1910-02-28

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House to an 137
incorrect report which appears in the edition of the Toronto ' World ' of February 25 lafit. The statement reads as follows:
Ottawa, Feb. 24.-(Special.)-If the Naval Bill is not withdrawn and held over till next session, it will not be the fault of a couple of western Liberal members, who are to-night circulating for signature a petition to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to do one of two things- either bring this naval debate to a sudden conclusion so that they can get to their homes by Easter or withdraw the Bill.
It is impossible, of course, under the present conditions, to limit this important debate, and at the present rate the House cannot rise before June, even although future Wednesday evenings will now be requisitioned for the work of the Commons. Therefore the petition narrows itself down to a request for withdrawal of the Bill.
Western Liberals in common with western Ontario Liberals are not enamoured of the Bill, and would gladly see it dead.
This statement contains only a semblance of truth. It is a fact that there was a petition circulated amongst the members of both sides of the House; it was not prepared by western Liberal members, but was prepared by Liberal and Conservative, members who sit on both sides of the House. There was nothing stated in the petition as to the bringing of the debate on the Naval Bill to a conclusion before Easter, nor was there any statement with respect to the withdrawal of the Naval Bill. The petition was simply got up by a number of members on both sides of the House for the purpose of bridging the attention of the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to the desire of a great many hon. members of this House to get home by Easter, if possible, and to prevent them from being required to come back after the adjournment. I have in my hands part of a petition that was signed and which is a very harmless document. It is simply a request to the two leaders of the House that steps be taken to ensure the prorogation of the House before Easter. There is no attempt shown in the document to prevent proper discussion of the Naval Bill or any other matter of general public interest, and that the petition! did meet with general favour by members on both sides, is, I think, demonstrated by the fact that the part of the petition which I hold in my hand was signed by seventy, members on both sides of the House.


Mr. STAPLES.: By how many on this side?


William Melville Martin: I think therefore newspapers spread reports of this kind they should make themselves thoroughly familiar with the facts.


William D. Staples: How many on this side?


William Melville Martin: If my hon. friend) will be quiet for a moment, the statement which I made will be corroborated by members on the other side of the House.


William D. Staples: I simply rose to ask how many members on this side of the House signed the petition.


William Melville Martin: I have in my hand the pettions, except one that was circulated on the other side. I see on one the names of at least two members on the other side of the House.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I am one of those responsible on this side of the House for starting and circulating the petition, but as the hon. member (Mr. W. M. Martin) said, our whole object was to bring to the attention of the leaders of the House the desirability of securing prorogation within a reasonable time. So far as I can learn there is very general discontent on both sides of the House at the long time which has elapsed since this House assembled and at the small amount of business that has been done. I am safe in saying that members on both sides would like very much to secure some better arrangement than we have at present for the meeting of the House and the prosecution of business after we do meet.



THE BANKING ACT.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the Finance Minister if. he has any information to give to the House as to when we may expect the Banking Bill.


Mr. FIELDING.: I had contemplated bringing forward a revision of the Banking Act, and it is in an advanced condition. I am aware of the representations made within the last day or two on both sides as to the desirability of curtailing the government programme and bring about an early prorogation, and I would like to know what progress is likely to be made in that regard before deciding definitely.
I still desire to bring forward the Banking Act, but if there is to be an early prorogation the proposed Act might stand over until next session, as the bank charters do not expire until July 1, 1911. If the session is to be protracted the Bank Act will be brought forward, but if there is a desire to curtail the session it may remain over until next session.



RULES OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LEWIS.: I would ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by the committee which he appointed for the


William D. Staples: revision of the rules with a view to shortening the session, if possible.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There has been one sitting of the committee, and it is intended to have another one this week.



MANITOBA FISHERIES REGULATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRADBURY Eight or ten days ago I requested the Prime Minister, who is acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries to bring down the proposed amendment to the Fisheries Laws for Manitoba. This is a very important question. I understand the fishery officers were called in from Manitoba and spent eight or ten days revising the regulations, and I would like to suggest that I should see the regulations before they are put into force. I presume they will not become law until an order in council is passed, and they should be referred to the Select Committee on Fisheries, who would have an opportunity to look into them.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: A Bill has been prepared, notice of it will be given to-day, and it will be submitted to the House immediately, covering the amendments to which my hon. friend refers. It is in relation to all fisheries.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I think the minister hardly grasps my meaning. A commission was appointed to investigate Manitoba fisheries. They made a report, and on the strength of that report it is proposed ta adopt new regulations, and it is of those new regulations I am speaking now.


George Eulas Foster: I understand the government has taken Mondays and intends to take Wednesdays. There are some motions on the order paper, and I wish the Prime Minister would arrange so that those unopposed motions might be taken up this week.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no objection to that.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 118) to incorporate the Bur-rard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-[DOT] Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 140) for the relief of Frederick Joseph Gustin McArthur.-Mr. A. Hag-gart.
Bill (No. 144) for the relief of Jessie Mary Maxwell.-Mr. Boyce.


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Has the government Holsteins and Jersey cattle represented in the dairy herds at the experimental farms? If not, why not?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: No. Any more breeds than are there at present could not be satisfactorily dealt with.


HEATING OF RAILWAY COMMISSION , BUILDING.
Mr. S. SHARPE:: 1.	Does the owner or does the government pay for the heating of the Railway Commission building, Queen street?
2.	What has been the yearly expense of the
heating of said building since the date of the lease?	*	.
3.	What is the total number of cubic feet in the building?
4.	Approximately from what date in the fall of the year to the spring of the following year, must the building be kept heated?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	The government.
2.	Annual expense of heating, including salary of fireman at $55 per month:
1903-	04	$1,170	381904-	05	
1,272	501905-	06	
1,311	001906-	07	
1,318	oo1907-	08	
1,216	501908-	09	
1,164	003.	166,777 cubic feet.4.	The building must be kept heated about eight months, say from September 15, to May 15.


MANITOBA-SALE OF SCHOOL LANDS.
Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: 1.	Was the N.E 1 section of section 11, township 1, range 9, west of the 1st meridian, in Manitoba, sold at the last school lands sale at Manitoba? If so, at what price?
2.	How much has been paid on this land, and when were the payments made?
3.	If it has not been sold, when will it be put on sale?
4.	What is the upset price of the land?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	The north-east i section of section 11, township 1, range 9, west of the 1st meridian. was disposed of at the auction sale held at Manitou on the 30th of May, 1907, to Mr. W. J. Crosbie. The price at which the land was sold was $13 per acre. At the request of Mr. Crosbie, the sale was subsequently cancelled.
137i
2.	The amount paid on this land was $208, the payment being made at the time of the sale.
3.	It is not possible to say at present when the land will be offered again, as it is not the intention of the department to hold any auction sales in Manitoba in the immediate future.
4.	The upset price of this land was $10 per acre.


MANITOBA-FEDERAL SUBSIDY FOR SCHOOL LANDS.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: How much money was paid to the Manitoba government from the federal government, re school lands, from March 31, 1909, to January 31, 1910?


Mr. OLIVER:: $221,056.52.


BAIT FREEZER AT INVERNESS, N.S.
Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Has the government established at Inverness, Nova Scotia, a cold storage plant for bait?
2.	If so, by whom was it built, what did it cost when completed, and is it a separate building, or is it in connection with another building?
3.	Has any bait been stored there? If so, how much?
4.	How many fishermen are there regularly engaged in fishing at that port, what amount of fish and what kinds did they take last season?
5.	What fishing station is the Inverness freezer expected to supply, and from "what point will the freezer secure bait?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	The government assisted in the establishment of a fishermen's bait freezer there.
2.	The Inverness Fishermen's Association. $1,980.76. The department understands it to be a separate building.
3.	Not yet, as the freezer was completed
only last summer.	.*
4.	There are fourteen boat fishermen from Inverness and vicinity.
235 bbls. herring.
45 bbls. mackerel.
300 cwt. dried cod.
130 cwt. dried haddock.
70 cwt. dried hake.
100 bbls. squid. -90 bbls. coarse fish.
2,900 lbs. lobsters (canned).
These figures are for the year 1908-09, those for the year 1909-10 not being yet available.
5.	Inverness and vicinity. Bait will be
secured for storage in the freezer at Inverness and vicinity or neighbouring localities.	,


LIGHTKEEPER AT BAY ST. LAWRENCE.
Mr. BLAIN:: 1.	Who is the lightkeeper at Bay St. Lawrence, Inverness county, Nova Scotia, and how long has he held that position?
2.	Has there been reported to the government any complaint against the said lightkeeper as an official of the government?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Charles Jamieson, appointed 21st September, 1893.
2.	Yes.
49TH REGIMENT.


Mr. NORTHRUP:: 1.	Has a commanding officer been recently apjjointed for the 49th regiment?
2.	If so, does he reside within the limits from which the men composing the corps are drawn?
3.	If no appointment has been made yet, will the department, in making same, select an officer from those residing within the above limits?
4.	Has the department consulted the officers of the regiment, or in any way learned their views and opinions as to the effect on the regiment of appointing a commanding officer who does not reside within the said limits?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3	and 4. The department is awaiting a recommendation from the officer commanding the eastern Ontario command.


ROSS RIELE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Is the manufacture of any Ross rifles, mark II. double star, now under contract? If so, how many ?
2.	Have such rifles been contracted for since the initial order of 500?
3.	Will the manufacture of other patterns be stopped and future manufacture consist of mark II. double star?
4.	In view of the greatly increased efficiency claimed for mark II. double star, as a target rifle, does the government consider that competitors are fairly treated at the Dominion Rifle Association matches unless the pattern is equally available to all competitors under similar conditions?
5.	What action, if any, is the government disposed to take should the National Rifle Association decline to admit mark II. double star, for use at the Bisley competitions?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1 and 2. An order is being given for the conversion of two hundred Ross rifles.
3.	No.
4	and 5. These are matters which pertain to the Dominion Rifle Association.


William Templeman: 


D UNKIN AND HIGHAVATER MAILS.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Was the contract for the conveyance of mails between Dunkin and Highwater, Quebec, recently awarded to one Charles A. Barnett? If so, at what rate per annum?
2.	AVas such contract subsequently set aside and the contract awarded to another tenderer ? If so, at what rate per annum, for what reasons, and to whom was the work subsequently awarded?
3.	Is the government aware that the communication awarding the contract to Mr. Barnett, was said to have been opened while in the mail before reaching its destination? If so, what action does it contemplate taking in regard thereto, and if not in possession of any complaint made in regard thereto, will due inquiries be instituted?
4.	Does the person to whom the contract was re-awarded also occupy the positions of postmaster and sub-collector of customs?
5.	Does the government consider it sound policy that one individual should occupy dual positions in the Civil Service, and at the same time become a contractor for work in competition with the general public?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 1.	Yes. $99.75 per annum.
2.	Yes, the contract was subsequently awarded to Mr. Clinton R. Crowell at $100 per annum because the performance of the service by Mr. Barnett involved a change in starting point, to which the people interested objected.
3.	No, hut if a representation to that effect is made to the department, inquiry will be made, and if the case can be proven, the guilty party will be punished to the full extent of the law.
4.	He is not a postmaster, and this department is not aware that he is an officer of the customs.
5.	It is a fact that in many instances country postmasters are also contractors for mail service, and in some cases it has been considered advisable and convenient by the customs department that they should also be appointed as sub-collectors of customs. This practice is considered to operate advantageously to the public interest in every way, as doing away with the delays incident to the collection of customs on articles addressed to distant post offices.
In the case of services where the remuneration is small and where only a small portion of a postmaster's time is occupied in the performance of his work either as sub-collector or a mail contractor, it is considered an advantage to the government to have these services in the hands of the same person. Express provision is made in the Post Office Act, permitting the amalgamation of the duties of postmaster and mail contractor, wherever it is found advantageous to the public.


BOAR'S BACK POST OFFICE.
Mr. JAMIESON:: Has a petition been received by the Post Office Department asking for the opening of a new post office at Boar's Back, Digby county? If so, when was the same received, and what action, if any, has been taken thereon?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: A petition was received at the department on the 7th September, 1901, and was subsequently reported upon by the post office inspector, but the circumstances were so unfavourable to the establishment of an office that the matter was allowed to stand. Looking over the case again it is found that an office has since been opened within a short distance of Boar's Back, and there would therefore be even less need for an office at Boar's Back than there was in 1901.


PEACE RIVER COUNTRY.
Mr. BEST:: 1.	What part or parts of the Peace River country are open for settlements?
2.	What portion of Peace River country will be opened up this season for settlement, at what price per acre, and on what terms can land be purchased?


Frank Oliver: Township. Range.		Meridian.
76	14	West 5th,74	15	West 5th.75	15	West 5th.74	16	West 5th.75	16	West 5th.76	16	West 5th.74	17	West 5th.75	17	West 5th.80	4	West 6th. .71	6	West 6th.The	following	townhips ha
been surveyed, but the department has no record of the same having been opened for homestead by the local agent of Dominion Lands by notice and advertisement as required by section 7 of the Dominion Lands Act, that is to say:
Township. Range. Meridian.
" Partly Indian Reserve.
Partly Indian Reserve.
81	24	5.82	24	581	26	571	3	672	3	673	3	674	3	678	3	680	3	671	4	672	4	674	4	671	5	6Township.	Range.	Meridian.72	5	673	5	674	5	677	5	678	5	679	5	672	6	673	6	674	6	677	6	678	6	671	7	672	7	673	7	674	7	671	8	672	8	673	8	674	8	671	9	672	9	673	9	673	4	572	5	573	5	572	6	573	6	574	9	573	10	574	10	573	11	573	13	574	13	574	14	575	14	577	14	576	15	577	15	577	16	580	19	581	19	577	20	581	20	577	21	578	21	577	22	578	22	574	9	671	10	672	10	673	10	674	10	671	11	672	11	673	11	674	11	6
2. The available lands in the townships above mentioned. Land can only be acquired under homestead entry, except in cases of fractional areas of 80 acres or less, which under the regulations may be sold at $3 an acre to the homesteader or owner of land lying alongside. In case the applicant is a homesteader, such sale would be made subject to the homesteader earning patent for his homestead.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the number of persons in the employ of each department of the government during the year 1909 under the following heads: (a) civil service employees at Ottawa; (b) civil service employees outside of Ottawa; (c) in stated and regular employ, but not under the Civil Service Act, giving the distinctive service of each group;	(d)
those in temporary or casual employment, giving the distinctive work of each group, and also showing the total amount paid under each head.-Mr. Foster.
For a copy of all representations made by business or commercial men or citizens of Winnipeg to the department or government since the contemplated action of the government in reference to closing or keeping open the post office to box holders on Sundays, and who made them; and of all orders- given by the Postmaster General or his department to the postmasters in reference to this Sunday closing.-Mr. A. Haggart.
For a return showing all sums of money received by the ' Soleil ' Publication Company, the ' Vigie' Publication Company, and the ' Daily Telegraph ' Publication Company, cf Quebec, from the different federal departments, and from the Transcontinental Commission, since the first day of March, 1908, and the respective dates of each payment.- Mr. Paquet.
I*or a copy of all correspondence with the government or the Post Office Department in reference to closing or keeping open post offices to box-holders on Sundays.-Mr. A. Haggart.
I oi a copy of all correspondence, accounts, vouchers and reports, relating to the accident at bault Ste. Marie lock in June, 1909, the number of vessels and tonnage, with port of destination, and number of passengers passing through the Canadian lock at Sault Ste Marie, during the months of April to December, .both inclusive, 1909.-Mr. Boyce.
For a copy of all correspondence between the Dominion government and the government of Manitoba on the subject of the ex-tensmn of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba since the resolution adopted by the House of Commons on the 13th day of July, 1908.-Mr. Molloy.
For a copy of the original field notes of the survey of Captain Jemmett, 1899, on Chu-Chu-reserve No. 2, Similkameen district, H.C.-Mr. Burrell.
**j0r f <;oP.y of all papers, correspondence, and petitions in reference to the changing of the post office at Windygates, in the province of Manitoba.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
For a copy of all reports and correspondence in reference to the appointment of the lollowrag frontier quarantine inspectors- Dr Bradford, Dr. Carter, Dr. Duncan, Dr.' Thornton, Dr. Wallace, Dr. May, Dr. Mc-Kenty, Dr. Little, Dr. Henderson and Dr Scott-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
WEDNESDAY EVENING SESSIONS. Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:
That from this day to the end of the session, the House will meet on Wednesdays at Mr. OLIVER.
three o'clock p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other sitting days.
Motion agreed to.

[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. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, before resuming the line of my remarks, I would like to call attention to a sentence in the Halifax * Herald ' of February 25, 1910, which reads as follows :
Order was at last restored by Mr. Devlin promising not to quote His Excellency, although he added with some bitterness, ' What did lie send me his speech for if I am not allowed to read it?
I used no such language, and in the matter there was absolutely no bitterness in tone or otherwise. My words, and I give them for accuracy, in order that the organs of the Conservative party may sometimes speak fairly of gentlemen on this side of the House, were:
This pamphlet was sent me, I do not know by whom, but I always presumed that it was sent by His Excellency for my benefit; and, as I found in it certain passages bearing upon the subject before the House, I was simply going to give the House the benefit of them.
When the House rose on Thursday night I was pointing out as well as I could that the attitude which had been taken by the government upon the question of the Naval Bill, which is now under discussion, was a natural and logical sequence to the different resolutions which had been introduced into this House by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the right hon. leader of the House. Since the first resolution was introduced peculiar scenes have been witnessed. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) constituted himself in matters naval, the leader of the opposition, but he had hardly given the word of command before the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) found that he also should give his word of command, which was more directly to be applied to the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. gentlemen thought that they also should give a word of command which might differ from the word of command given by the hon. member for North Toronto, the leader in naval matters, and immediately the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. R. L. Borden) bolted from his party. The hon. member for Jacques

Cartier, (Mr. Monk), the hen. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes), and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), went in search of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden). The hon. member for Jacques Cartier found the hon. member for Halifax addressing the multitudes in the province of Quebec; the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton discovered him addressing the multitudes in the maritime provinces; and there he had a different creed; the hon. member for North Toronto found him addressing the multitudes in the province of Ontario, and there again he had a different creed. After these three hon. gentlemen heard the different creeds of the bon. member for Halifax, they marched him back here to the seat of government, and there made him expound his article of faith, which is to be found in the amendment which he proposes to the Bill now under discussion. What does he say? In speaking to the province of Quebec, the hon. leader of the opposition-I refer now to the hon. member for Halifax-says at page 3067 of ' Hansard ' :
I would invite my right lion, friend to-day to again respond to the popular will, and the will of this country to-day is thac these different proposals ought to be submitted to the people and the people ought to be permicted to pass upon them before any permanent policy of this kind is engaged in.
Then, addressing the masses in the lower provinces, he goes on to say:
I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that course. I am as strong as any man in this country in the belief that it is the duty of Canada to participate upon a permanent basis in the defence of this empire and to do our reasonable share in that regard.
But, addressing the multitudes in the province of Ontario, he says, at page 3068 of * Hansard ' :
So, Sir, I say we should make our aid prompt and generous, so that it may bring to the motherland the assurance not only of material support but of courage, faith and determination which shall proclaim alike to friend and foe that whether in peace or in war, the empire is one and undivided.
These hon. gentlemen, after they had thought the matter over, as the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) told us, in the morning, in the afternoon, and while lying awake at night, prepared the ammunition which they were to discharge at the government, and, if I were permitted to use the words of Senator Beveridge, I would say that they engaged in what we on this side, and what the Canadian public are beginning to understand to be mere pot-shot warfare with wax bullets from air guns. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they think that, in order
to prevent the British empire from going to smash, we must immediately cable over a sum of $20,000,000 or the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts. The imperial House has been now in session some time, yet we find no mention there made of this imminent peril from Germany. But we need not go to the old country to find what is the opinion in England, we have had it expressed in this country; we have had it expressed in the press so fond of supporting hon. gentlemen opposite; we have had it expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) knows well that there is in this city a newspaper which has always supported the opposition. It is a fair newspaper, for which I have_ the greatest possible esteem, and which bears weight in this country when it speaks upon imperial matters. What did the ' Evening Journal,' on the 21st December, 1909, say, in a very important editorial, dealing with the question of the American colonies. It said:	v
England will make no further mistake in the old direction; hut some of our own people now want to make that old mistake by forcing on the rest of our people the idea of sending our taxes to England to be spent there, and such a policy is as sure to produce the same old sort of festering irritation among ourselves against the imperial tie, though not so acute in degree, as did that old policy of one hundred and fifty years ago. A Canadian navy wonld he a continually growing powerful support to the empire, free from all complication as regards imperial finance. Periodical Canadian contributions to the navy of England

Such as hon. gentlemen opposite advocate to-day-
-would not at best amount to shucks as an imperial asset in the long run, and would tend to stir up continual friction and turmoil in this country, which might ultimately go far towards smashing British connection.
Not only did the press speak _ in this manner hut hon. gentlemen opposite, before they heard the .speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), gave expression to their views to the same effect, and in no unmeasured terms. We have for instance the utterance of one hon. gentleman who is prepared to do as much for the empire as any hon. member in this House-an hon. gentleman) who risked his life for the empire, not only in this country, but on the battlefields of South Africa. I Tefer to the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. S. Hughes). What 'did he say? On the ^ 14th February, 1907, as you will see by 'Hansard', page 2898, he said, referring to the proposed sending of men! and money from the colonies for the building of the empire:

1.	Did the government of this province ever purchase, for distribution in the public schools, any copies of the work of J. P. Tar-divel, called " Pour la Patrie "?
2.	If so, how many copies were purchased, at what date, and by whom was the order given ?
Answer by Honourable Mr. Boy:
1 and 2. On the 25th September, 1895, the Provincial Secretary, Hon. L. P. Pelletier, purchased 500 copies of Mr. J. P. Tardivel's work, " Pour la Patrie ", at 60 cents per copy.
This work was not given as prize books, as appears by the answer given by the Provincial Secretary, not a Liberal Provincial Secretary but by the Provincial Secretary in the Flynn ministry, the Hon. Mr. Hac-kett, on the 3rd of December, 1896. The purchase price was paid out of the item ' prize books,' in the estimates of public instruction. Do you think by order of the legislature? By order of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec? Not at all, by order of the Provincial Secretary, the chief organizer of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, the Hon. L. P. Pelletier.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in the course of the remarks which he offered to this House upon the Naval Bill, for some reason or other-and I shall leave it to the judgment of the House what his reason was-made a direct onslaught upon two gentlemen, French Canadians by race, the late Hon. Mr. Mercier, whose memory is held in the highest possible esteem in the province of Quebec, and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is honoured and respected in the highest degree in that province. At page 3467 of ' Hansard ' the hon. member (Mr. Foster) said:
He (Mr. Mercier) was allied with men in the United States of America, he drew his salary from them, he paid his expenses out of their collections. He travelled the country, as I said, enlisting French Canadians, and men of other nationalities, prominent American citizens, all in favour of the independence of Canada; and along with it was the propagation of continental union, and the union of Canada with the United States.
Further on he says:
Now, I ask my right hon. friend, and I ask this House: What would have happened in this country if my right hon. friend had been successful, and Canada had demanded and had obtained that power? There would have been no guarantee for the union of Canada with the empire for a single five years. It was a demand, not for autonomy, it was a demand for sovereignty, and a sovereignty which, if it were exercised, would make two nations where now there is the mother country and the Dominion under the mother country.
* He goes on to quote certain words that were quoted by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and then he concludes:


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: posite may go upon the same platforms where they have been decrying the leaders of political thought in the province of Quebec, and give to their hearers the benefit of some of the history of their own country. During the following year Congress sent over to Canada three men whose names are well known in the history of this country-Franklin, Chase and Carroll -whose mission was to try to persuade the French Canadians to join the rebels. The people, following the advice of their clergy and of the seigneurs who had become attached to British connection and British institutions, refused to join hands with the rebels. Later on Admiral D Estamg and General Lafayette, appealed to the French Canadians, tried to work on their sentiments and recalled to them the ties of kinship to induce them to fight against the British army which had so recently conquered them, but again the French Canadians were true. What was happening at this time in the province of Quebec-in this disloyal province of Quebec? That great old community the Ursu-lines so well known throughout this county* wilder ijjg direction of Monseigneur Saint Onge, the Vicar General, caused to be chanted in the churches the anthem Do-mme salvum fac regem-Lord preserve ,g' Was tMs disloyalty on the part of Quebec? Are these disloyal acts? Look at. the history of the war of 1812, and you will find the same evidence of loyalty and attachment to British institutions brought forth during that war. I have no hesitation in saying that if again the French Canadians in the province of Quebec had not been true to their loyalty to Great Britain and had refused to take part in this war Canada might have become a part of the United States. Refer for a moment to the bravery and courage of de Salaberry with his band of faithful loyal and courageous French Canadians upon the banks of the Chateauguay. I refer to these facts of history, because I know no time in this discussion when they might be more appropriate. I know of no time in the history of this country when the people displayed to greater advantage their loyalty to British institutions than the year of 1812, when Frenchmen, Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen from the Highlands ?T?d Rowlands joined hands to protect the flag of Canada. So also, if needs be, they will be found together bravely fighting for the flag which waves over this parliament, the emblem of our constitutional rights, sacred to you, sacred to me, protecting all races, protecting all classes and protecting all creeds. Let us live down our prejudices and our passions and unite in upholding the dignity of Canadian citizenship. I beg of all hon. members of this House to cease racial appeals and to place Mr. DEVLIN.
country before province, to place country before party, to place country before self. This land is not the home of the Frenchman, it is not the home of the Englishman, it is not the home of the Scotchman, it is not the home of the Irishman; it is the home of the Canadian. It is a grand heritage that has been bequeathed to us; it is a noble heritage bequeathed unencumbered by sterling patriots; men who have fought for it, men who have died for it. Let us live for it, let us protect it, let us if needs be die for it, that our children may enjoy the same freedom and the same liberties as we have, proud to proclaim their nationality as we are proud to proclaim ours:	Citizens of Canada and Canadians, first and always.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) who last spoke is possessed of a vary excellent virtue; he is sensitive as to anything that may be said against his province or the character of her people. As I am practically a native of that same province, having lived there my earlier years, I must confess that I too am somewhat sensitive in that regard. I believe, however, that the hon. member (Mr. Devlin) was over sensitive when he imagined that the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in his^ address the other evening had been attacking the people of the province of Quebec. I did not so understand him; I considered that his criticisms were levelled more against some political methods that he believed prevailed in that province, methods which are not good for the people of that province or for the people of any other portion of Canada. I did not follow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) very closely in his remarks but I understood him to say that the book published by Mr. Tar-divel had not been distributed as prizes to school children but that the edition had been brought up, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) told us that the gentleman who purchased it was a Conservative.
I must say that I commend that gentleman's conduct in that respect.
Now, Sir, this debate has dragged along for some weeks and it is evident from the appearance of the House that it feels it has heard enough of the subject. In some respects that may be so, but so far as I am concerned I have not yet heard as to what this proposed navy is going to mean to the people .of Canada, or, the relationship which is going to exist between it and their pockets. Now, Mr. Speaker, some months ago I was to a slight extent brought into the limelight because I hal the hardihood to go out and talk to the public on this question, and ventured to express what appeared to me to be some very ordinary common sense views on

the navy situation; views that were primarily directed against the construction of any local navy. I was quoted in some journals as wishing to contribute $10,000, 000 to the motherland, the contribution to be spread over a period of some few years. It is true that I used these figures but did so purely for the purpose of illustrating my idea. I assumed that our government had some clear and definite idea as to what this new navy departure was going to mean to our tax-payers, but up to the present I have failed to glean any very intelligent idea as to that feature of the question. Our government had this matter before it for some months when parliament assembled in November last, and we were allowed to remain here for nearly two months, we were allowed to leave for the Christmas holidays and up to that time our government had not the courage to come out into the open and expose their plan to the public upon whose shoulders they are placing this burden whatever it may turn out to be. I assumed that our government would be able to inform the people that this project had certain definite things in . view, the accomplishment of which would mean a certain expenditure. I assumed we were aiming to assist in overcoming an emergency, of which, I will speak presently, and as Canada is not engaged in the building of warships, nor am I particularly anxious to see her engage in such an industry-it appeared to me, the only thing we could do was to make our proposed expenditure by way of contribution spread over some few years so that the burden might rest as lightly as possible upon the shoulders of our tax-payers. I was not attempting to lay down any naval policy for this country; I was and I still am strongly opposed to any local navy project until we at least know if the British empire is going to be launched on some more stable basis than that of sentiment alone. And, Sir, for my purpose in discussing this matter from that point of view, $10,000 would have served equally as well as $10,000,000.
The right hon. the Prime Minister does not appear to be very sure of his ground in the matter of imperialism. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am an imperialist-that is, if it means one who believes in the firm welding together of the British people on a permanent basis. Unlike the right hon. gentleman I shall discuss nresent day conditions in dealing with this question. I am not going back to the wars of the Roses, I will not concern myself about the vagaries of Peter the Hermit, nor shall I theorize as to the results on the development of the Anglo Saxon people, had Julius Caesar when he landed on the coast of Britain been encased in woollen socks. And, yet Sir, if I should so disport myself I would be as near the subject under consideration as the right hon. gentleman was during three-fourths of his address. I repeat Sir, I am an imperial ist, because I believe from the very depths of my soul it is best for us and best for civilization. I suppose I should make that admission with bated breath as there are some few men in this country-and now my thoughts are very far from the right hon. gentleman-men who take themselves more seriously than do their fellows; men who strut our streets and imagine the cosmopolitan population landing on the shores of this country, are ready to kneel and cry out: We want to share your citizenship, when as a matter of fact, if they are even being noticed it is probably with the thought, expressed in the vernacular: Those guys are struck on themselves. Sir, in the upbuilding of a young country a necessary factor is that spirit found in the imperialist; men filled with a desire to unite their race; men who are active in the assimilation of the people who come to the shores of their country, and unlike some of these others, to whom I have referred, who might as well remain in bed the entire 24 hours for all the use they are in that respect and who have to put out their hands to feel so as to discover if they are awake.
Sir, that spirit is as necessary in Cuba as in the British empire. Where is there a greater evidence of that spirit than in the United States of America? See what they have accomplished in binding together the elements that have drifted thither. Then, Sir, we occasionally hear some snears cast at the waving of the flag. In that respect I think we can take a few lessons from the United States. When we realize that the vast masses of immigrants landing on the shores of that country must naturally regard the flag as so many yards of material, and that they are there but a few years when they commence to appreciate the benefits they receive under that flag, and soon are joining in the procession that keeps it afloat. In a new country, it is absolutely necessary for us to keep the flag before the people. I do not want to be offensive to anybody in regard to the waving of flags, but if we feel that a national emblem is of any consequence in this world, I do not see that we should be ashamed of it.
I do not know what the right hon. gentleman's conception of imperialism is; but I do know that he has seen fit to cast slurs at those who have an abiding faith in it; I do know that he has referred to the Pharisees of imperialism. Still, I am not aware that one holding the high and important position of premier of Canada adds to his cause by such methods. If, however, it pleases him, if he feels it is going to bolster up this peculiar naval mea-

sure with the people of Canada, then he and I have formed very different estimates of the character of our citizens.
I am not going to discuss the material benefits that accrue to Canada as a member of the British empire, as I believe all hon. gentlemen are of one mind in that respect. If there are selfish reasons why we should be in that empire to-day, it appears to me that there are the same reasons why we should go down into the future as a member of that family. If it is to the advantage of the sovereign states of New York and California, situated as they are some five days apart in the matter of travel, to be firmly fixed in the same union, it appears to me that there axe equally good' reasond why Great Britain and Canada should be likewise situated. If it is to the advantage of New York and California to have a single' navy, I cannot see why that same principle will not equally well apply to_ Great Britain and Canada. While the "ocean may not be receding, it certainly is being rapid-' ly narrowed in the matter of the time it takes to cross it. In the current of this young country's life there will be many shoals and many Tapids to pass over; and instead of guiding it by clean, strong and wise statesmanship, the only evidence I can see is that it is not only allowed, but actually encouraged to drift on towards the rocks of independence, while our government chants some dirge about autonomy very much like the Indian who feels that he is warding off some evil spirit by singing a few meaningless phrases as he jogs past some cemetery.
Now, Mr. Speaker, coming nearer to the question under consideration, what is the situation in Europe to-day? There, there are some 415 millions of people, some few millions of whom have never known a full stomach, and yet the very vitals are being ground out of them by the tax gatherer for the upkeep of armaments for the maintenance of peace. What an extraordinary situation ! There are only two positions open to those nations. They must recede from the position they are taking or with taxes bounding upward, the breaking point will be reached, which means bankruptcy, whicth means fight to wipe their fellows off the face of the earth. There is an extra-! ordinary condition of things on that continent. I say there is an emergency. When we find the two political parties of Great Britain practically receding from the methods of taxation which have been -in force for many years in order to extract more money from the taxpayers for the purposes of the navy, then it appears to me we have that dollars and cents argument that an emergency does exist, and an argument which we cannot overlook. It was this condition that awakened the several elements of the British empire last Mr. MAGRATH.
spring, and it is this condition which is responsible for the Bill now before us, whatever it may be. I wish to lay down an axiom, that Canada as Canada, with her comparatively small population of seven million people, with her vast natural resources requiring all the men and the monetary energies that we can command for the development of the country, for the betterment of the conditions of the people that we have and fhr preparing for the people that we hope to receive-I say that Canada, standing alone to-day, has as much need of a navy as a resident of Hades has of a buffalo overcoat. But Canada lies within British North America, and we are British subjects. Then it is not only a question of duty but of decency for us to go to the aid of the British people, a people who during the past hundred years or more have contributed at least $500,000,000 to the welfare of this country. It is, therefore, a duty that we owe ourselves, a duty that we owe to the empire of which we form no inconsiderable part, and, on higher grounds, it is a duty we owe to civilization. The greatest calamity that could happen to the human family would be the disintegration of the British empire. It would mean the putting back of the hands of civilization. Great Britain cannot be permitted to go under. Britain has her faults; so has every individual who goes to the making up of the smallest community; but Britain has been standing out for the -best in mankind. Her doors have been open to the religious and politically -oppressed of every European nation. Hers are a free people, a self-governed people. The * great nation to the south of us is a free, people, a s-elf-governe-d1 people. F-ree people cannot be permitted to go under. I hold it would be the duty of Great Britain to go to the aid of that great nation to the south of us if its life was in any way endangered. The best thought in the United States realize that Britain's strength must remain unimpaired. They know as well as we know, that if disintegration should set in, in the British family, the white man's burden would be thrown within narrower limits for support. Then Canada has a part in this very serious matter, and we should act promptly, and above all, act efficiently, and without committing this-young country to any definite policy of a Canadian navy.
A Canadian navy would not, in my opinion, be in the best interests of this country, or meet the want of the moment. The present stress and trial through which Britain is striving, cannot last many years; and my cry is, let the over-seas dominions put their shoulders to the wheel and push the motherland through this emergency, thereby giving other nations clearly and distinctly to understand that it is absolutely useless for them to attempt

to jeopardize the life of the British people. But above all things, I am convinced we should not now attempt to saddle on this young country any Canadian navy proposition, especially when we can render much greater and more effective service by the proposed contribution to the British navy and at a greatly reduced cost to our taxpayers. Have I any justification for that statement? It is only necessary to refer to the first paragraph of the British admiralty report, in which it is declared clearly that the maximum effect at the minimum cost can only be obtained through a central navy. And the report then goes on to say, that owing to political and other consderations, some of the oversea dominions cannot support a central navy. Then for the first time the question of separate navy units is discussed.
For my part, I cannot quite understand what is meant by political and other considerations. Some gentlemen oppose a plan of contribution on the ground that it is unfair for us to ask the British people to do our share of the fighting, while others take the view that we cannot afford to send our taxes to Britain for the building and upkeep of a navy. I am not disposed to quarrel with either of these sentiments. As the matter appeals to me, the British navy is built, operated and controlled in and from the British islands, simply becahse the British taxpayer supplies the money; surely it must appeal to us that if the various elements of the British empire should decide to support a central navy, conditions would be at once changed and that navy would pass out of the sphere of a British navy and become imperial in character..
There is only one place where a man puts his money and does not follow it. That is in charitable work. But this is not a question of charity. It is a question of insuring our existence on this sphere, it is a question of protecting our own commerce or, to put it in another way I might say it is a question of returning to the motherland but a moiety of the vast sums she has expended on, our behalf at various periods in our history when we were unable to help ourselves. Therefore I cannot see how intelligent people can conceive that by supporting a central navy our money would be expended in England alone. That position appears similar to the one taken by an individual who, on being invited to join in a large enterprise, refused because, having no voice in its management before he invested therein, by some peculiar reasoning reached the conclusion that he would have nothing to say in its direction afterwards, and that man wandered down the wayside and started a corner grocery of his own.
In short, if the British navy should
become an imperial navy, it will be built, operated and controlled in and from the British empire, and its moneys expended in the erection of docks throughout the empire while contracts will be given for the construction of vessels wherever facilities have been created for such purposes. The taxpayer in Canada is not particularly concerned about owning fighting ships. What we want now is something that will have the greatest fighting capacity for the least money, and that we can only have through the British navy; I cannot conceive how any Canadian would fail to point with pride to the British navy and say that is my navy, and I venture the opinion that that is the navy to which some of those adherents of a Canadian navy would rush to get behind in the event of any trouble. This young country has neither the means nor the energy to waste in buying experience on the high seas.
Some hon. gentlemen have taken the attitude that because we have our land forces, we should have our sea forces. The two are not- analogous. Our land forces operate within our own territory; they are always at home. Sea forces operate within the barn yard of the nations of the earth, where the one people put up the one front on the one sea. We have heard a good deal during the course of this debate about a section in our Militia Act which provides that our militia shall not leave Canada without the consent of the Canadian government. I am not particularly concerned about that feature, but some hon. gentlemen seem to think that, because it is in our Militia Act, it should be in this Naval Act. We all know that our land forces can only assist Britain in land wars. And Britain's land wars have in recent years been practically wars of colonization. They have been wars which never really endangered her life. Take, for instance, the South African war, which was carried on for months and years. Her life was never really threatened during that conflict; but any man who does his own thinking must realize that the moment Britain fires the first gun in her defence on the high seas, -from that moment until the trouble is ended, her life will be hanging by a very slender thread. We all know that no nation or combination of nations will undertake to challenge her on the high seas unless they felt confident that they can cripple her, and we ought to know that the back of a naval war might be broken inside of six days. And here we have before us a Navy Bill which undertakes to provide that Canada's navy will not go to the aid of the mother country until this parliament is assembled, and we, in our wisdom, pass upon the justice of Britain's

cause. To my mind the proposition is a preposterous one. I say in all seriousness to the right hon. gentleman that I do not believe it would toe possible to bring a measure into this House containing a more objectionable feature. My doctrine, as a British subject, is that wherever we may be on the face of the earth, we should 'pull, pull together, in all kinds of weather'; and my policy, as a British subject, is to jump into the breach and go to the aid of my fellow British subject, wherever on this earth he is, and discuss the righteousness of his cause afterwards. Before I would accept that feature in this Bill, I would throw down my British citizenship and take un some other. No matter what government presented that most objectionable feature to me, I would not take it in that shape, because it puts a bar to our giving aid to the mother country, which would make us absolutely helpless. Any assistance we may be able to give is one which can only be of use when Britain is threatened on the high seas, and the assistance provided in this measure would be utterly useless in such an emergency. And to advance the argument that because such a feature is in the Militia Act, and should be in our Naval Bill is preposterous as conditions are entirely different. I trust I have made myself clear in that respect.
Coming back to the question, which after all appeals to our taxpayers, that is, the question of cost, by the contribution asked for in the amendment of the leader of the opposition, we know exactly what we are giving and where it ends as well as the positive service it will render. By the government proposition now before us; the future is a sealed book. What it involves, our taxpayers cannot know. The expenditure will be a growing and a most serious one. Again I repeat we have no money for such experiments. But some gentlemen will say: You are providing for the present emergency. I say, Sir, is not that enough? Let us turn our eyes inward and continue to develop this vast country. The British empire must get down to some business arrangement, if it is going to stand, and if that does not come before another emergency we can meet it as British subjects should. I wish to say with all the force within me that we Canadians are dealing too much in theories; we are dreaming pleasant dreams. Gentlemen pass through this land and tells us that we are a wonderful people. But the vastness of our virgin wealth will be an obstacle to our becoming a strong, clean people, unless we are cautious-. And, we continue to dream on. * We are making our own treaties,' and the same authority in the next breath will tell us that we are ' one of the sister nations.' These two ideas do not harmonize with my view of the situation. I realize that we
' Mr. MAGRATH.
must control our own domestic matters. I realize that we know better than those outside of Canada what we have to trade and what we want in return. But I realize that there must be some revising board within the empire to pass on our negotiations before they become effective; otherwise we shall get out of the British empire. If all the sister nations are to make treaties, to do as they see fit, then the end of that empire is in sight. In my judgment we have reached a point in empire development, when one final forward step is necessary for us to become a great empire world power. Changes come rapidly in these days. Who will prophesy as to what will occur in the next ten or twenty years? I believe they will be most momentous in the history of the British empire. Therefore, let us not try to push too far into the future in this matter.
So far as Canada is concerned, it is not a theory that faces us, but as Cleveland once remarked, it is a* condition, that confronts us. The fact that some gentlemen in London hold the opinion that what is good for Australia is equally good for this country-a separate naval unit-only shows, in my opinion, that those men are not familiar with Canadian conditions. It is not the London view point that we should pay the greatest heed to as that is practically uniform as respects the various elements of the empire, but it is the individual viewpoint of each of the dominions that must be carefully scrutinized and studied if we hope to maintin the integrity of the British empire. Canada is not an island like Australia whose new people from the moment they land on her shores are for ever separated from their old associations and old political affiliations. Canada lies side by side -nay, to a certain extent, is surrounded by-one of the largest and greatest nations on earth, peopled by probably the greatest aggregation of intelligence to be found within the confines of any country in the world. Of course, that does not injure us. Canada's immigration, which is to make Canada large and populous is to come largely through, or from the United States of America. We cannot get away from that. If thqre were time, I believe I could satisfy any hon. member as to the soundness of that view. There, then is the condition with which we Canadians are sleeping today.
Mr. Archibald Carey Coolidge, a prominent political economist associated with Harvard University, in a recently published book, ' The United States as a World Power,' refers to Canada, and to Canada's future. Mr. Coolidge has reached the conclusion that ' Canadian public opinion is inclined to look forward to ultimate independence, with friendship and perhaps alliance with Greater Britain.'
Japan is an independent country and an

ally of Great Britain. Is that the destiny some gentlemen have marked out for this important country? I believe that Mr. Coolidge is justified in reaching his conclusion. He is standing outside this country, without any interest here, looking inwards, forming his opinion, not, unfortunately, from meeting our people, but from the views which are expressed from time to time by our public men, some of whom, especially some members of our government who do not appear to be able to get on any public platform without making some reference to Canada as a 'nation.' Before giving Mr. Coolidge's views on western Canada, let me point out to the House that our immigrants are settling east of the great lakes, are locating^ around our important cities, where their political sentiments can be moulded and controlled, that is leavened by the centres to which they attach themselves. But that is not the situation in western Canada, where our new people are spreading out over a vast area, building up their own centres of population, and carrying into them their own political sentiments. Mr. Coolidge is willing to admit that some portions of eastern Canada are loyal to British institutions. Here, however, is what he has to say with reference to the people settling on our western plains. Speaking of loyalty to Britain, he says:
It is an exotic plant, too delicate to flourish in such soil. Tn these new regions, with their mixed population imbued with a materialism of frontier life, the whole tone is latter date American rather than English. The people Are too matter of fact, too much taken up with their everyday affairs, to indulge in such luxuries as loyalty to a distant throne ; to them it seems very unreal sentimentality.
Now, Sir, Air. Coolidge has failed, in my opinion, to grasp the true conception of the situation. It is not a question, in th'e British empire, of loyalty to thrones, but it is the reality of a constitution which allows free people of every race, every tongue and every creed to stand together on the highest known plane of citizenship. And, if the millennium were here, no further steps would be necessary to bind together the self-governing element of the empire more closely than they are today. Our new people do not come to us from any knowledge they possess of our constitution, and our American citizens do not leave the United States from any dissatisfaction with that country's constitution. They make good ciizens. But there is a citizenship in the British empire different from any other in the world. He who goes to Australia will be essentially an Australian; he who comes to Canada will be essentially a Canadian until we show them what our enlarged citizenship 138
means. To what extent are we engaged in doing that work? Absolutely nothing that I can see when we have our public men talking so much about 'Canada as a nation.' I say that if we want to remain in the British empire, if we want to be a living, burning entity in the empire, standing out for peace in this world, if we want to push forward civilization, then we must become more active in bringing together the various elements of the empire into some closer compact than mere ties of friendship, which is practically the condition to-day. And if we do that we will have less time to prate about 'Canada as a nation,' 'Canada making her own treaties,' and 'the one final act in the rounding off of our nationhood.' Loyalty based on sentiment, is doubtless, of the highest order, and if nations grow by natural means, that is by an excess of births over deaths, that loyalty will seep down through many generations, but where ethnical conditions are in an almost constant state of change as is the condition in Canada today and will be in the younger elements of the empire, then we will have to weave in with that friendship, some business into the empire fabric, if it is to stand.
Now, Sir, doubtless I will be accused of wishing to deny Canada the right to hold up her head and proudly proclaim herself a nation. I will be accused, Sir, of wishing to deny Canadians what the Patagonians possess. I understand some hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to what the Patagonians are accomplishing in the matter of a navy. I am not aware that the Patagonians have been advanced in scale of importance among the peoples of the world because they can say their country is independent of any other. I am not aware that the rounding off of Patagonian nationality by means of its toy navy has added to its pre-eminence though that is practically the view that one member of our government has taken in connection with this proposed Canadian navy. I do not wish to deny any one the right of a membership in a nation. As a Canadian citizen I am a member of the British nation and I venture the opinion if some of those gentlemen who are!, so anxious to talk about our nationhood should find themselves in Russia, and their rights being invaded the talisman they would employ would be I am of the British nation. They would not be shoving forward at that particular moment any idea of Canada's nationhood. This is but an instance of the value of that citizenship which some people in this country appear to be only too anxious to shove into the background. The word ' nation ' is quite unnecessary in its application to Canada at the present time. We know we are a free people, a self-governed people. How can



we explain to our new people that we are of the British nation while we are pouring into their ears all this talk about Canadian nationhood. There is no necessity to play with words or phrases. The right hon. gentleman has frequently become poetic in referring to the attitude of Canada to the empire, an attitude which he has affirmed of filial affection. When we realize that our doors are wide open we must realize that the household will become filled with step-children and adopted ones and that filial affection to which he has referred will probably find itself in ,a heap in the back yard. The methods in vogue are not likely to instil very much filial affection in our adopted children.
I have already given my reason for supporting this contribution, because in the present emergency it renders the motherland the most effective aid at the least cost to our taxpayers. I am opposed to a Canadian navy because we do not want any such extravagant appendage at the present time. I am opposed to it on the still more important ground that I regard it as1 a step away from the motherland, I cannot see that it is a step closer. I look on it as a step towards disintegration in the British family. Some hon. gentlemen will say no, but they must realize that there are men in this country who believe that Canada is to be an independent country, and of them there is a certain proportion who feel that it is our duty to [DOT] do something now. I venture the opinion that every one of these gentlemen will be found holding up his hands for a Canadian navy so that to use the phrase attributed to the right hon. gentleman, when the fruit is sufficiently ripe to drop from the tree Canada will step out as a nation with her full-fledged navy. If through our vain-glory, I will not add hypocrisy, though at times I am disposed to doubt our own sincerity, if we continue to dream on, if we fail to begin right now to knit the steel into the concrete which is going into the structure we are upbuilding on this North American continent. If, in short. Sir, through our sins of omission, we and the other self-governine elements of the empire fail to do our duty and the glory of that empire, upon which the sun never sets, be allowed to pass away, thereby causing the people who will then control the destinies of this land to work out its national status, I say that in this age of centralizing of power which is growing stronger year by year, the result will be a fusion with the great nation to the south of us.
An important question for consideration is, what are we Canadians looking forward to, are we not building a structure on this continent? If so, what is it to be. An intelligent builder, from the moment he puts his hand to the foundation, has some Mr. MAGKATH.
clear idea as to his ultimate aim. Is Canada going to be permanently fixed in the British empire or is she to withdraw from that empire, dreaming of an independence which will ultimately lead to absorption by the United States. If that is our view let us be honourable and get out now. _ If we are to take the purely animal view, let us retire from that empire and put aside all ideas of a navy, imperial or otherwise, as under existing conditions, with our present resources this country does not need a navy. I feel that the proper place for us is to be firmly fused into the British empire, and it is to that end I wish to see Canada, the premier dominion, work. The other elements of the empire will surely follow us. If we believe that the civilization of Britain has reached as advanced a stage as that of any other country in the world, if we believe that Britain has been standing out for the best in mankind, then realizing that the stronger that people is made, the stron-er these influences for peace will grow, it seems to me our duty as a people is quite plain. The question which has absolutely no answer to me is where better could the Canadian people find themselves than in the ranks of such a family.
May I be permitted to indulge my fancies for a few moments. Is there any visible reason why Britain and her first-born on this continent could not be now living in the same union. It was not the Boston tea party alone that was responsible for that unfortunate separation. .There were dissentions among the colonies, there were vain glories then with a single eye to local importance only. If, however, mistakes had not been made on both sides, and those two peoples had continued together down through the last century, what would be the situation to-day? Simply this, instead of having two powerful nations standing out separately for practically the same principles, we would have their forces united, and whatever influences there are for peace to-day those influences would be practically doubled. With such unity existing who is there to suggest that, America would be sending taxes to England for the building and upkeep of navies? Who is there to suggest that the United States would be asking England to do her share of the fighting? It might mean that while Britain's domestic affairs would be handled at Westminster, imperial matters would be dealt with more frequently at Washington than at London. In the days of the separation England and America were removed by a long and perilous sea voyage of fifty to seventy-five days. If that position had remained constant the United States might have remained insular, but

conditions have changed and she has become a great world power. Her founders could not foresee that situation any more than we can see what is ahead of our people. Distances are measured by the time it takes to overcome them. Britain and Canada are closer to-day than the exterior members of the thirteen colonies were a century ago.
Let us not try to disguise the outcome of this navy move. It is the result of a desire on the part of certain citizens to do something to help the motherland. I cannot congratulate the government upon the manner in which they have met that request. I realize the force of Mr. Bourassa's statement, that if Canada is to take part in Britain's wars she must have something to say in the. making and settlement of them. It appears as if there will have to be some systematic business arrangement within the empire as it will not stand on sentiment alone, and if we cannot see its solution clearly to-day, it will unfold itself, if we press forward having our minds resolutely made up, that its accomplishment will be best for us and best for civilization. Then, that accomplished, there will in course of time, be fusions with other people in the great march forward of civilization. We are pushing into the forefront a Canadian navy with no intelligent idea where it will be found in the event of certain emergencies. It might be the very instrument to drive us out of the empire if we should refuse its aid to other elements of the empire. Sir, I consider that we are starting at the wrong end. Let the selfgoverning elements of the empire first decide the responsibility to be accepted by each, in the event of trouble and follow that up with some unified policy for naval development within the empire. Then it will be time enough to talk about a Canadian unit of the imperial navy. Meanwhile let us refrain from taking any step which will make the accomplishment of that desirable end more difficult than it is at the present time and evidently it is difficult judging from the manner in which this Bill has been brought before us.
Now, Sir, to repeat, if Great Britain is forced into a naval war her life is in jeopardy it is our duty to give her effective aid. The Busso-Japanese war is sufficient evidence that naval engagements are not advertised in advanced-like auctions. The only indication of a possible war is the evidence of activity on the part of other nations, we can have absolutely no confidence in their professions during these trying times. The British taxpayer knows that. We have the dollars and cents arguments to which I have referred. That is sufficient evidence for me. I do not want to take any more chances, and therefore, wish to put on some more insurance by throwing into the fighting line a couple of 138i
Dreadnoughts. Then I say let us turn our faces inward and continue the development of this country. We have heard some vague rumours that the starting of this Canadian navy is going to develop the shipbuilding industry in Canada. I see no objection to encouraging the building of docks as well as the development of our merchant marine. If that service has not been keeping pace with the development of our inland transportation lines, there is good reason for it. We know that we cannot find sufficient money to enable us to engage in developing all the varied interests in this vast country. The natural result is that those interests are allowed to remain stationary, which can be supplied by sources outside of the country. If there are merchant ships of other countries available to carry our products it is altogether likely our merchant marine will not be actively developed until we are looking for opportunity to invest capital. That, however, is not to-day, but it will surely come. And, for my part, I cannot see that by having shipyards constructing the few naval vessels which our government say will be ready in five years, that that is going to force forward the development of our merchant marine. Do some hon. gentlemen opposite believe a few capitalists walking by our navy yards will be attracted by the sound of hammers and like children gazing at a shop window loaded with toys, go in and order a few vessels. After all, Sir, it is an economic question. And, so far as Germany is conecrned I have had nothing to say about the German scare. 1 will say this, however, that 'no nation should be allowed to develop both fighting arms to the highest efficiency. Germany has the greatest army in the world and unquestionably she is ambitious to have a navy equal to the most powerful on the seas. If she is allowed to reach that point she at once becomes a menace to the rest of Europe. To whom in Europe will she be a real menace? Any school child knows that it is Britain, because outside of Britain she can now practically dictate her terms to any of the other nations.
In concluding my remarks there is another feature to which I will briefly refer, and that is Canada, in years gone by, has appealed to the United States for recipro- .. city, but without success. The next request, I believe, will come from our friends to the south of us and perhaps much earlier than we imagine. Now, I realize that it is not our place to interfere in the politics of Great Britain, but I would like some of our free trade friends in Britain to keep that feature in view when studying Canadian. conditions, and upon which I have attempted to throw some light to-dav. Again I say there is too much drifting, too much running to political corners to sift out the winds of temporary political ad-

vantage too much placing of ears to the ground to listen for the rumblings of discontented vote manipulators, too little thought of great principles and the willingness to go down and out for them, too little effort to create a strong healthy public opinion in this country to -deal intelligently with all large issues. The next few years will determine whether the British empire is going to enter upon the greatest epoch-making period of its history, the greatest epoch-making period in the history of the world. Canada had an epochmaking period. I refer to the days immediately preceding confederation. There is a confederacy in the balance, greater than the world has ever seen. And it is for us to do our duty-to-day, not to-morrow, it may then be too late. I say then, let us play up! play up! and play the game as members of the great British family.
Sir, we are engaged in the building of a ship-the empire. Civilization also demands the strengthening of the union of the elements of that empire throughout this world, therefore let our constant cry be: Sail on, 0 ship of state!
Sail on, O union strong and great! Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations upon this question, I feel encouraged to do so from the importance that has been given to the subjects by the leaders on both sides of this House. We have the authority of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden) for saying that this is the biggest and most important question that has come before this House for the last 25 years. I do not quarrel with the hon. leader of the opposition in the position which he has arrived at upon that point. But, referring to the observations of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Magrath) I have very little quarrel with him when he says that he is an imperialist in the sense of being loyal to British institutions and in addition loyal to Canadian institutions as far as they contribute to our strength in our connection with the mother country. He cannot be any stronger in this regard than I am. Therefore, in lauding himself, or his party upon that ground, I have no quarrel with him. I have not come across any member of the Liberal party in this country who has failed in his support of these principles. But the hon. gentleman thinks that on the government side we have not shown a great deal of courage in dealing with this question. Well, Sir, if courage means that we are taking the initiative, that we are prepared to put a measure through this House upon our own convictions, I think that we possibly were more .courageous than the hon. gentlemen op-Mr. MAGRATH.	[DOT]
posite who say that they cannot undertake anything until they can ascertain what their respective constituents have to say about it. The proper principle is that statesmen, that leaders, should lead public opinion and not that public opinion should lead statesmen.
If we are doing what is right, there is no occasion for us to go back to our people to direct us. They have sent us here to do the business of Canada, and it is our duty to carry out their mandate. Now, there were a few things said by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) to which I call attention. Sir, in loyalty to the British empire and in strong conviction as to the necessity for maintaining British institutions, the Liberal party are as strong believers as is the hon. gentleman. He tells us there is an emergency, that there is danger to Great Britain, and that something should be done on the spur of the moment, and suppose we do accept his advice and hand $25,000,000 over to the British authorities, the idea no doubt would be that they should start to build a Dreadnought. But do gentlemen on the other side say that Great Britain has not money enough to build Dreadnoughts as fast as she can build them; do they assert that the British exchequer is exhausted, and that, therefore, we must turn on the tap, as some would say? Why, Britain has abundance of money to build her warships as rapidly as she can build them, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for us to give aid in money. Would it be any proof of our loyalty if we gave this contribution? Does any Conservative member in this House assert that Britain does not believe in the loyalty of the Canadian people, and that it is necessary to come with a sacrifice of $25,000,000 and place it on the altar to prove our loyalty? I am as anxious about Canadian loyalty and British supremacy as any man in Canada, but I do not believe there is any emergency. I do not believe that the supremacy of Great Britain requires this money, nor do I believe that it is necessary to prove our loyalty to His Gracious Majesty the King or to the people of the motherland. We have shown our loyalty whenever the occasion arose, and we will show it again when it is demanded from us. Are we of the family of the empire, or have we to go aobut guessing what the conditions are? What would you say of a son who is told that his father . is ill and needs a physician, and who would think it necessary to go about the streets to ascertain from strangers if the renort be true, instead of ascertaining the facts in his father's house? Have we not political institutions in this country in close touch with the political institutions of Great Britain; have we not the King's government in Canada as well as in the motherland, and can we not learn

directly what are the necessities of Britain without seeking haphazard to find them out second-hand? If there is need in England, why proclaim it from the housetops, when we can know it privately through the machinery of government, and if help is wanted Canada will give her help in the proner way and through the proper channels.


Mr. DANIEL.: Does the hon. gentleman expect the English people to come to Canada as beggars for a contribution?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: If Canada is one of the family of British nations; if Canada is a substantial part of British territory, governed bv His Majestv the King, and if the protection of the great empire requires a contribution from Canada, then, Sir, I would not regard it as an act of beggary that the motherland should ask our aid; when the hon. gentleman calls it beggary I resent such a term. I would not regard it as beggary; I would regard it as a duty on our part.


Mr. LENNOX.: Or the payment of tribute.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I am not talking about tribute, and when I come to talk about tribute I can do so' without any unseemly interruptions from hon. gentlemen who seem to be here for no other purpose than to interrupt members on this side when they are addressing the House.


Haughton Lennox: I ask the hon. gentleman's permission to speak for a moment.
I want to tell the hon. gentleman that during this debate I have not interrupted a single gentleman until I made the interjection just now. which I am very glad appears to have annoyed the hon. member very much.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: If the hon. gentleman -I forget the county he misrepresents- thinks it is his duty to let every one else go without interruption and to interrupt me, that does not help the situation very much. My experience with the hon. gentleman is that he was never in this House when I spoke but he interrupted me. and if he turns up ' Hansard ' he can prove that this statement is correct.


Haughton Lennox: That is a compliment to you.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I do not regard his interruption as anything at all. I do not regard his interruption as intellectual or otherwise, and if he chooses to indulge in interrupting me, and if he thinks that I am a person that he can with impunity interrupt it does not bother me at all. Well, Sir. as I was proceeding to say when interrupted, if the government of Great Britain needs any assistance from the Dominion? beyond the seas we have a perfect
right to expect that that necessity will be made known to us through the proper channels, and then it will be time for us to act. I am not aware that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) has said much more that I wish to criticise, but I would direct attention to the very striking difference between himself and liis leaders on this question. He savs there is no more need for a navy in Canada than for a man to wear a buffalo coat in Hades. The hon. gentleman has chosen to put it in that very forceful language, but I would remind him that there are some who describe Hades as an extremely cold place and possibly a buffalo coat may not be too much of a burden for the hon. gentleman to carry if he expects to travel in that direction. Now, as to the difference between the hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) and his leaders. Last year the hon. member for North Toronto '(Mr. Foster) brought down a resolution to this House-a resolution which was on the order paper for months, and which he had plenty of time to consider-setting forth that the time had come when the people of Canada should provide a navy for the protection of Canada and for Canada only. It may be said by him that what he meant was not only the protection of Canada, but the protection of every part of the empire.
If there was any lingering doubt on that point, he made it perfectly clear when, in speaking in this House on the tenth of this month, he said that he had nothing in his mind when he moved his resolution except the protection of Canada. The hon. leader of the opposition spoke on this subject a little over a year ago, and again a little over a month ago, and in one of his speeches he committed himself to every word uttered by the hon. member for North Toronto, saying that that hon. member had spoken by his authority, and with his approval. We have thus the hon. leader of the opposition approving of Canada having a navy, and for the protection of Canada alone. Therefore, when the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) says that there is no more necessity for this navy than there is for an inhabitant of Hades to have a buffalo coat, he is going very far from the leadership of these hon. gentlemen.
Other hon. gentlemen made some observations to which I wish to make some slight reference before coming to the main question which I wish to discuss. We were given a great treat of constitutional law a few evenings ago by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowran). He put himself forward as a great constitutional lawyer, and gave us to understand that the passing of a Naval Bill in the shape of this Bill would be disrupting the empire and in direct violation of the Canadian constitution. In support of that contention, he offered an

argument which he thought put the whole thing in a nutshell, so that nothing more could be said about it. He had it comoletely proven by reading section 15 of the British North America Act, which says:
The command-in-chief of the land and naval militia, and of all land and naval forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
The hon. gentleman has very little knowledge of the force and effect of constitutional law and usage in this country if he thinks that the mere fact of these words being in the British North America Act gives any greater power to the King to control any public property in this country. For example, the highways of my province, as I presume in the province of Ontario, are vested in the King. Is anybody silly enough to say that the King could put fences across the public highways or streets and keep people from using them, because, forsooth, the title to them is in the King? The Crown lands in my province, as I presume in the province of Ontario, are vested in the King. So are the public lands in the Northwest. Does anybody say that that simple fact gives the King any right or control oyer them? They are simply vested in the King as the trustees of the people, subject to the control and management of the representatives of the people, acting through this House, through the provincial legislatures and through the various municipal bodies down to the minutest part of the machinery of government in this country. Is there any different law to apply to a navy? Because the military and naval militia are vested in the King, does that mean that the King can order these forces to war, and that they must automatically go where-ever he may point? Nothing of the kind. The same principle of ownership applies as in the case of the Crown lands. If the hon. gentleman who, with such a flourish of trumpets, read this fifteenth section of the British North America Act, would just turn over a few pages and read section 91 of the same Act, he would come to a different conclusion, if he was capable of reaching any logical conclusion from any set of facts. That section says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects ne.,i hereinafter enumerated.
Mr. McKenzie.
Then it gives twenty-nine different subsections, the seventh of which is ' militia, military and naval service and defence.' That section covers the subject before us at the present time, and is a straight and positive mandate from the parliament of Great Britain to deal with this very subject. I say again that this question of military and naval service is not a new one in this country, because if it were not a live question at the time of confederation, would we not find it provided for in this Act? That, as far as the law is concerned, ought to satisfy my hon. friend from Vancouver that there is no foundation for the objection lie raised as to the constitutionality of this Bill. I might further give him the authority of the Privy Council for saying that the legislative power of this parliament is as great as that the parliament of Great Britain itself in regard to the different subjects given to us to legislate upon. That being the case, we are not restricted in any way in dealing with this subject or in providing for the control of this naval force, or deciding where it shall be used. There have been attempts to make little of the fact that the Militia Act is the same as the Naval Act, and to show that they were different and that while one was a good law and constitutional, the other was wrong. I submit that is good reasoning. If hon. gentlemen will turn to the Militia Act, they will see that section 4 of that Act is the same as section 4 of the Bill now before the House :
The command-in-chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall he exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.
That is word for word the same language as is used in the present Bill. Let me quote further from the Militia Act:
The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency.
That is exactly the same language as in the present Bill.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does that require the matter to be 'brought before parliament?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: Certainly.
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and

act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
In time of war, when the militia is called out for active service to serve conjointly with His Majesty's regular forces, His Majesty may place in command thereof, a senior general officer of his regular army.
That is word for word the same language as we have in the Act now before the House.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: Immediately before adjournment at six o'clock, I was explaining the provisions of the Canadian Militia Act for the purpose of showing that there was no material difference-in fact, no difference at all-between these and the provisions of the Naval Act now before the House, in so far as these provisions have reference to the services to be rendered by the naval forces in support of the British empire, or to be put at the disposal of the British empire when an emergency should arise. The definition of 'emergency ' is the same in this Act as in the Militia Act and the other sections, although not numbered the same, are alike in their provisions. Section 4 of the Naval Bill now under consideration, says:
The command-in-chief of the naval forces is vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty, or by the Governor General as His representative.
That is exactly the same as the Militia Act. Section 17 of this Bill says:
The Governor in Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof, on active service at any time when it appears advisable 'so to do by reason of an emergency.
And sections 18 and 19 are as follows:
18.	In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal Navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
19.	Whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any part thereof on active service, as provided in the preceding section, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall issue for a meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
These terms are identical with those of the Militia Bill; I can find no difference
at all between them. If, for the last forty years, we have had a law on our statute book, in connection with our land forces and land protection, which was acceptable to both parties, acceptable to every man who lives in Canada. I do not understand why it should be considered an act of treason, an act of disruption of the connection between the mother country and Canada, or a violation of the constitution, to have the same thing, word for word, applied to the sea or coastal forces. Such an objection has no valid force, and, when examined, it will be perfectly clear to any person that it is used for a purpose, that it is not in the best interest of the country, and is not worthy the best thought of our people. If there is anything wrong about this law, would it not have been the duty of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) who, for thirty years has occupied a conspicuous place, and who is a very capable lawyer, and, of course, loyal to the core, to call attention to it, and propose a suitable amendment? The old Militia Act is a product of the Conservative administration and of Conservatives, as I take it, they were then as loyal as they are to-day. If it was so satisfactory to them in those days, and during the twenty or more years when they ran this country,
I submit that a similar Act, having reference to the sea forces, should be just as satisfactory to them as this old law. I mention this in order to do away with the argument that is being strongly put forward by speakers on the opposition side, who endeavour to show that we are departing from the customs in vogue in this country and are legislating in a way that has a tendency to break the close ties that now exist between the mother country and outside.
I wish to make a few slight references to the observations made by some of the gentlemen who have already spoken on this question. First, I should say a few' words concerning the speech of the hon. member for St. Anne division, Montreal (Mr. Doherty). That gentleman has dealt with the question very soberly, and in that judicious manner in which we would expect him to approach a question of this kind. In its last analysis, there is not a great deal in his speech. The hon. gentleman dealt particularly with two or three points. The first was that, before we do anything in this country towards the establishment of a sea force that will be intended in any manner to take part in empire wars, we must have our constitution so amended that we in this country shall have an equal voice with the mother country in deciding when war should be declared. That is the condition precedent that he lays down before we can do any-

thing at all in the direction of having a navy. If there is an emergency, or if there is a necessity for an early start in providing this navy, the condition precedent that the hou. gentleman lays down would preclude any action along this line. I submit, the day is not yet in sight-and I venture to say that few of us, perhaps, will live to see the day-when such machinery will be put in operation between the mother country and the colonies, or the dominions beyond the seas, as will put us on an equal footing with the mother country in international questions, and the declaration of war. I think that our proper course is to develop our own country and-to use a military term-to make Canada a complete unit within the empire, and to equip her for every duty she may have to discharge, as well as the Canadian people can bring that about. I submit that the condition that the hon. member for St. Anne lays down would make it impossible for us to do anything in this country. The next proposition which he makes-and he makes it with a view to pleasing some of the super-loyal friends of his party who sit behind him-is that we should give money to the empire.
But he does not put it upon a footing that would please his friends of the opposition. His friends of the opposition say we should come with gifts in our hands, we should ccme with sacrifices to the throne of the mother country and say: Here, if you have any doubt about our loyalty, if it is though that we in Canada are not in sympathy with your navy, in sympathy with your progress, in sympathy with your ideas of empire, here we are with $25,000,000 as a gift to prove to you beyond peradventure that we are loyal. That seems to have been the doctrine put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite. If that is their doctrine, the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) does not agree with it at all, he puts it on an entirely different footing, upon a commercial footing, absolutely commercial and selfish. He says: If we are in partnership with this big concern on the other side, and if we are satisfied that it will fail, it will drag us down with it. That is the argument he used: if the empire is going to pieces we will be dragged down with it, and entirely apart from the question of sentiment or loyalty n is a question of business with us to give the money, to lend that big concern money to keep it afloat. We will give them a letter of credit, that is his language, to the extent of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, and we will give it with the distinct understanding that it is not to be used, the money is not to be used at all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Did he say that?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: With the strong pro-Mr. McKenzie.
bability, that is his language, that the money is not to be used. That is what the hon. gentleman said, it is on 'Hansard.' I know too much about my duty to the gentleman who has preceded me to say anything but exactly what bears the construction that can fairly and reasonably be put on the language he used. That is the proposition, you cannot give anything until you have an equal voice in the disposition of matters- in the old land, you cannot do anything at all, ana if you want to do anything now it is a commercial transaction, you can promise this money and the probabilities are that you will not have to use it at all. That is the position which was taken by the hon. member from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). But although a great deal of time was taken in giving us the very able speech of that hon. gentleman, he did one thing for which he will always have my gratitude and for which he should have the gratitude of every hon. gentleman in this House who wishes for the best to happen this country and who wishes for the true welfare of Canada, he rebuked his colleagues in this House for the trend that they have followed in connection with the so called disloyalty of the French Canadians. I was delighted that the rebuke came from the source it did, from a member of the Conservative party, whose loyalty to that party could not be questioned, and from a gentleman living in the province of Quebec who could speak with authority on that point, and I have been delighted to find that the speeches made since he gave them that wholesome rebuke have been largely purged from this unwholesome element that was found in all the speeches from the hustings and in the House by the opposition members before the rebuke was administered. I believe that if the hon. gentleman from St. Anne never did anything else in this House that would be of note, except that he has given that well deserved rebuke to his colleagues in this House and has put an end to this very undesirable if not reprehensible conduct on the part of those who want to make political capital in their own counties and provinces against the people of Quebec, by continually insinuating that they are not a loyal people, he would deserve our thanks. Nothing could be more calculated to injure this country in its every interest than to have it go abroad from this parliament that if not one half at least a large third of the population of this country was not loyal to the Crown and to the institutions of this country. It is useless to think that we can assimilate large populations coming into this country and gain their sympathy for British institutions, British government and British laws, when the leaders of the Conservative party in this House and from the hustings proclaim to

the newcomer that a certain class of citizens who have been living under our institutions for 150 years, are still disloyal and not true to British institutions and the British Crown. If that is to go abroad in this country and to be believed by the foreigner from Europe and other places, it must have an unwholesome effect in relation to the assimilating to our institutions of the people who are coming into Canada. I submit that there ought to be enough patriotism, enough loyalty in the members of the opposition, even if they believe it is going to bring them to power, to prevent. them resorting to such tactics. The remedy is too drastic to be applied in this country. I thank fortune that in the province from which I come such a thing is never heard as accusing any citizen of disloyalty. We have Acadians, French Canadians in Nova Scotia, but nobody ever dares to think of using such language in reference to them. The same thing applies to New Brunswick. I never heard of it in Prince Edward Island. Such a thing is never mentioned in Quebec, and I believe' that when you pass the boundary between Ontario and Manitoba the disease stops, such language is used in the west. Am I to be told, am I forced to believe by this geographical elimination, that the great premier province of Ontario is to be fed on such food as this stuff meted out to us in this House, about the disloyalty of people in this country? In other matters Ontario has a right to claim leadership in its wealth, population, education, and very many other excellencies. Is it to be1 said that that province shall be the last to drop this pernicious system of attributing disloyalty to citizens of Canada? I repeat to the credit of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) that if he never did anything else in his life except the meting out of this rebuke to his colleagues and supporters in this House, he has not lived in vain.
We are told by hon. gentlemen that nothing should be done until we appeal to the country, we should go with this proposition to the Canadian people and should get their verdict upon this new departure of a navy. I submit that the doctrine laid down by the representatives of this country in England in 1902 were well known in every part of Canada from that year down to the present. They were well known by every leader of either party from the time they were laid down in the conference. I will not say, for it would not be right for me to say, that the leader of the opposition did not know in 1902, in 1903 or in 1904 what those principles were or what Canada intended to do with regard to the establishment of a navy or extending aid to the empire to which we belong.
That policy was well known. If it was
not satisfactory to him or the party which he leads, did he not have an excellent opportunity in 1904 of submitting this question to the people? The leader of the opposition is not a novice at making platforms. He could very well have adjusted his platform and have put a plank in it in 1904 representing this very question, declaring that the principles and rules laid down by the representatives of Canada at the conference in 1902 were not satisfactory, and that therefore the people should pronounce upon them and vote against the Canadian government. I repeat that the hon. gentleman is not a novice at making platforms, and he makes his platforms always on the extension table principle, so that he can put this in and take that out as it suits him and suits the company in which he speaks. Therefore, what was to prevent hon. gentlemen opposite, if they thought we were not doing right in connection with the preparation for the navy in 1902, from submitting the question to the people? The argument in use about 1902 can also be used about 1907, for it is perhaps a strange coincidence that in 1908 we had another general election. The hon. gentleman and his party had the experience of 1902 and 1907 as to what the intentions were. In 1908 there was a general election, when there was an excellent opportunity of putting that policy before the people and getting a pronouncement upon it. I submit to you that if they did not submit that question to the country in 1904, and if they did not submit it in 1908, they had really no desire of submitting it to the country at all, and were perfectly satisfied with the steps taken by the government and the platform and principles laid down by the representatives of this country at both conferences.


Mr. BLAIN.: Does my hon. friend say that it was a leading plank and the policy of the government of which he is a prominent supporter, in either the general election of 1904 or 1908?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I did not say, Sir, that it was a platform at all. I say that it was the well understood policy of this government, as represented and as disclosed to the world by the representatives of this government who were present at the conference in 1902. From that day down to the present the policy of the government was well known and there was no need to make a platform about it. It was an understood matter and the hon. gentleman opposite did not make an issue of it. When the hon. gentlemen who were leading the opposition party in the country will not raise an issue, the strongest and the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the principles disclosed and the line of action laid down by the government are satisfactory to them. That is the contention which

I make here, and that I think is the only logical conclusion to be drawn. If to-day hon. gentleman opposite think that it is necessary to submit this question to the people as to whether there should be a navy at all, or, if a navv, what should be the size of it and that sort of thing, the proposition of the navy, its size, and all that have been before the people, there has been knowledge of the question since 1902, if it is a proper thing to submit to the people to-day it was a proper thing at either or both these elections, and if they did not think it proper to take advantage of the opportunity, I submit that they are not sincere to-day when they are asking to make of this an issue to go to the people with. We had this question very well threshed out less than a year ago. The hon. member for North Toronto placed the first resolution upon the order paper the very first day of the sitting. From the little knowledge I have of that hon. gentleman, obtained since I have occupied a seat in this House, I venture to say that the bringing down of that resolution was not the first thing he did in connection with it. I submit that he gave it careful thought, that he looked at it from every standpoint, considered it carefully and possibly wrote a great many resolutions before he found one that suited him. The resolution with which he came down to the House remained on the order paper for seventy days or thereabouts, and it was wrell considered by every hon. gentleman on both sides of the House, I presume. When the time came to discuss it, he discussed it fully and pointed out clearly and unequivocally that his intention was to make a start in the direction of having a Canadian navy for the protection of our own people and for no other purpose. The leader of the opposition agreed with him that that was the thing to do. The right hon. leader of the government stated clearly and distinctly that neither he nor his party, was going to depart in the slightest degree from the lines laid down in 1902 and 1907, and that he would not be stampeded by any false cry that might be abroad in the country. After hearing that clearly and distinctly laid down, the hon. leader of the opposition said: I fully and emphatically agree with the position taken by the leader of the government. That is the position that he took then. The leader of the government said: We cannot afford to lose any of the privileges which we have to-day as a country. We must have the same control over our own affairs that we have now, and we cannot and will not have any less. The leader of the opposition agreed with him and said: We have well earned every privilege that we have in this country. They are not favours, they are rights, and the government cannot go as far as, or any farther, than I will go, in Mr. McKenzie.
fully sustaining and upholding every privilege and every bit of the autonomy that we have in this country. These are the statements made by the leader of the opposition in his speech of the 29th March last. His words are to be found in 'Hansard,' and if it is to-day a dangerous thing to retain the powers which we have in the Militia Act, if it is to-day a dangerous thing and tends to disrupt the happy relations between the empire and this country, were the dangers less a year ago? If there was any difficulty at that time the leader of the opposition, if he was sincere then, or if he is sincere now, should have stood up and said: These conditions must not continue; everything should be left entirely at the disposal of the British Crown, and we will not now undertake to exercise control. But that was not his position nor the position of his party. They were unanimous in support of sustaining the conditions which we have now and which we have had for the last forty years. We have heard no reasons for such a right about face on the part of the leader of the opposition and his friends in connection with this matter. There is not a reason to-day that was not in existence a year ago. Whatever discussion took place in the English House of Commons about the German scare, so-called, took place ten or twelve days before the resolution was brought down. I think it was on the 20th or 22nd March that Premier Asquith made his speech on the subject in which he made reference to the necessity of further provision for the navy in Great Britain and I think he made some observations from which it could be gathered that there was some difficulty in that country. That period has passed, explanations have been given, and the excitement had subsided before the leader of the opposition and his followers made their speeches. We are now told by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto that we must all of a sudden have a tremendous navy that would be able on the first day of its appearance on the waiter, to icope with any of the great navies of the world. That is an extraordinary position to take, and it is very different from the position taken by them less than a year ago.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Did the leader of the opposition ever make such a statement as the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) has attributed to him. If so, when and where?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I did not attribute that to the leader of the opposition. If the hon. member (Mr. Daniel), wants to know who made that statement, I may tell him it was the member for Medicine" Hat (Mr. Magrath). My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel), may rest satisfied that

I do not belong to the class or tribe that misquotes people. If he has anything else to do he can rest content that he has nothing to watch in me, because my training and experience in life has been along other lines, and I have made my living in situations where it would be little benefit for me to misquote, because I would be brought to time very soon for it. On the other hand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Daniel) belongs to the medical profession and he may be able to hide his mistakes under the ground, but those in my. profession cannot do that.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is a very old chestnut.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: Not much older than the hon. member. To say that we must not have a navy until we have a great big one is like the old lady who told her grandson that he must not go near the water until he learned to swim. If my hon. friend will follow the speeches of the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), he will see that that hon. gentleman said last year, that, the proper thing for us to do is to have a navy of our own, that the matter of a contribution was out of the question, that it had been a failure wherever tried, and that we should make a small beginning in our navy. But less than a year after the hon. member (Mr. Foster) advised the House in that direction, the House would hardly believe such a change has been wrought in his views. I submit that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) advised the House that the proper thing to do was to make a small beginning with a navy of our own and develop it as every other enterprise in this country had developed, he was stating the wise course for us to pursue, and when he departed from that advice he departed from the path of wisdom, and is not taking himself seriously. If there was any necessity for further proof that such was the idea in his head a year ago, it is to be found in abundance in his speech where he told us: To sow the seed in the soil, to start something to which we could look with pride and which we could develop, to start something that would train up our young men so that they would take pride in the defence of the empire, and not to leave to other people to do that which we could do best ourselves. We have heard it said that in Canada we have not the capacity nor the means, or the experience to build a navy. But, would not the same argument be applicable in the initiation of some of the greater enterprises, which have obtained such an enormous growth in Canada. We have no canal in existence for instance at all comparable to what the Georgian Bay canal will be, and yet I am satisfied that we have talent and industry
and ability in Canada sufficient to successfully complete the Georgian Bay canal. When the Canadian Pacific railway was started there was nothing in this country in any way commensurate to the vastness of such an enterprise, and yet the Canadian Pacific railway grew and the country grew wih it, and the Canadian management of that railway is capable of giving the best service in the world. All this goes to show the immensity of the capabilities of the [DOT] people of Canada when the occasion demands. I submit too that the history of the maritime provinces justifies us in believing that the shipbuilding industry can be developed there just as well as in any country in the world. Sixty years ago we had in Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia men who went to the woods and cut the timber, brought it back and built the vessel, rigged that vessel, found cargo and passengers for her, and then took command and sailed her in two oceans to New Zealand and Australia. Such men we had by the score in the maritime provinces and we have their descendants there today, competent to utilize all. modern appliances for the construction of ships equal to any that sail the ocean. I have no fear but that there will be found in Canada men competent to build a navy, to man it, and to command it. I read in the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe that in one of the ports on the great lakes they have a ship building plant capable of turning out vessels 500 feet long and of 7,000 horse-power. If that can be done in one part of Canada, why cannot it be done in another. I am glad to see that there is a thriving -ship building industry jon the great lakes, and I have not the slighted doubt in my mind, but that the industry can be pursued in the coastal harbours of the maritime provinces and of British Columbia, with just as much success as in any other part of the globe.
The hon. gentleman from Simcoe pointed out that we have at Sydney harbour, in readiness for the building of steel ships, one of the finest plants in the world, fully equipped and ready to produce the necessary material. The premier of Australia, in the speech he made at the conference of 1907, pointed out to the Lords of the Admiralty that the coastal service in Australia would be of great efficiency and usefulness to the home government in getting ready the supplies that may be necessary for the fleets of that station-that it would protect the coal and other supplies that might be necessary, and furnish men if men were required. All this is true with reference to British Columbia and Nova Scotia, where we have coal in abundance, and I would suggest to the government that the very first duty of government is to put the security of

these magnificent coal supplies beyond peradventure. It ought to be made impossible for any foreign ship or squadron to take possession of our coal supplies. I do not know how it is in British Columbia, but in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton the coal fields are on the coast within gunshot of any vessel that might come near;' and for that reason it is entirely necessary, if this country is to maintain full control of her coal supplies in the eastern part of Canada, that the protection usual in cases of that kind should be put up. It may be said that we have not a sufficiency of these things to launch upon so great an enterprise as the building of a navy. Let me tell you that the largest coal seams and possibly the largest coal fields in the world are in the province of Nova Scotia. If you ask me where the largest coal mine in the world is situated, I tell you in the province of Nova Scotia and in the island of Cape Breton. If you ask me where are the largest iron and steel plants, which would be a basic necessity for the building of this navy, I tell you that one of the largest in the world is to be found in the province of Nova Scotia and in the island of Cape Breton. We have also the people who are equal to any emergency, and who will educate themselves for any conditions that may arise. Our steel works in the Island of Cape Breton are not more than seven or eight years old, and 4,000 or 5,000 people are necessary for the working of those plants, largely experts, skilled labour. You ask me where we get them. We get them in the island of Cape Breton and in the province of Nova Scotia. Our own people, with very few exceptions, have in that short time educated themselves to do whatever is necessary in connection with these plants. The same thing can be said about the handling of our coal mines. The engineers, the underground managers, and all the managers to be found about these works are our own people. There is not in the world any people who will more quickly and readily come up to any of these requirements than the people of Cape Breton. The building of this navy is but another step in the opening up of new avenues for the development of the dormant powers of many of our people. It gives an opportunity to the poor man as well as to the rich man to gain for himself a position. Under the conditions that will prevail in our navy the poor man's son will have an opportunity to make a name for himself as well as the son of the rich man. That being the case, if it was for nothing but the chances it is going to give to our people to develop themselves along these lines, the starting of this navy would be justified. It was less than a year ago that this House unani-Mr. McKENZIE.
mously decided that the building of a navy by our own people with our own money was the proper course for us to take. Nothing has happened since to change in any way the conclusion we. reached on that occasion. And why should there be a turnabout of this kind? Possibly the explanation is given by the 'Canadian Courier', a paper which I believe is independent in politics, but is edited by a strong friend of the leader of the opposition and of his party. That paper says of the opposition:
The situation is absolutely senseless. Their attitude betokens either a sad loss of reason and judgment, or else a weak-minded resort to a dangerous political expedient. So far as Mr. Borden is personally concerned, we believe that he is too well informed and has too much * horse sense * to justify the resolution on any other ground than political necessity. However, definiteness and unity cannot be expected from a party which is so sadly divided on a question as the Conservatives are on txie proper policy for Canada to pursue in nu matters.
That is the position which this independent journal takes, a position with which I entirely agree; and if the hon. member for Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty) had made his speech last year and had declared to his colleagues in this House that this cry of disloyalty had to be eliminated from the utterances of the leaders of the Conservative party, and from the rank and file of that party, I believe we would not have the break that we have at the present time. One of the reasons is that those who won their elections on the cry of disloyalty raised against the Prime Minister and his supporters in the province of Quebec, would find themselves in a very awkward predicament if they should accept his policy on the naval question. They could not very well then go among their own people and raise the cry of disloyalty against the province of Quebec.


Mr. OWENS.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question? Does he think it right to lay at the door of all the members from this side of the province of Ontario the statement that the followers of the government who come from Quebec are disloyal, simply because one or two have made it?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: 
William Owens: The hon. gentleman should name them.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I can assure my hon. friend that I did not have him in mind at all, and entirely acquit him from any imputation of the kind; but if he will read the rank party press of Ontario and follow

those who undertook to speak for his party in Ontario, he will find that the affirmation I make is only too well founded. I am a Scotchman, and a Nova Scotian, and a loyalist from away back, as far as there is anything to be spoken of, and for that reason I have no love or standing for any such thing in this country as charging my fellow countrymen with being less loyal than myself. I regard such a charge as most pernicious, and in that connection I cannot do better than quote the language of so distinguished a Conservative as the late Mr. Chapleau, who said in this House that the man who starts the cry of disloyalty and racial and religious prejudices is a traitor to his country and his God. That was the language of so distinguished a Canadian as Mr. Chapleau, and I am sure that there is not a man on the opposition benches who thinks himself a bigger Conservative that was that distinguished gentleman, and that was his measure of the contemptible line of action which we find followed to-day in the interests of the opposition. I repeat that if the Conservative party were purged of that element, if no cry of race or religion were raised in one part or another, the leader of the opposition would have stood manfully to the position he took less than a year ago, which he reaffirmed in England and which he afterwards repeated in his own constitutency of Halifax and the city of Toronto. I for one thought that he would have stood by it, I thought he had the backbone to do so, but others said, no. Wait, they said, until the psycological moment arrives and you will find that the barnacles will drive him as they please, just as they did before.. Events have since proven that those who thus predicted .knew the leader of the opposition better than I did. A year ago that hon. gentleman was perfectly satisfied with the course followed by the government. He had heard that policy declared clearly and distinctly by the Prime Minister, there was nothing hidden, he knew it all, and he agreed with every word of it. I do not regard the decision of this House as a trifling matter, even a majority decision. But when the high court of parliament deliberately, after all the facts are before it, comes to a unanimous conclusion, I cannot look upon the breaking of that compact or the reversing of that decision as at all a light matter. Whv should we reverse to-day the position then taken? No new principles of law have since come into existence nor have any new facts, nor has any new light appeared. If there were any reasons in subsequent events to justify the decision we took a year ago, .one would understand this change of front. But nothing has occurred since to alter the position. There has been no change of facts or law, we are exactly
in the same position, and I ask hon. gentlemen on the opposition benches where they would find themselves now if they had to go back to their constituents and explain this sudden change of opinion and doctrine on their part in less than a year.
I submit that the only explanation of that tthing is party expediency as stated by the 'Courier,' which I quoted a moment ago.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend permit me to say that the Conservative party last session were in favour of giving Dreadnoughts.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I do not recollect that there is anything in the resolution to that effect.


Richard Blain: I did not say there was anything in the resolution, but that the Conservative party had declared in this House that they were in favour of giving Dreadnoughts in the emergency now before the country. If my hon. friend wishes, I will quote the language of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto.


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I rememoer well that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) at the very end of his speech, in a very milk and water way, said that if there should be an emergency he would agree to provide for it, and that he was sure hon. gentlemen on this side would stand by him in that proposition. But the hon. the leader of the opposition did not say anything at all about it, except that there should be a door left in the resolution which would enable us, if an emergency should arise, to come to the rescue of the mother country. Language to that effect is in the resolution which could be construed to give us the right to make that provision should an emergency arise.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). He is very gentlemanly in the debate. But would he permit me to place on ' Hansard ' the statement by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) with the concurrence of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)?


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I had intended to put a number of the pages of those speeches on record, but time will not permit. I have no objection to my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) reading what he proposes.


Richard Blain: It is just a word or two. In the speech delivered on January 12 this session


Mr.  D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton: I was talking about March 29 last.


Richard Blain: Yes:
My hon. friend from North Toronto 01 r. Foster) said in that debate with my concur-


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. Speaker, the intense importance of this Bill and the effect which it may have on the future history of Canada, and of the great empire of which we form a part, justify me in speaking on this question even at this late stage of the debate. Personally I feel a very deep interest in anything which has relation to naval defence. The constituency which I represent is on the Atlantic sea-board, and in the event of a naval combat between Great Britain and any country which has accumulated sea-power enough to attack her supremacy on the seas, if unfortunately that other navy should be successful, the constituency I represent would probably be the first to feel the fatal effects.
As far as I am concerned, I am deeply interested in this, not only as a citizen and a British subject, but especially as representing a constituency down by the sea. Now, Sir, I intend to make my remarks brief and as much to the point as I can, and before coming to them I feel myself bound to reply to some few observations of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McKenzie). In the first place, he spoke about there being no necessity for sending this verv important proposal back to the people. He said that we were here elected by the people to represent them and to decide on these questions. Under ordinary circumstances I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, but what do we find in this case? This is the most important matter that we have ever had to deal with in this parliament, and the people have never had an opportunity of giving any expression of their views upon it. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat knows as well as any member of this House that this question has never been proposed to the people in any shape or form, and how he can intimate that such has been the case is something I do not understand. We have never had a proposal about a navy for this country until this very session, and it is the proposal that we are now discussing. How any hon. member can say that the people have had an opportunity of discussing and deciding this question is more than I can understand. He also made a reference to the fact that leading members on this side of the House have hitherto confined their wishes and desires to a navy for the purpose simply of defending our own shores. He quoted my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden) as stating that my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had made a statement when the resolution was passed in 1909 which had met with his concurrence. He intimated that the statements that were then made by the hon. member for North Toronto were devoted to the advocacy of a fleet simply for local defence. I had al-Mr. Mckenzie.	.
ways thought that the hon. gentleman was one who prided himself on being a gentleman who did not misquote or misrepresent the language of another. With your permission. Mr. Sneaker, I will read what the leader of the opposition said, and I will give the quotation that he made from the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto. The leader of the opposition said:
One of the criticisms which has been made upon the resolution is this: That parliament did not then proffer to the empire in the hour of peril anything more than an expression of a desire to co-operate and'an intention to perform. Well, Sir, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned that is not our fault. My hon. friend from North Toronto said, in that debate, with my concurrence:
To-day peril stands at the gateway. It is not for me to say how great it is, but I cannot brush it aside. To-day it impresses itself upon the greatest statesmen of the old country; to-day it appeals to Australia until public subscriptions are taken, and the government is being importuned to do even more than its settled policy to meet the emergency; to-day little New Zealand gives one Dreadnought and offers a second, and to-day Canada faces that position of peril and emergency. Let me say to my right hon. friend, that if after careful consideration he proposes to this parliament a means for meeting that emergency adequately, now and as it should be, whether it be by the gift of Dreadnoughts or the gift of money of this country, this side of the House will stand beside him, and stand for Canada in supporting that measure.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, whether the hon. member for Cape Breton, in making the statement he did. quoted the hon. member for North Toronto and the leader of the opposition correctly. The hon. member also spoke to the effect that we had never been asked to assist the mother country in this emergency. That they did not come over and ask us to give them some money, that they should have sent a request for funds through the Tegular channels or in some other way. I would like to know in what way the hon. member would expect the statesmen of the mother country to intimate to this country that they would be glad of assistance in the emergency that is now before the whole British empire. I should imagine that a eentleman of his standing in the legal profession, one who has occupied a seat on the bench, if he wished to give a judicial statement in regard to the matter, would have studied the question to some extent so as to satisfy himself that the remarks he was going to make were actually based on fact. I am sorry to make these quotations because they have all been placed on record before, but the statements of the hon. gentleman make it absolutely necessary. Lord Tweedmouth's statements have been already quoted, and I suppose that even the member for Cape Breton will allow that

Lord Tweed mouth was in a position to speak for England because he was at the conference of 1907. Speaking to the representatives of the empire at one of these notable conventions, he said:
To the representatives of the empire

Those from Canada included.
-we ask you to take some leading part in making the national defence of the empire mere complete. We thank you and recognize the free, unstinted help already given. One reservation we make, and one only, that we hold the command of the naval forces for the defence of the empire for which we are responsible. Unity of action, unity of command. We want you to give us all the assistance you can.
Is that pot plain? Is that not distinct? I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Breton wants anything more than the language to which I have just alluded that the mother country would be glad of our assistance in this great emergency?
We want you to give us all the assistance you can, but we do not come to you as beggars. Whether you help or not we are still to protect the King's dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.
people of England are not beggars. They will defend themselves and they will defend this whole empire until the last shilling or the last man is used up in the fray rather than go on their knees to Cani any other Part of this empire and ask them any more plainly or openly for funds than they have already done. Then there is Lord Rosebery. He also made some remarks, I think at the press conference, and I quote the following:
When I see one country alone asking for 25 millions of extra taxation for warlike preparations; when I see the unprecedented sacrifices which are asked from us on the same grounds, I do. begin to feel uneasy as to
.f, outcome of it all, and to wonder where it will stop. . . . Gentlemen, we can and we will build Dreadnoughts' or whatever the newest type of ship may be as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them. All that we can and will do, but I am not sure that even that will be enough, and I think it may be your duty to take back to your young dominions across the seas this message and this impression: that some personal duty and responsibility for national defence rests on every man and citizen of the empire. Yes, gentlemen, take that message back with you. Tell your peoples - if they can believe it - the deplorable way in which Europe is relapsing into militarism and the pressure that is put upon this little England, to defend itself, its liberties-and yours! But take this message also back with you-that the old [DOT]country is right at heart; that there is no failing or weakness in her; and that she rejoices in renewing her youth in her giant dominions beyond the seas. For her own 139
salvation, she must look to herself, and that failing her she must look to you.	-
Surely, in view of these two quotations from eminent statesmen holding responsible positions in Great Britain, surely the position of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) is untenable when he says there is no need for a contribution from Canada or any other part of the empire to aid the motherland in this emergency. The hon. gentleman tells us he does not believe there is an emergency, but the answer to that is that there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. He reminds me of that story in sacred writ where some Hebrews from a distant part of Judea came to the Saviour and stated that they wanted a sign; the Master told them they had Moses and the prophets, and if they would not hear them, they would not believe even though one rose from the dead. I take it that no matter what evidence is submitted to my hon. friend he would not believe even though one rose from the dead. The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that the British North America Act places the control of the naval and military forces in His Majesty, and I would point out that if the British North America Act is in force, then clause 18 of the Bill is of no effect, and it being of no effect, why insert it? The very fact that clause 18 is in the Bill determines me to vote against it even though I should be in favour of some of its other features. Clause 18 says:
In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the R'vval Navy, the naval service or any part thereof.
That seems inconsistent, for if under the British North America Act His Majesty has command of these forces, why should the Governor in Council be in a position to place them at his service or not just as they think fit. The inference is, of course, that if the government did not wish to place the naval force at the disposal of His Majesty they need not do so. If clause 18 does not mean that, it has no effect at all, and that being so, I object to it. To my mind that clause gives the Governor in Council a chance to declare the independence of Canada whenever it should think that it was a fit and proper time to do so. I say, Sir, that this parliament has no mandate from the people of Canada to go to any such length as that, and whether this Bill is submitted to them for their judgment or not, they certainly must have a final say on such a momentous question. Such a radical change as that in the constitution of the country, this parliament, I submit, has no power to bring about without the consent of the people. That is the great reason why I shall vote against this Bill. The hon. gentleman from Cape Breton admitted that the British North America Act


John Waterhouse Daniel: Gentlemen, to meet the imminent needs of the empire, we put at your disposal this sum of money. Mr. Speaker, if that money is drawn under those circumstances, it will be done by men in whom this government has implicit confidence, and upon their testimony that there is imminent need. Will anybody here impute to the government of Great Britain the flagrant dishonesty of drawing money that is put at their disposal when there is no imminent need for it, and that she will take it only to put it in her pocket? When hon. gentlemen tell us that we are throwing $25,000,000 across the Atlantic to these people, giving it away as a pure gift, as the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Beland) said-that is an imputation upon British statesmen whose testimony we are willing to accept as the testimony of men who know what the truth is with regard to the question of urgency. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this money is drawn, I say we have conclusive evidence on the most reliable testimony of the need of that money, if it is drawn we have given it when there was imminent necessity; and even the right hon. gentleman and his government say that in case of imminent necessity, of course, we ought to give immediate assistance.
I would like to know where the hon. member for Cape Breton finds in that speech or in these words any statement that could give any one with ordinary judgment and common sense the idea that we were sending this money over with the knowledge and expectation that it was never to be used. Yet the hon. member once or twice congratulated and felicitated himself on the fact that he never misquoted other people.
The hon. gentleman also brought in the loyalty question. Now, I do not care to talk on the loyalty question. When a man is easy in his own mind with regard to his feelings of loyalty to the empire to which he belongs, he is not ready to suspect others of disloyalty. I had the privilege the other morning of attending the annual meeting of the Dominion Rifle Association, at which there were present militia officers from all parts of the Dominion, and I think one of the most loyal utterances I heard on that occasion came from a colonel commanding one of the regiments in Quebec. He said that if this matter of a navy could only be left to the militia officers of the country, they would soon settle it in a way that would be agreeable to the people and provide properly for defence, or words to that effect, and he was cheered to the echo. I have no doubt at all of the thorough loyalty of the people of Quebec, and never have had, and certainly since this matter has come up, if any one had any doubt about it, that doubt must have been removed by the expressions of loyalty that we have heard on all sides from gentlemen from that province. Outside and beyond that, and appealing only to

self-interest, if there are people in any one province in Canada to-day who more than any other should have a feeling of loyalty and reverence for the British Crown and the British power, it is the people of the province of Quebec. They hold a position unique in the whole British empire. They have treaty rights which no subject of the Crown in any other parts of the world have; and if the power of Britain were broken and Canada separated itself from the British empire, those rights would pass away, and be as if they never had been. So I say the people of Quebec, loyal as they are, have more business reasons for loyalty to the British Crown and for a desire to support and strengthen it, than the people of any other province in the whole Dominion of Canada. So much for the remarks of my hon. friend.
With regard to the question before the House, one of the hon. members, in discussing the ideas of the members of the opposition, endeavoured to poke a little fun at us by saying that no matter how we on this side might criticise the proposals of the government, this was the first time anything practical had been offered to be done. Supposing for a moment that is true, I reply that this is the first time there has been any necessity for anything of the kind to be done. The rise of the nations of the world owning navies has been of the most recent date. The navy of the United States is only a comparatively few years old; Japan is a new nation; while Germany as a sea-power has risen into prominence only within a very few years. The Royal Navy has been patrolling our North Atlantic ocean up to within the last three or four years, when a new policy was inaugurated by Sir John Fisher, the new Lord of the Admiralty. Before that Halifax was the naval station of the North Atlantic squadron in summer and Bermuda in the winter. It was a larger and stronger fleet than the one proposed by the government in the Bill now before the House. This fleet or parts of it visited different parts of the country, including Quebec and Montreal, and it was not until that fleet was withdrawn and until Germany had been showing its determination to have immense power on the sea as it has on the land, that there has been the slightest necessity for Canada to go to any expense, large or small, for naval purposes. I think there is no doubt about that, so that in the circumstances I take it nothing has been done hitherto because there has been no necessity for anything to be done. But now all that is changed. A new naval programme has been given to the world. Germany has announced her intention, in most unmistakable terms, to dispute the supremacy of the sea and wrest that supremacy from Great Britain. That she will suc-1391	. ,j ^ ;
ceed I do not believe, for England will spend her last shilling and her last man before she will allow Germany or any other nation to get the upper hand. But the war, if you call it war, is on now. It is a war of, construction and must be kept up. The people who advocate making every endeavour to keep up with this great war of construction which is going on, are not militarists and jingoes. This rapid building of new battleships and Dreadnoughts is not for the purpose of making war, but for the purpose of preventing war, and that is the only way war can be prevented, especially with such an enormously wealthy and powerful country as Germany. I came across the other day a statement made by a Chinese Minister of War some five centuries before the Christian era, and what did he say. He said:
To fight and conquer one hundred times is not the perfection of attainment, the supreme art being to subdue the enemy without fighting.
That is the reason why this building of Dreadnoughts as rapidly as possible is being carried on. It is in order that war may be prevented and the enemy conquered without fighting.
With regard to our connection with Great Britain in the empire, that appears to me one of the most important subjects in connection with this debate. I take it that our interests are bound firmly with those of Great Britain and the rest of the empire. Britain is our best customer. The men who, out on the great rolling prairie, are gathering in those enormous harvests, find a market for their product in the old country. We can say the same of the products of the east. Who are the people that buy our lumber and the other commodities we have to export? The British people take by far the largest part. So that outside of the bonds of heredity, tradition, history and affection, .there are the bonds of business interests, which unite us to the mother country. And this vast business can only be safely carried on if protected by a navy. And for that protection we have to depend on the British navy, or rather, I would say, if my wishes were carried out, the navy of the empire. The supreme law, in connection with governing bodies, is the safety of the people. The safety of the people is the highest law of all, and in order that this empire may be safe, the royal navy must be supreme. Destroy that navy and you put an end to the empire.
Take this Navy Bill we are discussing, what is the object of a navy? Is it for the purpose of establishing ship-building plants or docks? I should say not. I quite agree that the establishment of shipbuilding yards is important because shipbuilding is a great industry which will give employment to a great number of people.

I take it that docks are necessary, whether we have a navy or not, but the great reason for a navy is strategical. The great object of a navy is defence, so that in -considering what is the best kind of navy to have, I take it that the strategical reason is the one which should come before all others. But if we want a navy for strategical purposes we must have a great imperial navy. That is my idea of a naval force1-a navy of imperial dimensions, a navy for the defence of the whole empire, a navy under one control. In that connection the Prime Minister of New Zealand gave expression to a sentiment which appeals to my mind as absolutely correct. He said:
Recognizing how important it is for the protection of the empire that the navy should be at the absolute disposal of the admiralty, Your Excellency's advisers do not desire to suggest any conditions as to the location of The ships, as they are confident that the truest interests of the people of New Zealand *will be best served by having a powerful navy under the independent control of those responsible for directing it in time of peace or war. What the government does feel concerned in is, that the navy in whatever part of the world it may be, should be under one control, so that the most effective results for the defence of all portions.of the empire may be assured.
Those most effective results can only be obtained by one navy, one control and one flag. We are an immense chain of countries, a chain surrounding the globe, separated-no, not separated-bound together by the sea, and immense possibilities open out before us when we consider what may be our destiny as part of this great British empire.
Away off to the south we have Australia, an island it is true, but a continent as well; some four millions of people there now, but to become many millions; with, at this moment, two transcontinental railways projected to run from the southern part of the island to the north bringing into cultivation and opening out for settlement the immense territories some of which have hardly ever-I suppose some even never-been viewed by white men. And we have stretching away across this ocean. New Zealand. It appears to me that the very dream of such an immense empire as this will become, if we are true to ourselves, is sufficient not only to fire the imagination but to warm the heart of every well-wisher of the flag that flies over us and of the country to which we belong. Such a navy, an imperial navy, should be, in so far as we are concerned, supported by all the wealth which we are able to give to that end. It will be just as important for us in the future as it is in the present for the great heart of the empire In the old country that this navy should be great. I do not look for it in my life Mr. DANIEL.
time, but I think of the time in the years to come when Canada will be the dominant partner in this great British empire if we are so minded as to draw closer the bonds of union and not separate them or loosen them as, I am very much afraid, this present navy Bill will do-and that is one reason, and a great reason, why I am opposed to it. I have spoken of one navy. That does not mean at all, and I do not mean to convey the impression, that we should not have the opportunity of building the ships for that navy, or of our part of it, in Canada. I see no reason why, when we provide the facilities in this country to build vessels of war to- become part of our navy and thereby part of the great imperial navy, they should not be built in this country. On the contrary I see every reason why they should be built here. The same thing applies to the manning of the navy. For that purpose this legislation is not required. The old Militia Act divides the militia of this country into land forces and sea forces. Under the Act the militia of Canada is divided into active and reserve militia and the active militia consists of (a) corps raised by voluntary enlistment; (b) corps raised by ballot. Included in the active militia are seamen, sailors and persons whose usual occupation is upon any steam sailing craft navigating the waters of Canada. It even makes arrangement for submarine work. So this naval militia is not confined to the present Act, but as a matter of fact, years ago, there were companies Of naval militia in Canada. There was a company of naval militia in the port of St. John and not only that, but they had a training ship there loaned from the royal navy, the old 'Charybdis'. She was there for quite a long time, an old full-rigged sailing ship with some auxiliary steam. But she was not popular with the naval militia there and the movement finally died out. But the fact that these naval militia corps were in existence and. that we had the training ships show that we had and have sufficient power to train men for the sea, to utilize training ships and all that that implies. We have had that power for years. Since I came to this House, I have noticed the vote of $10,000 for naval militia. But it was shown that part of that vote for one year was spent in paying for the trip to Paris of the then Minister of Marine. That much I have been able to find out, but not how the rest of the money was expended. But there is the fact-the appropriations were made showing that we have the power to enrol and train naval militia. I say, let us stick to that. This Act gives us power to establish a naval college. Let us establish it. And let us put our trained men on the ships that we

437S
build, after we set facilities to build them, and make these ships part and parcel of the great imperial navy. Another thing is that, if we have the naval college, and ask young men to go through, take the training that that college affords, we must be able to offer them a career when they fit themselves for these positions. Such a navy would give a magnificent career to any young man passing through the naval college, because he would not only have a little navy such as the government propose to establish, but he would have a career in which the whole imperial navy would open out for his ambition. And, if we have an imperial navy, there must be some voice in the making of war and controlling the policy the navy is intended to carry out. This would require an imperial council, and we may hope that this could be formed. I do not doubt that the authorities in the old country have had that under consideration. A scheme could be devised under which, if all the nations of the empire took part in making a great imperial navy, arrangements could be made by which each portion of the empire would have its say in the control of that navy. If we are to get the best and the most for our money, to offer the best and brightest career for our young men, giving a chance also to the men who would not be officers but would man the fleet and giving to every one an opportunity to become a member of that fleet, this would be the best course. It would be a navy which we, could call our own; it vrould not be like this little local fleet that we are proposing to- build, but we would have a share in this great imperial navy which even now is by far the strongest that the world has ever seen. Therefore, I think it is a matter which ought to be given every consideration.
We have had a number of quotations from writers in the Fortnightly ' Review.' I wish to quote from an article in that periodical by Mr. J. L. Garvin, in a note entitled ' The Dominions and the Navy.' He says;
It may be asked, what of Greater Britain? Canada is founding a navy of her own. A few decades hence it might begin to be a serious force in the world if the territories of the Dominion are still under the same flag

It would look as if the significance of clause 18 of this Bill had travelled across the Atlantic, and the people over there really understood its meaning.
-if the territories of the Dominion are still under the same flag. There is lively dissension on the whole subject. Some Quebec Liberals are still against all naval expenditure. Many Conservatives denounce ' tinpot navies,' and are strongly in favour of direct contributions to the imperial fleet, but there
seems not the slightest chance of unanimity in this sense. Australia is also creating a federal navy, which will not be able for many years to throw a sensible weight into the-strategical scales. With the system of direct contributions, New Zealand is not entirely satisfied. South Africa, as yet, is not moving. One conclusion is clear. What was called last spring the ' awakening of the empire ' upon the naval problem has not been very effective for strictly imperial purposes. Under the systems they have decided to adopt (and it may be conceded that, in view of the present state of sentiment in Greater Britain, no other course was possible), Australia and Canada can neither save themselves nor effectually help us.
I would call the attention of members to this statement:
Stern experience may teach the people of the Commonwealth

I presume that should be commonwealths.
-the necessity of larger sacrifices and closer combination with the mother country and each other. Meanwhile this island must go forwTard by its own strength, and upon that the whole empire depends. Australian and Canadian squadrons can do nothing to affect the issue in the North Sea. Our efforts in the North Sea may mean all for them. That is the situation, and we must rise to it. If we have full determination to keep the sea, we can keep it. Though the price will be high we can pay it, and nothing in our history will be greater than the spectacle of this little island staking all its resources once more for naval supremacy, wearing down a more formidable rivalry than we have ever met, and holding on at all costs through peace and, if need be, through war until events, far hence, perhaps, shall compel, as they will, the fighting partnership of the w-hole Englishspeaking world.
By this Bill, in addition to a naval militia, provision is made for a naval college, a permanent force and its control. Of course the important features are the permanent force and its control. '
The Prime Minister, on the 15th November, speaking on this subject, said that we should look on this matter not alone as Canadians, but as British subjects. He said:
We are Canadians, but we are something else also, we are British subjects as well. We have to consider this subject, not only from the standpoint of our status as Canadians, but we have to approach it from the standpoint of our status as British subjects. If we have duties to perform as Canadians, we have also duties to perform as British subjects. If we have rights, privileges and responsibilities as Canadians, we also have rights, privileges and responsibilities as British subjects."
In another part of his speech he says: [DOT]I am for Canada first, last and all the

there. We had a personal interest, in many cases a family interest, in it. The war was ours because our own people were interested in it.
These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I intend to vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition. I take it that the statements that have been made with regard to the immense efforts that Germany is making, the feverish rapidity with which she is struggling to make herself the equal or the superior, if she can, of Great Britain on the seas, axe something that we must take to heart. The preparations of Germany, already a great colossus of military power, with a million of men under arms all the time, and four millions to call upon whenever she needs them-not raw recruits, but men who have passed through the landwehr or similar school of military training-are something that we should take to heart. It is a matter of as much interest to British subjects in Canada as to British subjects in Great Britain or to British subjects in Australia. I for one will never vote to haul down the Union Jack from this country. I will not vote for the passing of any Bill which can be turned into a declaration of independence or an Act of separation from the empire of which we form a part; but I stand for British connection, for a closer consolidation of the various portions of this empire, so that we may look forward to the realization in the future of that dream of which I have spoken already, when these great countries, and as they will be in time these populous countries, bound together by ties of interest and blood and affection and sentiment, shall become the greatest galaxy of nations in the world, able not only to protect ourselves from injury, but to uphold the peace of the world.


Mr. A. VEKVILLE (Maisonneuve).: (Translation).-Mr. Speaker, after listening to the numerous speeches which have been delivered in this House on the momentous question now occupying our minds and that of the people at large for the last few weeks; after witnessing the thrusts exchanged by hon. gentlemen, and listened to the ~ sharp words bandied from one side to the other; finding what precious hours were being taken up by that wordy warfare, I have come to the conclusion that in the interest of the country one should be as brief as possible. Accordingly, I shall take up only very little of the time of the House with the object of discussing this proposal from another viewpoint, one that has not been very much in evidence until now, I refer to the economical and social aspect of that important question.
So then, Mr. Speaker, in rising to take a hand in this important debate, I would like


John Waterhouse Daniel: to be endowed with as much courage and enthusiasm as was shown by the class I represent in its efforts towards securing national and social peace.
I shall take the liberty of speaking in the name of those 60,000 persons who were left derelicts, on the shores of the St Lawrence in the seventeenth century, as was so well stated by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), in his speech at the opening of the debate on this question. That community left single-handed, and with stores of courage and energy as their only means of defence, were abandoned by their then leaders, as we learn from history.
I speak in the name of those who, with a real spirit of sacrifice and abnegation have not ceased propagating the idea of and respect for just vindications in favour of national and social peace and freedom. I speak in the name of those 150,000 organized men who. are a powerful factor towards the buoyancy of our national finances. I speak in the name of 750,000 people who make up the families of those Canadian workingmen, and on their behalf, I say: Let us have peace. I speak on behalf of the people at large, and I pray the advisers of the nation to set the example of a peaceful community, without any thought of aggression, intent only on developing the resources of the country, on increasing its population, on making the most of its immense possibilities, in short, on applying their energy to promoting the happiness and the welfare of the inhabitants of our young and beautiful country.
In view of the coming celebration of the centenary of peace between Canada and the United States, in 1912, the termination of one of the happiest periods in our history, I entreat, the representatives of the people on this momentous occasion to pause and realize that our naval armaments will be a dangerous provocation in days to come. And lastly, I beseech the advisers of the nation to show respect for the principle advocated by modern democracy, with its millions of voices loudly protesting against the threatening armaments effected by civilized people.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in speaking thus, I lay myself open to the charge of being sentimental; but I notice that from the outset of this debate, appeals to sentiment have been more numerous than arguments bearimg on the proposal under consideration; so, I shall follow in the footsteps of those who have spoken before me.
I shall dwell on a few facts which I desire to submit to the House and to the country and, I shall take the liberty of stating my humble opinion as to the future of our nation, though in no wise posing as a prophet.
In a general way, hon. gentlemen have

concerned themselves with the dangers threatening us in a more or less distant future, as well as with our obligations towards the mother country and the commercial and business interests of the country. I conceive and the fact was apparent on more than one occasion, that private interests have sometimes exerted a decisive influence on the trend of our legislation; and large capitalists, with a view to protecting their own interests proclaimed loudly that we should in the first place safeguard our trade by providing a navy, and with that object in view a large expenditure is incurred, while at the same time our coasts are at great cost protected against attacks from outsiders. To that danger of invasion, the right hon. leader of the government referred as not at all immediate. On the other hand, the hon. leader of the opposition points to that danger as imminent and urgent enough to induce us to donate at once two Dreadnoughts to the empire. In the third place, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is desirous that the question should be submitted to a referendum. We are then called upoij to consider these various proposals and come to a conclusion in regard to them.
I regret to find, Mr. Speaker, that very few hon. gentlemen apparently realize the importance of the part played by the labouring people, in the settlement oi those great social and economic problems, and particularly this one. The labouring classes in this country as elsewhere make up the great majority of the people, and, to my, mind, they should have, if not a preponderating influence, at any rate, the right of voicing their opinion. Being the sole representative of labour in this House, I think it is incumbent upon me to speak on their behalf, and to advocate as far as possible the opinions and contentions specially dear to the labouring community. I shall endeavour, within the scope of my feeble attainments to acquit myself of that task, feeling that I am voicing the views of thousands of my fellow-citizens.
We are justly entitled to inquire who are the promoters of warfare. Surely, they cannot be the people who are sent out to fight and who, from that very fact, bring on misery to their families. Those who meet death on the battlefields are heroes, but through their death, women and children dependent on them are made miserable and exposed to the direst privations. The instigators of war are seldom, if ever, those who bear its burden or suffer from its disastrous results. In what class of citizens are soldiers recruited? Among the masses, among existence of hardships, and who give up their lives, mown down by unmerciful guns rather than remain the object of the perpetual scorn of the classes.
Numerous are the examples of wars
brought about through the ambition or selfishness of eminent people. Numerous rebellions have been provoked as a means of forwarding selfish objects. And who are the unconscious tools in those wholesale slaughters of human beings ? The destitute and the workingmen. So I am justified in saying that the views of labour, and espe-cally of organized labour, should be taken into account when questions of armament and of the establishment of navies are being considered. .
Who are those who bear for the greater part the hardships of war? Is it_ not a fact that the masses are mainly its victims? Is it not a fact, as history shows, that war in a great many cases is nothing else but downright robbery in the interests of the few and at the expense of many? Is not that fact demonstrated from day to day by our most eminent men?
Look at the steps which are taken in our times with a view to conciliating capital and labour, or bringng about harmony through the settlement of those far-reaching and terrible strikes, which after all are the outcome of the persistent rivalry of conflicting interests between individuals or classes. It is actual warfare under a new form, and not the least disastrous.
The settlement of those conflicts between capital and labour should occupy a greater place in the minds of persons in authoirty in all countries, and surely it is not by making preparations for war, by building warships, that we will succeed in humanizing the people and developing widespread ideas of peace, harmony and good-will.
Legislation in our country, in the United States, and I might add in most other countries bearing on the settlement of labour disputes through conciliation and arbitration, is evidence of the people's desire for peace, and goes to show that throughout the world it is within the ranks of democracy that this yearning for peace is mostly to be found. Should we engage in a policy^ of militarism, we may well expect agitation as a result among the masses in the near future and it would be unwise on the part of the government to close their ears to the protests which will be forthcoming from the people.	,	,
The time will come when we will be confronted with the enormous expenditure incident on militarism and when we will have to impose a tax on revenue. Then, the great financiers and captains of industry, the wealthy holders of the nation's resources, will be obliged to contribute their goodly share of the expenditure. Then, will loud protests and recriminations be heard. We all know what has been going on of late in England, and I refer to it as evidence of the truth of my contention. What did we see going on in the mother country, when the government in a spirit of fairness de-

rnanded a just and equitable contribution from those who in every part of the empire had called the people to arms? Indignant clamours will be forthcoming from those who in justice should pay their full quota towards the maintenance of these engines of war and destruction; but the least we can do is to recognize the right of the masses, who make up the bulk of the army, to say to the wealthy classes who are not represented in the rank and file: Pay your share of the expenditure required for defence purposes.
What has just occurred in England and what is occurring in other countries, will also happen very soon in this country, we may rest assured; and if ever we are under the necessity of imposing a tax on revenue m order to meet the cost of this undertaking, the welkin will ring with the protests against armament emanating from these wealthy men; in the very near future we will be the witnesses of the revolt of capital against militarism. .
Now, Sir, one of the reasons given in the course of this debate, in support of the measure, is that armaments are necessary in [DOT]order to maintain peace. The principle thus laid down seems dangerous to me: peaceful dispositions cannot be expected from a nation armed to the^ teeth. It is the same with nations as with individuals: citizens going about unarmed are not objects of fear. Their means of intercourse are reason and good will, while those who go about armed, are intent on violence and destruction. Fortunately, we find to-day that it is more difficult to enlist men than formerly, and that may be the reason why in our schools inducements are offered to the youth that they may take a liking to arms and warfare. Nevertheless, persons in authority and organizers of our militia corps know how difficult it is to recruit men, bloody warfare being repugnant to human nature m general and particularly so to the workingmen.
Why then should we incite our people to wage war? Would it not be better to educate the people and satisfy them as to the benefits of peace as compared with the horrors of war. This century is the century of peace, harmony and good will among civilized nations. Jealousy and envy are less rampant; hands are extended in brotherly friendship in a common endeavour to put a stop to those troublesome conflicts of individual and social life.
Now, what will be the outcome of that policy of militarism about which we are about to enter? Can it be reasonably expected that the proposed expenditure represents the maximum of the yearly outlay? An amount of $15,000,000 is laid down; to my mind, $25,000,000 would be closer to the mark. But the actual amount is not Mr. VERVILLE.
of great importance just now; a more serious matter is that of knowing exactly what will be done later on. We will go on increasing the navy, increasing the land forces; that will be deemed indispensable. And when we have reached the point when we are unable to spend any more, we will then be ready for the fray, and as soon as there arises some trouble in diplomatic intercourse, a matter readily brought about through the influence of one or several of the magnates of finance, we simply will have to fight in a great many cases. I need not dilate, Mr. Speaker, on the ill results of war, on the disasters they bring about, and which are known to all.
A weighty argument in favour of the present policy, in the eyes of the working classes, it is the prospect that these ships will be built in Canada and be the means of ensuring much employment to our people. Of course, we may be allowed to hope that Canadian workingmen will get employment in those great dockyards required for the building of those warships; but as a matter of fact, will it be so? Are we in a position to shut out foreign labour? Far from it, alien labour will be resorted to more than ever; skilled labour and even large numbers of unskilled workmen will be on hand, and as a result a lamentable condition of things will ensue; wherever one man is needed, ten will be offering, and thereby the army of unemployed far from diminishing will increase in numbers. And when we are through with that work, what will become of that army of workingmen thrown out of employment? It may be answered that they will take to farming, to various forms of industry, or enlist in the navy. Unfortunately, many will be constrained-to do so; and I am satisfied that the thought had already occurred to the advocates of armaments, that such a contingency will do away with, or at any rate postpone, conscription. It should also be well understood that a goodly proportion of these employed have no qualification whatever for the calling of the farmer; after engaging in an industrial calling, they will be unfit for agriculture. Some will object that these men may be available for the building of our railways. Alas, the number of workingmen is already quite sufficient, and the great corporations which have all the men they can employ, will have no pity on these poor unemployed vainly asking for work and left a burden on public charity. Such will be the mournful situation before our eyes.
Now, sir, I intend dealing with that question from another point of view, to which apparently very little attention has been given, although its interest is paramount: I refer to the economic value of each individual producer as a unit in the producing power of the nation as a whole.

It is a well known fact that nations entering on a policy or armament have to face on that account an ever increasing expenditure. That is a foregone conclusion, as from the very necessity of the case each nation strives to outstrip its neighbour in that respect. Such expenditure is not limited merely to the pay and maintenance of the forces on land and on sea; the cost of armament, plant, ships, &c., reaches a much higher figure and the employment of a great many more men is required in consequence.
It may be even reasonably expected that the army, the navy, the dockyards, workshops and manufacturies will soon, in a country such as ours, occupy about 180,000 men, that is to say about 25 per cent of our working class. Of course, that proportion will not be employed from the first; I a,in speaking of the time when .the system will be well established and in full swing. We all know that European countries have exceeded these averages, and that soldiers and sailors there number several thousand men. So that the figure given above, though approximate only cannot be considered excessive, and is probably a very conservative estimate.
In round figures, and taking the census of 1901 as a basis it may be said that on the average the workman earns $387.16 per year. For the 180,000 workmen required for militarist purposes, that would give a total of $70,000,000. Then, it should not be forgotten that these workingmen will be of a high class and that in consequence their salaries will be higher on the average If to this amount in the shape of salaries, is added the cost of maintenance -which is always heavy under government . control-it will be seen that the above amount should be doubled to say the least, and that even then the estimate would be on the low side. Of course, when attempting to figure out the loss inflicted by militarism the full salary of the workingmen should not be taken into account; but the difference between their normal earnings and the salaries paid by the State, should be debited. That difference will probably amount to twice the normal figure, if conditions prevalent on our continent hold good; it should not be less than abut $50,000.000, that is somewhat less than two-thirds of the normal salaries which give a total, as we have seen, of a little over $70,000,000 for 180,000 workingmen. That would mean $50,000,000 applied to unproductive work. That same census of 1901 showed that the total production of our workingmen amounted to $992,719,000, that is about $1,090 for each workingman.
Mr. Speaker, I have just roughly indicated the cost of militarism to the country once established on the lines proposed. Now, to be fair, and not to take undue advantage of the meaning of such figures the
very statement of which might at first sight cause anxiety to the most hardened consciences-I must admit that credit should be given, on the other hand, for amounts to the extent of which the various industries and trades in the country will be benefited through militarism I may be allowed to point out in what measure the country will, from the financial standpoint, profit through militarism.
In the first place, I allow $200 for board to each man, it being well understood that the state must provide the required food for the sustenance of the men, and that trade will profit thereby. In the same way for clothing, I allow $50 per man, maintenance, 50; heating and lodgings, $50; arms, $50; transportation, $50; management, $45; contingencies, $50, which makes up a total of $545 per head, that is one half of his value as a producer.
Now, that amount of $545, representing the expenditure entailed per year by each of these men as a unit in the forces, should be multiplied by 180,000, representing the number of men which militarism employs at unproductive tasks. The total expenditure on account of the men so employed amounts to $100,000,000, which should be deducted from the total of $200,000,000, leaving a net loss of $100,000,000 per year.
Then, Mr. Speaker, if we were to take into account the waste of ability and education to the detriment of productive callings, we will realize that the loss to the country under that head is difficult to estimate. Surely, if hon. members could have afforded to give some time to the study of the economical and social aspect of the question, I am satisfied that we would have listened in the course of this debate to many an expression of broad views favouring peace and condemning armaments.
Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on me to take a stand against all militarist proposals made in this House, satisfied as I am that, such a stand is the only means of liberating our generation from a state of slavery which is unjust, cruel and unworthy of modern civilization, and the only means also of promoting democratic ideas existing in the latent state among our people.
It was stated previously and justly so that we can have peace only in so far as democratic ideas are deeply rooted in the public mind, and I take this occasion to enter protest against militarism on behalf of modern democracy. However, as far as I am personally concerned, as between the two proposals submitted to this House, apart from the referendum, I believe our Canadian workingmen would object more strenuously to the granting to the empire of the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts than to the providing of a navy strictly and sincerely Canadian in character.

I must say besides, that organized labour in Europe and America have solemnly resolved never to fight one against the other for the protection of private interests, and it is that resolve that causes anxiety to governments and makes them fear that the day has come when free and independent men will refuse to murder their brethren, will consider it a crime to be- the accomplices of those who favour war between men through motives of jealousy, of hatred, of vengeance, or for the upholding of private interests.
The hour may not be far distant when the people, the genuine people, borne down by too heavy burdens, harassed by the hardships and the misery of every-day life rendered more and more difficult to bear, will refuse to assume the enormous burden of militarism, and will cry out in powerful tones: 'Non serviam.' And then where will we find soldiers? I shall leave the answer to those who are more particularly entrusted with the care of studying and solving social problems. That cry may seem revolutionary, and no doubt organized labour will be accused of being disloyal to His Majesty. But, in our opinion, the loyal subject is the man who keeps peace with his fellow-citizens, who observes the golden rule, and works towards ensuring the general prosperity of the country. The loyal subjects who have fallen on the . battlefield have left us noble example, and their names will live in history. During their lifetime, they have contributed to the wealth and welfare of the nation, and being desirous of following in their footsteps, workingmen for that purpose request that militarism be done away with.
_ In so doing they have still another object in view, the very thought of which is distasteful to me; so I shall be content with mentioning that militarism is in many cases and in many countries a very active factor of immorality and degradation. I shall only refer in passing to the misfortunes and shame inflicted on families under circumstances when soldiers judge that everything is allowable to them.
I may say in closing that I could not help being aggrieved at hearing hon. members cast aspersions on the French nationality to which I am proud to belong. Accordingly I feel bound to protest with all the energy that is in me on behalf of my constituents against such insults.
I am happy to proclaim highly that my constituents of various nationalities and religious beliefs have nevertheless enough liberality in their ideas to understand that we are one same people under the same flag, and free from all racial or class prejudices. They certainly will be surprised and aggrieved on learning in what narrow and mean disposition that debate was carried on in this House.


Alphonse Verville: The French Canadian, on account of his numerous and brilliant qualities, is surely entitled to the respect and esteem of his fellow-citizens of different origin; and it is regrettable, to say the least, to find that men occupying a seat in this House take every opportunity of casting aspersions on the French Canadian name.
Mr. Speaker, I love my fellow-people above all and I know that this same love of country and of our institutions is deeply engraved in the hearts of the workingmen I represent; but at the same time, we have a great respect for the British flag which protect us. What we wish for as French Canadians, it is equal rights with our English-speaking fellow-citizens and the respect if [DOT] not the esteem to which as fine and strong a race as ours is entitled. True, as a workingman, the whole world is my home, for labour is required everywhere, finds refuge and protection under all flags.
Therefore, I shall vote with all my heart against any military proposal which will come before this House, and with the full persuasion that I am fulfilling my conscientious duty as a representative of the working classes. But being the representative of an important constituency made up of all classes of society, and having heretofore spoken on behalf of my fellow-people who make up the great labour organization, I shall now give an opportunity to those outside of that organization of expressing their views; and consequently, I shall close^by stating that I will vote in favour of the sub-amendment-.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin).: This question, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important that has ever come before the people. What strikes me as very inconsistent on the part of the hon. members on the government side is that while they insist on telling us that there is not the slightest danger of any nation going to war with Great Britain, still they want to put this young country to the enormous expense of building a navy. The reason why I rise to oppose their policy is that I believe it is the first step towards separation. In the first place the cost to be incurred will be enormous, and then the navy, when built, will be of no use in time of war, and we certainly shall not need it in time of peace. If I could go east to the rising sun and west to the setting sun, north to the north pole, and south pole, I believe it would be almost impossible to get the opinion of any man which has not been already expressed in this House at least a dozen times; and in almost every case, the opinion would be that Germany was preparing to go to war with Great Britain. That is another reason why I want to oppose the Bill of the right hon. the Prime Minister; and the reason why I intend sunnorting the amendment of my hon. friend the

leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is that I believe in the imminence of that danger, and that we should help Great Britain in time of war. From nearly every hon. member opposite, we have heard that there is no danger of war, but that is an opinion which is not concurred in by Englishmen of prominence. The majority of English authorities believe that war between Great Britain and Germany is imminent, and that opinion is largely shared by Frenchmen. Already the greatest military power in the world, and having no proportionate commercial interests on the ocean, and no extensive and important colonies demanding overpowering naval strength, Germany is building a navy which, it is her avowed intention shall equal-i. e. excel-the British navy; and this, in the face of a long standing explicit warning that Great Britain shall regard any challenge of her command of the seas as a menace. And if the storm breaks, and when it breaks, we shall, nolens volens, be within the disturbed area. Every hon. member of this House believes that Germany is building a powerful navy.
We cannot maintain British connection and stand aloof from Europe. Nor can we turn Turk and run at the first note of the bugle and thereby escape the consequences of the war! What says history? In 1775 Canada was attacked. Why? Because England was at war with her New England colonies. In 1812 Canada was attacked. Why? Because England and France had offended the United States by issuing the Berlin Decrees, and the Americans struck a blow at England by invading Canada.
What then? Shall we surrender our connection with the mother country, and take independent rank among the lesser powers? That will avail nothing! The weaker powers are under the aegis of the greater, and exist on their sufferance! Practically it would mean transferring our allegiance from the mother to a stranger! And would the stranger's hand lie lighter than the mother's? Weakness has never saved a nation from attack. Civilization has not reached that point where it is counted immoral for a strong nation to attack a weak! In the wars that have occurred between two white peoples, in the last quarter of a century, the inequality in the strength of the combatants has been enormous. There is no comer of the world so remote that we could retire thither, live at peace, and escape the notice of the spoiler!
In dealing with the main question, ' Shall Canada possess a fleet?' Let us note, first, that Canada u young, and in her growing time-that all her energies, all her resources, all her wealth of men and money, are needed in laying her foundations secure and well, and building up her nationality. She needs railways and canals, and docks and harbours-she has to secure settlers for her unoccupied territory and build roads for the pioneers! To make surveys and prepare maps of her lands, and charts of her water-courses; to light her coasts and streams, and make them safe for her merchantmen; to draw closer together the outlying boundaries of her scattered population, by an efficient and frequent mail service; to open up new markets and avenues of trade; and to commission swift ships to carry her commerce and correspondence across the seas. She must provide the means for carrying on the work of government, and for carrying out government undertakings. She must build and endow colleges and universities, hospitals and asylums, and provide for the destitute and maimed; she must administer justice, redress wrongs, relieve the oppressed and punish the evil doers, to the uttermost ends of her Dominion. She must care for and support the native race whose heritage she has usurped. She must protect her people from pestilence and the ravages of infectious diseases attacking man, and beast, and tree.
Farther; It is of the gravest importance to Canada that Great Britain should maintain her ascendancy at sea. We would emphasize the fact, that we have but one market for our agricultural produce-our most valuable exports. Close it, and our farmers become impoverished, our whole industrial system paralyzed. We know too well that the United States, in the arranging and adjusting of her tariff, has ever done so to our annoyance and loss. We know that no other country than Britain stands for an open door and equality in trading in her home markets, in the markets of her dependencies, as well as in the markets of the world, and that no other country requires so much of what we have to sell. All oui interests centre in the conservation of the British markets. In 1908 our exports by sea were $156,000,000, by land (United States) $90,000,000. Apart altogether from any feeling of loyalty, or gratitude, we are compelled in our struggle for existence, to keep open the British markets for our produce. Let us ever bear in mind that what we do to aid Britain, we do primarily for ourselves; and if, in our endeavour to secure buoyancy fox our own life-boat, we aid Great Britain in breasting the storm, we are none the poorer. We have but to contemplate for a moment the condition of affairs if Great Britain were defeated, and, assuming the impossible, that we survived. Where could we place our wheat, our beef, and our dairy produce? We well remember how our markets were paralyzed, in so far as they were affected by the McKinley tariff-and how prices fell to the vanishing point before we secured a footing in England, and that because of an increased duty on a few minor commodities.

This is the situation that faces the people of Canada to-day, and recognizing its importance, and importance which may at any moment become very acute.
And here, I think, will be found the key to the position. Canada cannot hope to be able to engage, successfully, in a naval contest with any first-class power that is likely to attack her. She has not the men; she has not the money. She cannot build battleships, ton for ton, with the United States or Japan, or any of the greater European powers. And so far as the United States is concerned she can never hope to overtake her, either in population or wealth; or to excel her in the skill and energy of her citizens. And, if a quarrel is put upon her by her greater neighbour, which can only be settled by the arbitrament of war, whether the attack be by sea or land, the result can at no time be in doubt. Should that unfortunate event ever occur, we may rest assured that the whole power of Greater Britain will be sent to our assistance; and that we shall not be vanquished while a gun and a man remain under the British flag.
I believe, Sir, that the government should not assume such a large expenditure without first submitting it to the people in some way.
The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that this proposed navy will cost the people of Canada $15,000,000, and the annual maintenance will be about $3,000,000, and that it will not be of much use in case of war for at least five years; $3,000,000 a year for five years will be $15,000,000, and the initial cost of $15,000,000 will be $30,000,000. And if the cost increases the way it has since the 12th of January until the hon. Minister of Militia spoke a few days ago, and the way the expenditure on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the Quebec bridge increases, at the end of five years the people would have to pay between one and two hundred million dollars.
I believe that the farmers of Canada are willing to aid Great Britain in time of war. And our best way is to send either a money contribution, or Dreadnoughts. The farmers of Canada pay fully two-thirds of the taxation of this country. Last year, about $1,000,000 was spent in agriculture. I claim, Sir, that the government should try to build our canals and make railways so that farm produce would reach the consumer as quickly and as cheaply as possible. I have been taught from my youth that we are British subjects. I have always believed that a man was free while he was on British soil so long as he obeyed the law. Imagine my surprise when, a few days ago, I heard the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) throw it as a taunt across the floor of this House that we on this side were thinking for our-


John Best: selves. Sir, we think for ourselves and speak for ourselves. I am glad to know that I belong to a party that dares to express its own opinions. If ever I was proud it was to have this assurance from a member on the government side that the party to which I belong was a party of independence of thought and speech. I hope the day will never come when the members of any party in this country will be afraid to speak for themselves. We are British subjects. We love the land of our birth, and the great empire of which we form a part; and I hope the day will never come when that great empire on which the sun never sets will be dismembered or divided.


Mr. M. J. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation). The present debate, Mr. Speaker, is one of the very greatest moment and to few questions has the House given greater attention. This is not because the subject of the debate is a new or an unexpected one; it is indeed nothing more than a normal step in that evolution which confederation has prepared. Canada, conscious of her power and of her obligations and gradually taking her place among the nations of the world, must continue to complete that national organization becoming the position she claims as a nation within the British empire.
The fathers of confederation, whose patriotic wisdom is conceded, understood that the bright future of Canada depended upon the union of the provinces under a central government; divided they could never have been properly organized and would not have developed sufficient strength to secure respect. An undefended country would be in the position of a private owner in a land without courts or officers of justice, and it is needless to say that no nation was ever held to be of any account without the "possession of adequate defences by land and sea. Modern improvements and discoveries have so far failed to reveal any other means of attaining the noble aims of nationhood.
That the creation of a navy as well as of an army formed part of the scheme of confederation cannot be more clearly established than by the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier in 1864, speaking at the time as the leader of the Conservative party, to the people of St. John, N.B. This is what he said in explanation of the advantages and of the necessity of confederation:
Another consideration of the highest importance is that of the defence of the country. In our present condition one province cannot claim the assistance of another in case of attack, but with confederation we shall have an army of 200,000 men, a navy of 60,000 men and we will be in such a position that England will be much better disposed to help us than if we depended upon her alone. IVe should do our best to explain these matters to the people.

On the same day, 14th September, 1864,
' La Minerve,' the Conservative organ in Montreal, printed the following:
With a federal government the central power might dispose of powerful armies and fleets and develop imposing strength in dealing with foreign nations. The government and the nation thus protected would he sure of being respected.
And further on:
It will thus be seen that the object of the federal system is to conciliate the outward strength of a great nation with that respect and care for private interests which under governments embracing too extended a sphere can scarcely be secured.
The same idea was present in the mind of Cartier when at the military camp at Niagara on the 17th June, 1871, he spoke as follows:
A nation can never expect to become great if it is not in a position to resist the enemies who may threaten its existence. The imperial government has been blamed for so promp-ly withdrawing the regular troops from Canada. What ever may be our views on that point, it should not prevent the government and the people of Canada from organizing and maintaining, according to the means and resources of the country, a sufficient military force to secure respect.
If half a century ago the leader of the Conservative party recognized the necessity of a naval force of 60,000 men, how much more urgent must it be to-day to organize a small nucleous of 3,000 or 4,000 men? After the arguments advanced by the champions of confederation in support of the idea of a central government, after the provisions contained in the British North America Act concerning a Canadian navy, similar in all essentials to that creating the land militia, after the revision of the Militia and Defence Acts of 1883, incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1886, providing for the establishment and the maintenance of a Canadian naval service, it is by no means fitting to speak of the present measure as ' A new departure,' or a * turning point in our history.'
At the imperial conference of 1902, the Canadian representatives rejected the idea of a contribution in money to be made by all the self-governing colonies of the empire towards the maintenance of the army and navy, and they expressed their views in a document from which I will read the following extract:
At present Canadian expenditure for defence service are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval side of defence as well. On the sea coasts of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to
the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
In conclusion, the ministers repeat that, while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purpose of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures shall be so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which he now bears; and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of experienced imperial officers, so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self-government, which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.
This clear and definite attitude on the part of our representatives stating that although we were not disposed to contribute sums of money towards the maintenance of the imperial army and navy, we were none the less ready to establish a navy of our own, was approved of throughout the country and the delegates on their return to Canada were, as we all know, received with distinguished marks of approval. Then came the elections of 1904 and the government's policy as defined by their representatives in 1902, was ratified by a majority of the citizens of the country. There could be no doubt as to the trend of Canadian public feeling at that time, nor is there any reason to believe that it has altered since.
Afterwards came the conference of 1907, where the same principles were laid down but with greater precision, and once more the people of Canada manifested their unequivocal approval of the conduct of their representatives, not only by the manner of their greeting them on their return, but also, as in 1904, by granting them renewed confidence at the election of 1908.
What has happened since which might cause us to swerve from the line of conduct followed on these different occasions?
The resolution of the 29th March, 1909, adopted unanimously by this House, was a complete endorsation of the stand, taken by our representatives in England in 1902 and 1907. The third paragraph of the resolution reads as follows:
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-ooeration with and in close relation ot the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential of the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
Sir, the importance and exceptional nature of the present debate is the result of

the stand taken by the majority of hon. members to out left and their present predicament shows us to what extremities the partisan spirit may lead.
It is hard to believe our ears when we hear to-day the hon. leader of the opposition, who was one of the framers of the resolution of the 29th March, 1909, and the hon. members of the opposition, who were unanimous in their approval of it.
What else has been done, what else is now proposed, but to implement that resolution of the 29th March? What was unanimously decided has been faithfully carried out, but it is apparently considered wholesome and proper to oppose every government measure, and the hon. members of the oposition refuse to be bound by their former consent. That is the only reason- and it is a verv bad one-for their present oposition to the government Bill.
It is quite reasonable to debate upon details of the Bill, but it appears to me unreasonable and even ridiculous to question its principle after its unanimous endor-sation by the whole House. It will be difficult to persuade the public that such an attitude can be sincere.
There are in this country many different opinions on the question of the navy-many of which are sincere and respectable, but others inspired by less patriotic feelings and which scarcelv can be prompted by the national interests. There are people in the province of Quebec who, whenever matters of an imperial nature arise seem inclined to decide them as if the province of Quebec was the whole of Canada, as if we were still living under the gloom of 1837, when the bureaucracy and the family compact did everything to persecute, humiliate and exploit French Canadians. They never stop to reflect that circumstances have completely changed and that we are now enjoying peace and justice in the land of freedom ' par excellence,' under the shadow of the British flag, which protects those liberties; yet even those who refuse to defend that flag would dread to see it disappear. Such people would, none the less, declare: 'We are loyal,' as if their lip loyalty were of any avail, when every sacrifice for the navy or the very idea of defence is refused.
Some of those who hold such opinions or who at least profess to hold them, are influenced purely and simply by political considerations; they are by no means convinced, but they desire to pander to a feeling which they think they discern in the province of Quebec; they are most fortunately mistaken as to the sound and judicious opinions prevailing among the masses of the Quebec population, who have time and again shown their desire to live in peace and harmony with the other portions of the country and their readiness to assume uncomplainingly their fair propor-


Marie Joseph Demers: tion of the national duties and obligations.
As for those who, desiring to avoid any direct contribution, are asking for a plebiscite what is their position? Is it a reasonable or a rational one? Can any man havinc listened and observed hesitate as to the sentiment which existed in the country previous to the resolution of the 29th March, 1909? It is to that period that we must go back if we would understand the inconsistency of those who, being opposed to a direct contribution, desire an .appeal to the people. That resolution of the 29th March, 1909, had the useful result of modifying public opinion by reminding the citizens of this country that Canada is a self-governing nation. Is it not true that the great majority of the country before that time favoured a direct contribution that the great majority of the people of this country, swayed by sentiment rather than by sound common sense, would have desired to offer Dreadnoughts, &c. A plebiscite would then have meant neither more nor less than a direct contribution, and as I would be ready to admit the apparent logic of a request for a plebiscite on the part of ..those who favour a direct contribution, but not, however, an appeal to the people, being apparently so sure of public opinion that they desire to impose it immediately; so also do I deny to the opponents of direct contribution the right of complaining that the government has not acceded to their request which is ridiculous when the inevitable result is considered. I am convinced that a large number of those who are clamouring for a plebiscite are doing so because they are convinced that the thing is impossible after the resolution of the 29th March, 1909.
Mr. Speaker, when I consider the consequences of a plebiscite, the popular passions and the racial hatreds it would let loose, I look upon it with the utmost alarm, and I would consider such a measure a crime. And at this point, I have a word to say to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has not taken in this debate a position consistent with his avowed principles. He is asking for a plebiscite. Would he respect the verdict thus rendered? I do not think so. The hon. member has seen fit in the course of his speech of the February 3, 1910, to go over the details of the Manitoba school question and of the Alberta and Saskatchewan questions. Now, we have had plebiscites, and very important ones, on these questions at the elections held in 1900, 1904 and 1908. Does the hon. member respect these expressions of public opinion and submit to the popular verdict? What security does he offer that he would respect it better in the present case, and where is his title to pose as a champion of the rights of the people as expressed by plebiscites?


Richard Blain: Will the naval debate go on to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 1, 1910.