do anything to strengthen the British navy, except what we find on page 141:
We have taken over, or are going to take over, the Halifax and Esquimalt dockyards- in fact, we are in possession already, from the 1st of January, of the Halifax dockyards. 1 do not know exactly how inuch those dockyards were costing the British admiralty-or the one at Halifax, but I may say we have assumed all the obligations in connection with those dockyards, and we have provided specially that the amount which the British admiralty was to pay as an annual subscription to the graving dock at Halifax, would be paid by us instead of by the British admiralty. We have, as 1 have said, provided for the establishment of docks at Halifax and Esquimalt.
That was in the year 1907, nearly three' years ago. The hon. the Postmaster General a few days ago quoted from an address delivered by Sir William White on the 17th day of November last, before the Royal Society of Arts in old London, and I shall quote a few words from the same author, which will be found at page 16. You will remember that in the year 1907, in the presence of the right hon. the leader of this government, Mr. Brodeur undertook to take over the Esquimalt and Halifax dockyards, and to assume all obligations in connection with them. Sir William



White last summer examined these dockyards, and I call him as a witness whose testimony will be accepted at once. On November 17, 1909, he says:
During the past summer I have visited the naval yard at Esquimalt, and obtained first- hand knowledge of its present condition. . . . The only naval base possessed by the royal navy on the western coast of the American continent. I found the fort unarmed, the guns lying on the ground at the foot of the hill in the open. The naval yard was without a staff capable of maintaining in good condition th? expensive machinery left in the work shops, or the buildings, some of which were erected only a short time ago. The stores had been disposed of locally at ridiculously low prices and a naval base of importance had been virtually abandoned and was rapidly deteriorating.
From information received, I have reason to believe that the naval base at Halifax is also in an unsatisfactory condition.
So that we have the representative of this government at the imperial council in the year 1907 undertaking to take over the dockyard of Esquimalt and to maintain it and to assume all obligations in connection with it and, more than two years afterwards we find this report by Sir William White that they are allowing it to tumble to pieces. And still they tell us that the same policy that we adopted in the year 1902, we affirmed in 1907, and have been carrying it along ever since.


Mr. SPROULE.: That was to do nothing.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: To do nothing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And they sold the stores.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And they sold the stores at ridiculously low prices as Sir William White says. So we have had the protection of the British navy for 150 years; and the government proposes to have it for the next twenty years at least, never having paid a dollar towards the construction or maintenance of that navy, never having promised to pay a dollar and not proposing to pay a dollar now. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a position which the people of Canada, English or French desire the government of Canada to take.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the duty of Canadians in these circumstances? What we should do, it seems to me, depends entirely upon the conception we have of the destiny of this country. What is our conception of the destiny of Canada? Is it that we shall remain in the empire, is it that we shall become independent, or is it that w"e shall become a mere annex of the United States?. And, before we can properly and satisfactorily answer the Mr. CROTHERS.
question as to what we ought to do we should first determine what is our position. There never was a time in the history of this country before when Canada so earnestly called on every one of its sons to think and consider, and judge for himself what is best to do. It would seem to me, judging by the speeches we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite, that they have never yet grasped the idea of empire, and I say that without any desire whatever to be offensive to any one Their speeches do not indicate that they have ever risen to the idea of empire. Let us read what some of these gentlemen opposite have said. The hon. the Minister of Militia in his speech (page 3388 of 'Hansard) referring to the leader of the opposition said:
To-day he wishes to tax the people of Canada. $25,000,000 and to send it away out of sight where Canadians can have no possible interest in it.
Just'weigh these words for a moment, Mr. Speaker: To send $25,000,000 to the British government to build two Dreadnoughts away out of sight of Canada where Canadians can have no possible interest in it. Did the man who uttered these words ever grasp the idea of empire?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We had the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) saying in so many words in this House: We owe England nothing, we are indebted to England for nothing, why, because she does not pay us any more for our apples, or any more for our cheese, or any more for our bacon, or for our canned goods than she does for similar merchandise entering England from the United States, and therefore we owe her nothing. Narrow, selfish, picayune provincialism. As well might he say that the merchant of Montreal pays him no more for his eggs, and butter and cheese than he would to an American coming into the market of Montreal, and therefore, we are not indebted to Montreal at all, and if Montreal be attacked we shall not come to the rescue of that city. A gentleman from Nova Scotia (Mr. McKenzie)) told us that England has more money than we have, that she had facilities, for building ships, that she could build all the ships that were necessary to protect not only the British isles but to protect the remotest part of the British empire. And, he, a member of the House of Commons of Canada and a citizen -of Canada was willing to allow the taxpayer of the United Kingdom alone to raise money to construct and maintain a navy to protect him in this country. Narrow, selfish, picayune provincialism. And, Sir, wehavehad similar remarks from member after member on the other side of the

House. Talk about defending our coasts, or protecting our trade routes, why Mr. Speaker, this empire of ours, as the 'Globe' truly said, is one and indissoluble; the British empire must .stand or fall all together. We have had remarks made by the Prime Minister showing, I submit to- you, Mr. Speaker, that even he has never grasped the idea of empire. Many of you have read the remarks he made on independence a few years ago. Now, I do not desire to be offensive; I want to say boldly that if there be any man in this country who believes honestly and sincerely that it is in the interest of the British empire that we should become independent he has a perfect right to that belief and he has a perfect right to advocate it if he pleases. But, the people of the country, if he be a public man, have the right to insist that he stfall come out in the open and say so. We had the Prime Minister a few years ago stating, that he held out to his fellow countrymen the idea oi independence. That is not the only time the right hon. gentleman has made some remarks he should not have made in my humble judgment; remarks, which coming from a man occupying the prominent position he does, have a disintegrating effect upon the affections which the people of this country should entertain towards the British empire. And, it is not away back in the year 1902 either that he made those remarks, for, in the year 1907, the right hon. gentleman said in the city of Toronto :
We have to realize that John Bull has not always done his duty to his Canadian son. If we take all the treaties from the treaty of 1783 up to the treaty of 1903, we Canadians do not feel particularly cheerful over the way we have been treated by the British plenipotentiaries.
And in Ottawa, in the same year, addressing the Manufacturers' Association, he said
We take the record of diplomacy in Great Britain in so far as Canada is concerned, and we find that it is a repetition of sacrifices of Canadian interests. We have suffered on the Atlantic, we have suffered on the Pacific, we have suffered on the lakes, we have suffered wherever there has been a question to be discussed between British diplomats.
Mr. Speaker, what would be thought of a son who would delight in parading before the world the shortcomings of his mother? Whatever else might be thought of him. no one would think of accusing him of having any affection for her. So seriously did the British Ambassador the Right Hon. Mr. Bryce, regard these observations made by the Prime Minister of this county, that in Toronto he referred to them, and said: -*
146i
I will ask you to suspend your judgment upon all those questions in which it is alleged that British diplomacy has not done its best for you. In those matters you have only heard one side of the case, and I feel it is my duty to my country, and to the government which I represent, to tell you this, and that I believe you are entirely mistaken if you think that British diplomacy has been indifferent to Canada or has not done the best it could for Canada.
When the right hon. premier of this country says that Canadians do not feel particularly cheerful over the way we have been treated by the British plenipotentiaries, I ask, who were the British plenipotentiaries? I asked you what would be thought of a son who would delight in parading before the world the shortcomings of his mother; but what would you think of a son who would parade before the world accusations against his mother of which she was not guilty? And I want to show you, Mr. Speaker, that these very plenipotentiaries to whom the right hon. gentleman refers were named by himself, every one of them. In speaking of the treaty of 1903 he referred of course to the Alaska boundary treaty. I have in my hand the correspondence touching the Alaska Boundary, and in it you will find at page 63 the following:
To the Earl of Minto, Ottawa, from the Secretary of State, March 7, 1903.-The ratifications of the Alaskan boundary treaty were exchanged on the 3rd instant. Time for the preparation of the case, article 2, has consequently begun to run against us, and it is important that composition of British half of court, also appointment of British agent, should be settled without delay. Hope, therefore, your responsible advisers will favour us with their views on these appointments as early as possible.
On the very same day the Governor General sent this message to the Colonial Secretary:
In view of the short time given for preparation of the ease, my ministers desire to proceed immediately, and, therefore, suggest an early settlement of preliminaries. As to the composition of tribunal, my ministers suggest chief justice of England and two Canadian judges, names to be telegraphed hereafter. As to counsel, my ministers desire that Mr. Edward Blake, K.C., London, and Mr. Christopher Robinson, K.C., Toronto, be of counsel to uphold the British contention and junior counsel. Under that clause of the treaty which provides for the appointment of an agent to represent each party before the tribunal, my ministers desire that Mr. Clifford Sifton, Canadian Minister of the Interior, be appointed to fill such position.
On the 17th of March, 1903 the Governor General sent this message to the Secretary of State:
In addition to chief justice of England, my ministers propose Sir Louis Jettis, a retired

judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, and now Lieutenant - Governor of Quebec, and Justice Armour, of the Supreme Court of Canada, as members of the Court of Imperial Jurists under treaty for settlement of boundary of Alaska.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the late Justice Armour died, and the present Minister of Justice was appointed to his piace. This correspondence shows conclusively that the government of Canada named all three of the gentlemen who represented 'the British empire on that board of arbitration, and that the Chief Justice of England, named by the government of this country, agreed with the three gentlemen who represented the United States, and hence there were four to two against us on that question. And in face of the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier named the three gentlemen who represented Great Britain on that board, we find him at Toronto blaming the British government for the award that was given. Have I made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. gentleman has taken delight not only in parading the shortcomings of his mother before the people, but in making accusations against his mother that are not borne out by the record? Only a few days ago the right hon. (gentleman delivered" another address in Toronto, and what did he say? It is very peculiar. Sir, that a gentleman occupying the prominent position that the right hon. leader of the government does, should make such remarks. I venture to say that no one ever knew or ever read of a British statesman speaking of the government of Canada as the Prime Minister of this country so glibly and so delightfully speaks of the British government, ' This is what he said, as reported in the Globe of the 5th of January:
The King of England has no more rights over us than are allowed him by our own Canadian parliament.
Now, what was the necessity of making a remark of that kind? What is the object? Did you ever hear Sir John Macdonald talk that way? What are the facts? I have here some extracts from the British North American Act in these words:
Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as the British North America Am, 1867.
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and ivew Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada.


Mr. CROTHERS.: 9. The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Section 17. There shall be one parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen and an Upper House, styled tne Senate, and the House of Commons.
Yet in the face of these facts, we have the right hon. gentleman saying that the King of England has no more rights over us than are allowed him by our own Canadian parliament. Why, the sovereign of England, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, created this parliament. The King himself is a part of this parliament. And in the face of that we have our Prime Minister saying that the King has nothing to do with us except as we allow him. But the parliament of Canada was created by the sovereign and the House of Lords and the House of Commons of England. Where did these get their rights? The King of England did not acquire his rights from the parliament of Canada. Why then are these observations made? We had the right hon. gentleman going out of his way the other day to say that he would not have allowed Canada to have taken part in the Crimean war, if he had anything to say about it. On page 3044 of this year's ' Hansard ', I find the right hon. gentleman reported as saying:
There was another instance. England was at war in the Crimea with Russia. For myself I do not hesitate to say that if that war were to be undertaken by England under similar circumstances, I would hesitate very much before I would give my consent to our taking part in any such iwar, if conditions were the same now as they were then. But thcv are not, because at present we have British Columbia to look after; and if war were declared between Great Britain and Russia, our first duty would be to look after British Columbia, which might be attacked on the Pacific ocean.
Those are the ideas of our Prime Minister touching the Crimean war. Let me read in contrast what the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald said about the same matter. He said:
Who can look baok to the time when the Crimean war broke out and not remember with pride how Canada rose as one man to stand by the mother country and by France when the French Tricolor and the Union Jack were joined together fighting the battles of liberty against absolutism on the shores of the Crimea? There was a rush of Canadians to the battlefields, and I had great pleasure-
Notice the contrast.
-I had great pleasure, as a member of the government of Sir Allan McNab. to be instrumental in carrying a vote of $100,000, given unanimously out of the public treasury, in order to show that Canada made common cause with England and with France in the Crimean war.

There you had a man down into whose heart had sunken deeply the sentiment of loyalty and patriotism, and had become the inspiration of his life. Contrast that with the disposition of our Prime Minister whom we had saying that if he had been here then, he would not have so acted. Things, he said, are different now. We have British Columbia now, he said, and if British Columbia were attacked, he would fight like blazes. Sir, I choose to look upon the matter in this way. If Vancouver is attacked, the British empire is attacked. If the city of Quebec is attacked, the British empire is attacked. I look upon it in that large sense. I am proud of being a citizen of Canada, but prouder still that I am a British subject, and a citizen of the British empire. The instance I have cited is but another instance of the small ideas, the provincial ideas, that some people have. If British Columbia is attacked, why, we will run to the rescue. If Montreal is attacked, we will run to the rescue; but if some distant part of the empire is attacked, we will sit down in our comfortable chairs and consider whether we will go to the rescue or not. How satisfied would we be, were the British government to take a similar position with regard to us? If Quebec were attacked, would we not expect the British government to send a fleet over as fast as that fleet could get here? I think we would. The English statesmen whose words I have quoted said over and over again that Britain requires a fleet suf-ficently large to protect, not only the British isles, but the remotest part of the empire. If British Columbia is attacked, says the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid haulier) we will rush to the rescue. What narrow, selfish, picayune provincialism.
Our Minister of War (Sir Frederick Borden) is on the same line. He gave us a speech the other night in this House, and during it he was asked some questions. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) asked him:
Will the hon. gentleman say whether or not he is in accord with the sentiments concerning independence expressed by the Prime Minister in 1892.
What was the answer of our brave Minister of War to that question? He said:
I am generally in accord with the views of my honoqred leader, and I have absolute confidence in his leadership.
That is, our Minister of War does not know whether he is in favour of independence or not, but when the Prime Minister says * thumbs up ', up go his thumbs.
I might quote from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to prove that he showed just as narrow, selfish, and picayune provincialism as the other hon. gentlemen to whom
I have referred and even more so. I think I might extend that discription to almost every one of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have delivered themselves during this debate. I think there was one exception, but I forget the name.


Mr. COWAN.: The hon. member for Sun-bury and Queens (Mr. McLean).


Thomas Wilson Crothers: To protect our coasts, to look after our trade routes-never rise to the idea of empire. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any fight for supremacy on the seas, that fight will occur in the North sea. Sea fights are not like land fights. You may have a war on land for four or five years. But Togo destroyed the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan in forty minutes; the fleet of Spain was destroyed in the harbour of Manilla in an hour and a half; the Spanish fleet at Santiago was sunk in a few hours; Nelson won the victory of Trafalgar in three hours. And if the British fleet is ever to be challenged by the German fleet, it will be challengd in the North sea, and the battle will be finished in not more than a few hours. We are interested in seeing to that, if the supremacy of Britain on the seas be challenged by Germany or any other power, our interest should be protected. And, if we have a feeling of loyalty towards the British empire, if we appreciate the advantages and privileges of living under British institutions, if we really desire the empire's success, if our conception of the destiny of Canada is that she should remain in that empire, we should be anxious to contribute to the strength of the only weapon that can protect the integrity of the empire
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) was in Toronto a short time "ago and made a speech there before the Ontario Club, which is reported in the 'Globe' of Friday, February 18 last. Speaking of us poor sinners on this side, he said:
They disregarded the resolution of last session, in which they had concurred, that a contribution of money would not be satisfactory.
And further-
He did not believe that the people of Canada to-day were going to send tribute across the Atlantic to be expended by other men.
Now, knowing the hon. Minister of Justice as well as I do, I was unwilling to believe that he would misrepresent the position taken by the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and I set myself to ascertain, if possible, whether he had any excuse for making that statement. And I think I discovered it. Our minister of war (Sir Frederick Borden) delivered a speech here on February 10, and if hon. gentlemen will look it up, "they will see that the hon. minister declared that the resolution that

was presented by the Prime Minister last March was the one that was finally adopted by this House, and he puts it on ' Hansard ' just as it appeared when first read by the Prime Minister. Let me read it to you:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House reaffirms the opinion repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional relation 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, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
You will remember that that is the paragraph as it appeared in the resolution brought in by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Militia has referred to that as the one finally adopted. But it was not so. The one that was finally adopted was changed to make that paragraph read 'the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury ' would not be satisfactory. You catch the difference at once. The resolution as first brought in by the Prime Minister would prohibit us giving any monetary contribution under any circumstances. It was amended as I have said. The Minister of Militia, our minister of war, did not know then, and does not know now, that that amendment was made by the resolution. Not only the minister of war does not seem to have known of that amendment, but the Minister of Justice also. For I cannot believe that- the Minister of Justice misrepresented the case. We studied law together, and I do not believe he would do such a thing; I choose to believe that he did not know that the resolution was amended so as to permit the giving of a monetary contribution. The Minister of Militia puts into this resolution a whole paragraph that was cut out:
The House has observed with satisfaction

They actually wanted to put this in at first.
-the relief afforded in recent years to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of considerable military expenditure formerly charged upon the imperial treasury.
It required a high degree of courage to propose to send that home to the old country when Sir William White had examined the dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, and had found that the government had allowed them to tumble to pieces. That paragraph is entirely cut out of the resolution as finally passed, but our war minister did not know it. There is no mistake about that, for I took the trouble Mr. CROTHERS.
to read his whole speech to see about it. Before reading the resolution, he said:
The hon. member for North Toronto introduced a resolution which was afterwards changed into the resolution which finally and unanimously passed this House. . . . Without detaining the House, I shall proceed to read that resolution.
Then he proceeds to read the resolution that the Prime Minister first brought in. I thought that perhaps he had made a slip, so I took the trouble to go to the Printing Bureau on the 21st of last month, to examine the proof-sheets, and I found that they had all been corrected, but the resolution was left there. And you will find it in the revised edition, as I have it here represented as having been finally passed, namely the one that the Prime Minister brought in first. So that accounts for the Minister of Justice making the statement he did in Toronto. He did not know that it had been amended-our minister of war did not know that it had been amended-he does not know now. He revised the proof-sheets and this is in the revised edition. It is going down to future generations of our people as the resolution passed by this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Now, Mr. Sp.eaker, this is not a laughing matter, it is really a very serious matter; because we may fairly assume that, not knowing when he delivered that speech on the 10th of February that that resolution had been amended, and not knowing three or four days afterwards when he revised the proof sheets, and not knowing it now, I think it is safe to assume that he carried over to England with him the original resolution. "And what do we find him doing? On page 26 of the report of the Imperial Conference of 1909, we find the Canadian representatives explaining in what respect they desired the advice of the admiralty in regard to measures of naval defence.
They desired the advice of the admiralty in regard to the measures of naval defence, which might be considered consistent with the resolution adopted by the Canadian parliament on the 29th of March, 1909.
A scheme limited to torpedo craft would not in itself be a good means of gradually developing a self-contained fleet capable of both defence and offence.
Now, this was a private consultation, they dont give us the particulars. We can fancy what occurred. Sir Frederick had met the First Lord of the Admiralty before, and he introduced to him his hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and he told the First Lord of the Admiralty that this was the gentleman who was at the head of the department in Canada which the commission had found was lacking in

conscience, and he asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what they could do to help strengthen the British navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty told him what you will find on page 23:
If the problem of imperial naval defence was considered merely as a problem of naval strategy it would be found that the greatest output of strength for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command. In furtherance, then, of the simple strategical ideal, the maximum of power will be gained if all parts of the empire contribute, according to their needs and resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.
So when our minister of war first introduces the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the First Lord of the Admiralty says to him: Why, you can best assist to strengthen the navy by giving us a monetary contribution. Oh, but our minister of war had to say to him, I have in my pocket a resolution that the House of Commons unanimously passed.-Let us see that resolution. The resolution is brought out,- a payment of any contribution to the imperial treasury would not be satisfactory. He read the resolution he had with him, the one the Prime Minister had brought into this House at first and evidently that is the only resolution he knew anything about. The people of Canada wont stand for a monetary contribution. Well, it is very peculiar, the First Lord of the Admiralty said; how do you account for that? Why, the Minister of Militia says, I will tell you a little secret. The Prime Minister of Canada suffers from what is known in Canada as the brain 3torm of autonomy, an insidious malady that soon possesses all the mental powers and consumes all the nobler parts thereof; and when it reaches that stage the victim has the hallucination that not only himself, but every body else is troubled with the brain storm of autonomy. And that, Sir, accounts for this resolution that they wont contribute anything. Now, I submit that in all probability the whole matter has been misrepresented to the British admiralty, that the resolution of this House unanimously passed has never been presented to the British admiralty, that we must begin de novo and ab initio the whole thing. Why, our minister of war did not know the resolution we passed. I can scarcely believe it; but when you look at the ' Hansard ', and look at the revised edition, and look at the corrections of the whole thing revised down in the Printing Bureau, you will find that the man who is minister of war of this Dominion does not know the substance of a resolution that was passed in this House to change the whole relations of Canada with the British empire. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the brain storm of autonomy-we must have autonomy. Why, every one knows that it is absolutely impossible that we should have absolute autonomy and continue in the British empire. We hav'nt it now. We do not appoint the Governor General, he is appointed by the home government. We do not appoint the ambassadors to foreign courts to look after our business there. Talk about autonomy! What have we to do with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that decides the most important cases that arise in this country, interprovincial and between the Dominion and the different provinces and other important cases? We have nothing to say about the constitution of that court. So, Mr. Speaker, the only way we can get _ the autonomy from which the Prime Minister is suffering, is by separating from the British empire, that is absolutely certain. Talk about autonomy! Has the province of Ontario autonomy? Within a certain sphere she has autonomy; but when it comes to matters in which the whole Dominion of Canada is interested, then she has to submit to the people of the whole country. Has British Columbia to-day, sending a majority of Conservatives to this House, and Manitoba with a majority, and Ontario with a majority-have we autonomy, that is, have we a right to govern ourselves as we please? Not by any means. Why? Because we belong to the Dominion of Canada, we are part of the Dominion of Canada, and we have to submit to the majority of the people of Canada. And if we belong to the British empire, if we desire to enjoy the privileges and rights of British subjects, we cannot have perfect autonomy, it is utterly impossible. We have autonomy within a certain sphere, we have not absolute autonomy, and we cannot have it without absolute independence.
Then they talk about taxation. Why, I read to you a few moments ago that Sir John A. Macdonald made a motion that we should send to the British government at the time of the Crimean war $100,000. That was a greater sum to Canada then than $20,000,000 is now. How did it affect our autonomy? Have we had autonomy since, or have we been slaves of the British government ever since, because we voluntarily sent them $100,000? We sent $50,000 to France in aid of the flood sufferers; we sent $100,000 to San Francisco for the sufferers from the earthquake; we sent $100,000 to Sicily, without violating the great principle of autonomy; but we cannot send a dollar to assist the British navy without violating autonomy. England is contributing now $1,250,000 a year to assist Australia in building a large navy. British statesmen do not seem to understand anything about autonomy. They ought to come over here and get a few lessons from

460S
the Prime Minister ol this country. When I listen to our friends on the other side from the province of Quebec speaking on this subject, I do not understand much what they say, but I can catch the word 'autonomy'. Sir Wilfrid has an idea that there will be trouble over the question of autonomy. I noticed to-day one of these gentlemen talking about taxation without representation. There is another thing. Why, this amendment was put into this resolution for the very purpose of allowing us to make a contribution to the British navy.
I promised my hon. friends opposite that I would give them some more information from the 'Globe' and I want to keep that promise because I think it may have some influence upon their votes. Here is what the 'Globe' said on March 31, last:
While the British fleet is master of the ehannel no European fleet could be a serious menace to the shores of Canada. . . . In the day of trial the all-important aim would be to make the imperial fleet so strong that the issue of a combat would not be doubtful.
On the day the resolution was passed, March 29, last, the 'Globe' said:
There can be no resisting the conviction, in view of these facts, that the mother country will accept the aid of her colonies at this time of crisis with thankful enthusiasm. Nothing is so likely to bring the mad competition to a stop as a conviction on the part of Germany that it is hopeless. In such case the colonies will be conferring a boon on the German taxpayers as well as on the British. We are not of those who believe that an invasion of Britain just non' is feasible. That is not the danger. The danger lies in the future, when the German fleet would have arrived at a pitch of strength when there would be no need for evasion. There would he a direct challenge to a trial of strength, and if the German admiral prevailed, the British empire, as now constituted, would be at an end. English, Scotch and Irish valour would be of little avail. The islands would be beleaguered, their food supplies cut off and a surrender at discretion forced on them. That is a consummation which cannot be paltered with or derided, and while it is even remotely possible that every part of the empire must stand shoulder to shoulder in rendering it impossible.
I have another quotation from the ' Globe ' on March 26 last, that will please these hon. gentlemen better. I want them to pay particular attention to this:
The sort of vessel that should be built is fixed by the circumstances. The competition now raging between Great Britain and Germany is in the direction of first-class battleships. If Canada were to build a little fleet of wasps and hornets it would have no moral effect on the situation at all. What we would like Canada to do would be to manifest bv a veritable act that in this competition of the fleets she ranges herself proudly and gladly by the side of the mother country,


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They were not in favour in those days of a fleet of wasps and hornets such as the present government is proposing to build.
I have another little extract from the 'Globe' that may be of interest to some of my hon. friends opposite. It was written some little time after the resolution was passed, viz.: April 7th last.
A good deal has been said about protecting the shores of the Dominion.
That is what our friends across the way are talking about now, protecting our coasts, protecting the coasts of British Columbia. They have some imaginary enemy over there on the Pacific - who is going to attack British Columbia and they are proposing to send these wasps and hornets to repel that enemy.
A good deal has been said about protecting the shores of the Dominion. The only way to make our shores invulnerable is to make sure that the fleets which surround the British Isles are the unquestionable masters of the ocean.
That is the kind of material we want.
The only way to make onr shores invulnerable is to make sure that the fleets which surround the British Isles are the unquestionable masters of the ocean. The moment she is in doubt, that moment Canada is in a position of danger.
Never mind the little wasps and hornets, the moment that British fleet in the North sea is in danger, Canada is in danger, if she has any love for the British empire and desires to remain in it.
The moment that is in doubt, that moment Canada is in a position of danger, and any vessel or vessels that the Canadian people could provide for shore defence would be but a feeble barrier against the foreign fleet or fleets that gained the mastery. The question which the admiralty should be asked to answer is: AVhat can Canada do within her means that will be of most assistance to you ? and that thing we believe the government is prepared to do with the backing of the whole people of Canada.
Still one more quotation from the 'Globe,' March 23rd last:
The Canadian people do not indulge an exaggerated opinion of what they can do to augment the mighty naval instrument which guards the integrity of the King's possessions. But if any rival nation is disposed to dispute the capacity of Britain to hold her supremacy at sea we should make it clear that in such a competition Canada is prepared to fling the smug maxims of financial prudence to the winds and do more than her share in the game of turning Dreadnoughts from the stocks. If the 65,000,000 of Germans have concluded that they can build more monsters of the deep than the 42,000,000 of Britishers, it is time that it should be brought to their attention that there are more Britishers than those in the British Isles. Plucky little New Ze,..-

British navy at a cost of $1,000,000,000. This country became a part of the British empire 150 years ago, and when the inscription by slow dissipation from the monument guarding the height, shall have worn, Wolfe shall live in the hearts of a new generation, a watchword of freedom to ages unborn.


Mr. J. O. DUBEAU (Joliette).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in continuation of this debate, I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time. No doubt I could abstain from expressing my opinion otherwise than by my vote on the important Bill which is now before us, but I do not wish to allow any one to think that, by my silence I attempted to shirk the responsibility of the task entrusted to me by my electors.
For that reason I desire to define and explain the position that I intend to take.
In the first place allow me to say that the effect of this Canadian Naval Service Bill will not be to commit our country to an exaggerated and ruinous militarism, but that it will only enable us to depend upon a reasonable protection. Let me also add that if we feel to-day that it is our duty to undertake the creation of a navy, just as we saw fit, fifty years ago to organize our militia, it is certainly not for offensive purposes, but altogether for defensive purposes, fcr I feel quite certain that no one in this House or in the country has any warlike desire. We all want peace and quietness such as we have enjoyed for several years back.
But although we are animated by these sentiments, I hold that it would be foolhardiness on our part to fall asleep with the thought that our safety is complete judging from past experience and from the lessons of history, rather than from the declarations of optimists who go about loudly proclaiming everywhere that, we have no need of defence. I contend, with no less conviction, that the time has come when Canada must begin the organization of a naval service such as provided for in the Bill.
I need not repeat here that Canada occupies in the world a position of which we may well be proud. We have a trade superior to that of several European countries. Providence has endowed us with water-wavs which foreigners envy us. Before many years, our harbours will be able to compete with the best, harbours in America. We have thousands of miles of railways running through the country from one end to the other. We have splendid cities, a fertile soil, a thriving agriculture, with a population of seven millions boldly marching onward in the path of progress. And having obtained from England the Mr. CKOTHERS.
right, of making our treaties, we are enjoying the fullest autonomy. This means that we have laid the solid foundation of a nation in whose destinies we have faith.
But, as it has been said, the extension of a country is not its protection.
It is enough for us to have developed our country as we have done; we are also bound to protect Canada from any danger which a conflict of interests might suddenly give rise to.
With this end in view, it is most desirable that we should gradually improve our means of defence both on land and on sea. For never could a nation exist and maintain itself, without possessing the necessary means to protect its own territory, and its commerce, as well as the means of safeguarding its material power and its moral prestige.
Engrossed as we are with the development of the wealth and of the natural resources of our country, we should not try to elude the responsibilities and the duties which devolve upon us as a nation, for the defence and the protection of the rich patrimony we are enjoying.
So far we have incurred comparatively heavy expenditures in order to place the country in a state of defence. We have started the organization of a permanent militia. We have taken over the garrisoning of Esquimalt and Halifax. We have built armouries and drill sheds which are most useful to our militia. We have in the province of Quebec a first class small arm factory. We are instructing in the military art many citizens of this country and more particularly the youth of our country.
Therefore I may say without any hesitation that, on land Canada has generously discharged her duty.
But a country like ours, bounded by two oceans and with a double sea-shore thousands of miles long, needs not only a land force but also a navy to protect her coasts, her sea-ports and her trade.
It is with this end in view that the government are now proposing to begin in a wise and cautious manner the organization of our naval forces.
This measure which is essentially within the realm of the representatives of the people is but the natural complement of a policy formulated several years ago.
In fact, the question of the desirability of organizing our naval defence is by no means new or novel.
It has been dealt- with on more than one occasion. When our ministers went over to London to take part in the imperial conference of 1902, in order to examine the issues of concern to the -empire, they declared that the government had the intention of undertaking the organization of a navy. The report of that conference came

before this House the following year, and the result of the conference, as well as the position taken by our delegates-, seemed to give satisfaction to the House.
Last year, the House unanimously agreed to a resolution embodying the policy formulated at the conference in connection with our naval defence.
But scarcely had the session been closed when some members of the opposition began denouncing the policy unanimously agreed to by this House, on the 29th of March last. And now in this House they are still directing- their criticism and their attacks against this Bill respecting the Canadian naval service, although that Bill only aims at -carrying out a policy which they approved of last year and the fundamental principle of which is laid down in tire British North America Act, as well as in the Militia Act revised in 1893, and included in our Revised Statutes of 1906.
Why this change of attitude, if not for this reason, that the opponents of the government, on this question as on many -other issues, are loath to depart from their favourite tactics consisting in preaching a different policy in the several parts of the country.
So it is that in the province of Quebec, they oppose the Bill on naval defence, under the pretense that it leads us to imperialism; while in the west and in Ontario our opponents denounce this Bill as at variance with the suggestions-of the British admiralty and with our duty to the empire.
In Toronto as in Winnipeg, they tell the people that the Laurier government is disloyal to the empire, while in the province of Quebec they denounce Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a traitor to his race and as ready to sacrifice that race in order to take part in the wars of the empire.
But in spite of those appeals to prejudice and to popular feelings, the electors of Canada know very well how to appreciate th'e attitude of both parties and they endorse the truly Canadian policy laid down by the government in that matter.
The organization of a Canadian naval service is a measure which is called for by the development of the country.
Fifty years ago, we laid down the foundations of our militia. Its beginnings were unpretending indeed; but it went on gradually developing itself and to-day its usefulness and efficaciousness are questioned by nobody.
Why should we not do for our navy what we did for our militia?	_
Other countries whichi are not considerable nor wealthier than Canada and whose population is not -so large as ours, such as the South American republics, have their own navy. Why should we not also have a navy of our own?
In virtue of what law are we to be dispensed from taking tHe means resorted to by other countries for their protection on land and on sea?
Is it the Monroe doctrine which thus warrants us in derogating to the general rule?	.	.
Does that doctrine warrant us m relying upon an efficacious protection on the part of the United States? It would indeed be sheer nonsense or recklessness on our part to look exclusively for security and protection, in time of war, in that ill-defined and vague doctrine which might perhaps never apply to Canada.
But even were that doctrine to apply, national self-respect and our personal interest should warn us to beware of accepting that doctrine as our only protection, because that doctrine is incompatible with our national development and with our notions of autonomy.	.
In fact, not only would it be humiliating for Canada to have to appeal for aid to the United States, but the practical result might be still more disastrous.	_
At what cost to us would not the United States give us that protection, and might they not demand that we should abandon to them a portion of our territory or that we should concede to them certain exorbitant privileges.
If we cannot rely on the Munroe doctrine for the defence of our country, we cannot either rely solely upon the protection of England.
In many cases, England could not come to our assistance, were she anxious to do so; for, to give an instance, she might be called upon to meet an enemy attempting to attack her in the very heart of the empire. Besides, the great distance at which she is from Canada and the risks and perils of the sea are so many obstacles that England might be powerless to overcome, at a given moment.
Therefore, we cannot leave to England alone the task of protecting our territory, our sea ports, our trade, our institutions, our homes, in short, our country. We have to find, in a confederation like ours, the elements of our defence, on sea as well as on land.
Such was the opinion held by Sir George Etienne Cartier, at the time of confederation, and as early as 1864, he formulated his programme in. these words:-
Another consideration of the greatest importance is the defence of the country. As we are now, a province cannot ask another province for assistance, in case of attack; but with confederations, we shall have an army of 300,000 men and a navy of 60,000.
The words I have just quoted go to show that this project of a marine is by no means an innovation, as it was referred to

as early as the beginning of the era of confederation, and we find moreover that Cartier himself was in favour of the creation of such a navy, as he declares that it was one of the considerations which induced him to ask for the establishment of confederation.
Therefore, by contributing the policy of the government on that question and in repeating everywhere the statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier at I.aehine, that Canada stands in no need of a navy, the opponents of the government in the province of Quebec abandon the traditions of that great statesman, Sir George Etienne Cartier, while professing on every occasion to be his disciples.
But while, in the province of Quebec, the opponents of the government attack the naval defence Bill as inopportune and contrary to our autonomy, in the 'other provinces, . the policy of the government on that question is being denounced, because we keep the control of the fleet and refuse to place immediately at the disposal of England a sufficient sum for the purchjase of two Dreadnoughts.
But all those so-called objections to the policy of the government are refuted by each other.
In fact, while in the province of Quebec, the adversaries of the government oppose the establishment of a naval service, because they pretend that we should not then [DOT] have the control of our navy, which would be under the direction of the British Admiralty in the other provinces, they attack the Bill now under consideration, because it enables the Canadian government to prevent the naval forces of Canada from acting in concert with those oi the empire, in time of war.
While in the province of Quebec, the adversaries of the government claim that we are in no need of naval defence, that there is no impending danger, in the other provinces, they pretend that war is on the eve of breaking out in England, and that we should immediately place at the disposal of the imperial authorities a sum of at least $20,000,000, for the purchase of two Dreadnoughts, in order to guarantee the supremacy of England.
In short, while the opponents of the government ask for a plebiscite and want the people to be consulted as to the expenditure of about $15,000,000 for the construction of a fleet tbiey are disposed to pay immediately into the imperial exchequer, without any previous consultation of the people, a sum of from $20,000,000 to $25.000,000, and even a great deal more.
In face of the diametrically opposed attitude of the government and of the opposition, I need hardly adduce any further arguments to destroy that legend which thjey are endeavouring to spread through-Mr. DUBEATT. [DOT]
out the province of Quebec, to the effect that this Bill is but the result of a compromise between the right hon. the prime minister and the hon. the leader of the opposition.
If both have approved, as did the whole House, the resolution of the 29t.h March, 1909, it is quite evident to-day that the hon. the leader of the opposition, is supporting to-day by the amendments he has submitted, a policy different from that of the government.
Having to make a choice under such circumstances, between the government's Naval Bill and the suggestions coming from . the opposition, I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my support to the government measure. I feel satisfied that such a policy is an absolute safeguard to our autonomy, that it is in conformity with our national aspirations, and that it will be approved of entirely not only by the great majority of the people of the county which I have the honour to represent, but also by a majority of the voters in this country.
I may add and it is, I think, to the honour of the electors of the county of Joliette to whom I, as in duty bound, explained the principal points of the policy formulated in the resolution of the 29th March, 1909, which the government is now implementing, that these explanations were favourably received in the different parishes of the county where meetings were held.
In voting as I propose to do at the end of this debate, I feel secure in the continued confidence of my constituents and in the execution of a duty as a Canadian and a British citizen.


Mr. JAMES J.: DONNELLY (South Bruce) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 3, 1910.