1910-03-09

EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMEMDMENT.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 159) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I am not able to state with exactness the provisions of this Bill as I have not seen a copy of it, but I understand that the shape in which it finally passed the Senate was an extension of the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court to include the case of accidents which may happen not merely upon the line of government railways, but, speaking generally, in consequence of the operation of such railways. That is the scope of the enactment as it is now presented to this House.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 163) to amend the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Explain.
Mr. OLIVER.: The purpose of the Bill is to extend the time during which the scrip issued under the Volunteer Bounty Act may be located from the end of the year 1910 to the end of the year 1911. There are two minor amendments which do not affect the principle of the Bill, and which can be explained fully in committee.


Mr. HUGHES.: Does this extension apply to scrip that is already sold and in the

hands of speculators, or does it apply only to scrip in the hands of volunteers?


Frank Oliver: There is no distinction in the original Act between scrip that is in the hands of volunteers and scrip that is in the hands of speculators, and neither is there any distinction in the amendment to the Act.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out to the minister what he very well knows1 that owing to the very short time that was given a great many of these volunteers to locate their land they found it absolutely impossible to do so. This war was brought to a close in 1902. Year after year this matter was brought to the attention of the government, and year after year we were met with the statement that the government had not decided whether they would retain control of the northwest lands or hand them over to the provinces. Finally, in 1905, the government decided to retain control of these lands, the matter was pressed on their attention again, and it took us three years to get this scrip issued. Meantime, the volunteers had lost heart, they had no notion that they were likely to get this scrip, and when at last the minister did justice in the case, or a certain degree of justice, and decided to issue this scrip, the announcement came upon the volunteers so suddenly that, not having saved up their money, they were not in a position to go out and take up their homesteads. I know many volunteers who, if they had had any notion that they were going to get even one year's extension, would not have sold their scrip. The matter was taken up by a number of speculators!, gentlemen who are well known to us, and some of whom are not more than a thousand miles away from this House, they have secured this scrip practically for a song, for a dollar or a dollar and a half per acre, and they retailed it, in many instances, at two and three times what it cost them. I maintain that it is unfair to the volunteer who sold his scrip under the conditions laid down by the old Act that the speculator, who secured that scrip, should have the right to this extension. He will only stand in the way of the honest volunteer who wants to secure a homestead. I maintain that this extension should only be given with respect to scrip already issued to bona fide volunteers who wish to settle on the land themselves. Had they been given the right to take this scrip in 1902, and had they been allowed until 1911 to settle on the land, 95 per cent of the volunteers would have gone upon the land. Had they known that they would have six ur eight years to get ready for settlement upon the land they would have gone upon the land, and would to-day as farmers be assisting in the up-building of the Northwest. As it is the
scrip has largely fallen into the hands of speculators, and I very much fear that the result of one year's extension-I certainly would have preferred two years-will be to cause this scrip still further to fall into the hands of speculators.


Mr. MACDONELL.: I would like to ask the minister whether the class of persons to be benefited by volunteer scrip is to be extended to others. The Imperial South African Volunteer Association, I understand, have applied for a grant. Is it the intention of the government to extend this grant to those persons or to any others who served during the war?


Frank Oliver: As I have already explained, the Bill simply provides for an extension of time during which the scrip which was provided for under the Act of 1908 may be located. That is the only important provision of the Bill. It does not provide for any extension of the principles of the Act of' 1908, or give the benefit of the Act to any other persons than those provided for in the Act of 1908.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I understand that one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House introduced a motion or a Bill into the House permitting volunteers who had taken up their land and found the land worthless to exchange it for better land elsewhere. I would like to ask the minister if this Bill covers the point, and if it is the intention to grant such a privilege. I understand that quite a number of the volunteers went to the Northwest in good faith to locate their land. They had very little money, and less time. Immediately they landed there they were in the hands of men who were interested in townsites, and land corporations, and they were led off into desert country, in some cases thirty and forty miles away from the railway, and were induced to locate on this land in order to increase the value of other land held by these corporations. After locating, they discovered that their land was of very little use, and in addition that it would be perhaps years before they would be in a position to take advantage of the market being so far away from the railway. One of the hon. members from the west introduced a measure to correct that, and to permit them to exchange their homesteads for other lands more suitable to their purpose. I would like to know if the minister has included a provision in the Bill to meet cases of that kind.


Frank Oliver: Again I have to say that on the introduction of the Bill I stated its provisions. The Bill does not make any provision for the case which my hon. friend has mentioned.


John Allister Currie: Will there be another Bill introduced that will?

500C


Frank Oliver: I cannot answer that, but I presume there will not.


Mr. HERRON.: I am sorry to hear the minister state that there are not going to be any extensions or privileges granted to others than those already mentioned in the old Act. In my opinion, Sir, there should be included in the bounty Act the men who enlisted and started on the journey to South Africa, but who met with misfortune of some kind on the way and had to be invalided. I think these invalided men have just as good a right to the privileges as those who went forward and served in the war.


Samuel Hughes: Once they were enlisted.


John Herron: Yes, I refer to the enlisted men. If there are any changes made in the Act these men should be included in it.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I am very anxious to see this Bill get before the House for the simple reason that I have already introduced a Bill providing that a volunteer or his substitute who had located a warrant on poor land should be able to exchange it. Owing to the position of my Bill on the order paper I have no hope of its being reached this session, but I expect to be able to submit my proposal to the House in the form of an amendment to the Bill which the minister has now introduced. There are only a limited number of men interested in this, but it is a matter of very great importance to each of them, and I hope nothing will happen to interfere with this Bill being submitted to the House so that I may endeavour to incorporate the provisions 6f my Bill in it.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: The civil surgeons who went to South Africa and participated in the war and went through all the hardships of the campaign, are deserving of recognition from Canada, and yet they have been denrived of the privileges given to the South African veterans. This matter has been drawn to the attention of the Minister of the Interior on a number of occasions, but so far he has refused to include civil surgeons in this legislation. No more deserving class participated in that campaign, and I would urge that the minister should recognize their services under this Bill.


Mr. COWAN.: I endorse what the last speaker has said with regard to the civil surgeons who served in South Africa. What I rise specially for is to ask the Minister of the Interior whether those men who are entitled to land under the Act will be allowed to enter for lands in the Dominion railway belt in British Columbia. I understood the minister to say last year that this would be done, and I wish to know if he has provided for it in this Bill. I Mr. 3. A. CURRIE.
would also ask the minister whether he considers that men who enlisted and who after the war domiciled in Canada are not almost equally entitled with those who were domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment. I understood the minister to say last session that one object of the Bill was to reward service in the field, and the other object was to secure desirable settlers, and if the Bill has that double purpose I would ask the minister to say whether or not he has considered the claim upon the Dominion of those who were not domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment, but who became domiciled in Canada after the war. They, like the others, served their country, and they, like the others, would make desirable settlers.


Frank Oliver: Again I have to say that the Bill contains only one provision of im-nortance, and that provision extends the time during which the holders of scrip may locate upon lands in the prairie provinces.


Samuel Hughes: But the minister is open to conversion with regard to these other matters.


Frank Oliver: When the Bill gets into committee that will be the proper time to discuss all these and other suggestions. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Cowan) that I promised that provision would be made for the location of these grants within the railway belt, I may say that I have no authority to make such a promise. The limitations of the Act as it passed parliament did not permit of that privilege, and the Bill now before parliament does not in its present form provide for it.


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


Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	During the time the Hon. Clifford Sifton was Minister of Interior, what was the total acreage of coal lands alienated from the Crown ?
2.	What was the total acreage of timber lands for which licenses and permits were issued, and what is the total acreage of land sold ?
3.	During the time Hon. Frank Oliver has been Minister of Interior, what was the total acreage of coal lands alienated from the Crown ?
4.	What was the total acreage of timber lands for which licenses and permits were issued ?
5.	What has been the total acreage of lands sold, exclusive of pre-emption?


Frank Oliver: Stand.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I would like some explanation of this 'standing business. Is it

to stand for ever or only for a uay. I have allowed it to stand for ten or twelve days, and I would like to know when I will get an answer.


Frank Oliver: There is a very great deal of labour involved in preparing an answer to this question. As soon as the question was asked, measures were taken to have the answer prepared, and I hope to be able to answer my hon. friend at an early date.


Glenlyon Campbell: That is all I want to know.


Frank Oliver: I suppose it is obvious, even to mv hon. friend, that it is one thing to ask a question and quite another thing to answer it.


Mr. LENNOX.: No doubt about that.


SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES.
Mr. BEST:: 1.	What are the names of the sessional and
temporary employees of the House of Commons who were under pay on the 27th January last ?	_
2.	What is the number of the said employees stated in the estimates of 1909-10?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Stands as notice of motion for a return.



BANK DEPOSITS.

Mr. BURRELL:: What was the amount of money on deposit in 1909 in the Post Office Savings Bank, and in the other hanking institutions of Canada?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: On December 31, 1909, the amount of such deposits were as follows:
Post Office Savings Bank.. ..$43,081,033 76 Dominion Government Savings
Bank	 14,288,396	35
Quebec Savings Banks (two)-
Government	
104,541	86Special	
263,000	00Public	
30,925,654	56
Chartered Banks-
Government [DOT] * [DOT] [DOT] $ 32,796,940
Demand	 261,268,387
Time	 499,082,024
Elsewhere than in
Canada	 75,088,499

 868,235,850	00



$956,898,476 53 COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AT BURLINGTON.

Mr. LAKE:: 1.	Is the government aware that thB collector of customs at the outpost of Burlington, Ont., is said to he also engaged in keeping a licensed hotel in the village of Burlington ?
2.	Does the government approve of its customs officers being employed in a commercial business while holding his office as collector?
3. Is it the intention of the government to ask for the resignation of this officer if he is found to be running a hotel?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	The officer employed as acting subcollector of customs at Burlington is not engaged in keeping a licensed hotel in the vil'age of Burlington.
2.	The government, as a general rule, does not approve of a customs officer being employed in commercial business while holding the office of collector.



CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM.

Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: 1.	What is the number of horses on the experimental farm . at Ottawa ?
2.	How many of them are geldings?
3.	What is the number of acres under cultivation on the farm ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: 1.	18.
2.	13.
3.	400.



W. R. BARGE, ROSEDALE, B.C.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	With respect to the application of W.
R. Barge, of Rosedale, B.C., dealt with in the Interior Department, correspondence file No. 264,921, May 29, 1909, on what date were the licensees therein referred to notified to the effect that they must remove the merchantable timber on this land within two years from date?	.
2.	Has any extension of time been applied for? If so, what answer has been made?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	May 19, 1909.
2.	The licensees of berths A and 61, in which the lands referred to are situated, have made application to be granted four years within which to remove the timber on the berths, but no special reference is made to the lands in which Mr. Barge is interested. No answer has, as yet, been sent.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. WILLIAM W. RUTAN.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I notice that I am reported in the newspaper ' Le Canada ' of March 9 as having made a speech in this House yesterday on the navy question, and as having announced myself opposed to the government policy. This must be a typographical error, and I am sorry that it occurred, and I am sure that the gentleman whose name should appear instead of mine will feel equally sorry. As this article is in French, I am unable to read it, but I wish to say that I have not yet made a speech on the navy question, nor had I intended to do so; for I had thought that the matter was tho-

roughly threshed out by men as competent as I am, and perhaps more so. At this point I will only say that I am thoroughly in accord with the government policy. I believe it to be the only policy to be pursued in this young country of ours, to maintain unity amongst all the nationalities that we have in the country, and those that are coming to the country.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The navy question is not before the Chair.


William Windfield Rutan: I am perfectly willing to leave it at that.



PORT ARTHUR DRY-DOCK.

Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is true, as announced in the press, that subsidies have been granted for the construction of a dry-dock at Port Arthur, and if so, when it was granted.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It is quite true that the government has decided to grant aid under the Subsidy Act for a dry-dock at Port Arthur. That decision was arrived at a few days ago.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will the hon. minister state when the papers relating to that matter will be brought down, for which an order of the House wa3 issued in November last?


William Pugsley: I was under the impression that they had been brought down, but I will make inquiry, and if they have not, I will endeavour to have them brought down in a day or two.



ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS TREATY.

Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had any word yet as to the ratification by the United States Senate of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States in regard to the adjudication of claims.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will make a note of it.



THE NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed 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.
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland).: Mr. Speaker, I think any Ron. member who has had the privilege of being present here during the past two weeks must have realized that if the country is not tired with the discussion of this navy question, the House is absolutely and wholly tired out with it. Last night I made


William Windfield Rutan: a good resolution, which I hope I may be able to carry out to the full, that was, that if my remarks had any virtue at all, it would be particularly in the line of brevity. In aproaching the consideration of so great a question as that involved in the motion, and the amendments thereto now under discussion, fraught as it is with 3ueh vast possibilities to the future history and destiny of Canada, I do so with a good deal of timidity, and trepidity as well. Having listened carefully to the debate, and having read the speeches when I have not been permitted to hear them, I am conscious that in many respects I do not concur either in the amendment to the amendment, or in the amendment, and that I am not wholly in accord with the original motion itself. Although I think I can fairly say that I am not wholly discordant with the principles and spirit which that notion breathes, but am wholly out of tune with the propositions involved in the amendment to the amendment, and the amendment to the motion. So emphatic is this realization that I begin to be impressed with the conviction that I shall be obliged, like Lobd Dundreary's peacock, to flock all by myself alone. For thirty-five years and upwards I have been an active adherent of the Liberal party, I am so today, and I believe that I shall be to the moment of drawing my latest breath. For thirty-five years I have served that party, and I hope that a few years more at least will be permitted me to continue that service. One of the reasons why I have been associated with the Liberal party, 'and why I hope to be continued with it, is the liberty of conscience that is given to every individual member of the party. That has been the history of the party in the past, and the moment that it deviates from that course, it will have ceased to be a Liberal party.
Now, Sir, I am making these remarks for a very good reason. I have said that I am not in perfect accord with the Bill which is involved in the original motion, and I hope before I take my seat to explain wherein that is the case. It is not pleasant for one who has been a great many years a follower of that party to find himself unable to see eye to eye with it, yet there are occasions in the life of every public man when his convictions must not be suppressed, when they should not be submerged, and I simply propose to state before this House and the country the views which I hold on this great question. I have said that it involves the future destiny and history of this Dominion. I go further and say that it involves the present conditions under which we are living. I go still further and say that it is a momentous question, involving almost every condition of public service, and every idea with respect to the course and

administration of government. Holding that view it is but fair that, since I cannot accept all that those with whom I have been associated desire to have adopted, I should explain my position, not only to my friends, but to the House and to the country at large. I have the greatest confidence in the leaders of the Liberal party, and I regret that I have not, perhaps, the same confidence in my own judgment. I may be absolutely and entirely wrong, but I am bound to be true to my own convictions, regardless whether my judgment be good or the reverse. The convictions I hold are honest and sincere, and as such I must stand by them.
No one listening to this debate could fail to be impressed with two prominent features which have characterized it. First, the desire of those who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate the glorious inconsistency and variableness of those who sit on your left; and I am bound to say that the attempt has been crowned with a measure of success, somewhat startling, if not wholly edifying and comforting to the people of Canada. The second feature is the determined effort of those who sit on your left, Sir, to prove to the world at large that those who sit on your right are absolutely enemies of the empire, traitors to His Majesty the King, his crown and realm and# person, and to the flag which heretofore, in our enthusiasm, we have been proud to say has braved the battle and the breeze throughout the lifetime of the British nation. All this is an edifying spectacle indeed. As regards the effort to prove inconsistency, even if inconsistency be proved up to the hilt, and out of the very mouths of the offenders, is it really germane to the problem we are attempting to solve by the agency of this Bill? True it may not be flattering to this country to have it shown that the leaders of a great party, bent on securing the reins of government, are simply playing the role of opportunists, and are as variable and mercurial as an April day, regardless of the country's peril or the people's interest. But that question is one which the party leaders will have to settle with their followers and the country at a later day. Such a spectacle presented in this day and generation may tend to shake public confidence in the men who essay to govern and thereby become the guardians of the political and national conscience of Canada, but it does not greatly illumine the subject to be dealt with. Of one thing it does convince us, and that is that there is room in Canada for a Canadian James Russell Lowell, and a Canadian Hosea Bigelow to illustrate the characteristics of our political conditions at this time.
The other attempt which has been made has been to show that those who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, are disloyal. That is a very old cry. It is one with which we
are all familiar, and is certainly not one upon which I should claim the attention of this House at any length. I have heard that cry from the very beginning of my knowledge of political affairs. I have heard it raised against the Liberal party. In my boyhood days, particularly after the struggle for responsible government in Nova Scotia, I heard that great statesman, Joseph Howe, denounced as disloyal, and as an innovator, not true to his King and country, because he contended for a larger measure of freedom and political control in the affairs of the country in which he lived. This cry has always been the answer to those who were pleading for an enlargement of the people's rights. When there is nothing else to be said against any one or against any political party, the attempt is made to prove disloyalty. Now, while I hold the views I do with respect to this subject, I do not think it is fair to say of the right hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he is in any sense disloyal, or that he is not as sincere is his desire for the advancement of the country as any other hon. member in this House. It is not fair to say that one party has a monopoly of loyalty, and of a desire to advance the interests of the country; and I think that we can sweep away as unworthy of our consideration all arguments advanced with a view to show either inconsistency on the part of the Conservative party or disloyalty on the part of the Liberal party, in the consideration of this question.
Now, Sir, I will reverse the order of the motions in my consideration of them. First, I will consider the amendment to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk); then the amendment to the original motion which was moved by the hon. leader of the opposition; and lastly, the original motion involving the adop tion of the Bill introduced by the right hon. the Prime Minister. Now, as to the policy involved in the amendment to the amendment, I can best characterize it as a ' do-nothing policy.' We remember that in the United States, many years ago, they had what was called a ' know-nothing policy '-and' I suppose my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is the leader of a third party in this country which advocates a ' do-nothing policy.' I have no sympathy with the ideas involved in that amendment to the amendment; while I have every respect, indeed a pro found respect, for the hon. gentleman himself, who stands well in this House and in this country, a man of culture, a man of broad ideas, a man of ability. I respect him as such, but I certainly think that he has not done justice either to himself, or to Canada, which he, in common with the rest of us, I hope, loves, or to
5C07

Great Britain, to which he gives a great deal of credit.
The next in order for consideration is the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition. That seems t-o me to be based on two principles, one, that of a contribution called for by- an emergency . crisis, and the other, the policy of a plebiscite. Now, I shall endeavour to deal with this amendment from the standpoint of a contribution, I do not propose to discuss at any length the question of a crisis, or an emergency. That has been treated so fully that I think we may consider it as having been disposed of, so far as it enters into a discussion of this question. As to that amendment advocating a contribution. it cannot be said that it is anything more than an act of expediency, not one of policy. No hon. gentleman can say that, so far as that amendment relates to the contribution of Dreadnoughts, it lays down a platform or a policy for the people of Canada to follow. It might, under certain circumstances, be considered as a generous act; it might, if you will, be considered as a quid pro quo offered in a moment of magnaminity. But it can never be said that it contains a policy for the people of Canada to build upon, a platform upon which they can start out to erect their superstructure. We must remember that we have to deal with this question, not merely for the present but for the future, and that as we start to build, so will the completion of our structure be. If there is anything in the idea of the amendment, it is in my judgment foreign to the spirit of the government under which we live. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in his boyhood days, I know, was wont to pay great attention to the public speeches, lectures and utterances of the late Hon. Joseph Howe; and I fancy there is no gentleman sitting in this Chamber who is more familiar with the utterances of that great statesman. I know that he must have a clear memory of the speeches that gentleman delivered at Southampton, of the letters to Earl Grey, to Sir Francis Hincks, the twelve resolutions which he moved early in the history of colonial government in Nova Scotia, and his great speeches on the organization of the empire. My hon. friend, brought up, as I know he was, and as 1 was, in a Liberal family, must have been familiar with the principles which the Hon. Joseph Howe enunciated; and I am sure that when my hon. friend came to pen that amendment he must have felt that he was contradicting every principle and all the early teachings concerning responsible government which he had imbibed from that great statesman. For that reason I would dispose, so far as I am Mr. EMMEESON.
individually concerned, of that amendment as unsatisfactory; I could not find it in my heart to vote in favour of it. I repudiate the idea that we are mere colonists, I repudiate the terms 'colony' and 'colonists'. They may have been proper terms to use in the early days when we were a Crown colony, when, we were looking to Downing street, when we were mere subjects, subservient to a government beyond the sea; but to-day we stand in an entirely different position.


An hon. MEMBER.: How?


Henry Robert Emmerson: To-day we have local responsible self-government within Canada and within the provinces of Canada and so we should have a reasonable respect for our surroundings, for our conditions, for our rights, for our dignity as a young nation within the great empire of Great Britain.
As to the second feature, that of the plebiscite, it does not occur to me as necessary that this matter should be submitted to the people of Canada. We must all recognize that this question has not been entirely overlooked. The attitude taken by the government of Canada in 1902 and in 1907, has my fullest and heartiest support. I also support in its entirety the principle contained in the resolution of March 29, 1909, the point where I diverge from it being as to its inclusion of the word speedy, and the meaning of this I shall explain later. I have said that the principles enunciated by the government in 1902, 1907 and 1909 have my approval and concurrence and I shall endeavour to show how these principles can best be turned into effect, having regard to the conditions prevailing in Canada and to the future of this country. I have endeavoured to express the idea that the amendment of the leader of the opposition does not contain a policy but simply a suggestion as to an expedient and it is not I think, worthy of any great party that seeks to administer the affairs of Canada. Its whole foundation, if it has any reason for existence at all, lies in the attempted creation of a German scare,, of a menace to the empire of Britain, from the German or some other empire. Such a menace, it seems to me, does not exist. We have had many scares in this country originating under conditions not unlike these. The entrance of New Brunswick to confederation resulted because of a Fenian scare. Later we have had the Russian scare, we have had the French scare. All these were great crises. Later on we have had many election scares, we have had the scare of French domination in our province and all over the Dominion. These scares and these fancied crises originate, I was almost going to say from brains that are sprained in some way, they are not merely the result of brain storms I but they are spasms and paroxysms that

seem to come to political parties at intervals and at times when there is some great end to serve and some great purpose to achieve. Therefore I say that in so far as the basis for any contribution is concerned, it is gone and absolutely gone, as has been demonstrated to this House time and again in the last few days by the extracts quoted from the speeches of prominent men in Great Britain, of the chancellor of the German empire, and the utterances of a few days ago of the great thunderer of Great Britain, the London ' Times.1 It is conceded on all sides that there is no emergency, that there is no crisis, that it simply exists as a conjuring of the brain. Assuming that it does not exist, then where falls this policy of a contribution. England does not want it, she does not ask it. What England wants is some assertion of principle and policy on the part of the Canadian people that will be a moral force in support of the empire and that will be a notification to the nations of the world that if Great Britain is in trouble, if the empire of Britain is menaced or imperilled, the dominions beyond the seas will be at her back and will spend their money, their men and their strength without stint. I believe that if a national crisis existed, Canada would give money and men without stint. But does the emergency exist? There is no one who can say it does exist or that there is a likelihood of its existence and therefore it is simply now a question for this House and this country to consider as to the course that Canada should take in connection with her attitude as a young nation within the great mother nation of the empire.
This leads me to the consideration of the original motion, the one to the effect that we shall have the second reading of this Bill and go into Committee of the Whole to take into consideration what we should do towards helping the empire, not merely in a crisis or in the event of a crisis but as a settled policy, a policy whereby we shall be recognized measureably as a part of the British empire, at least sustaining the burdens and assisting in the protection of ourselves as a portion of the empire and aiding and contributing to the support and the defence of the empire at large. It is simply a question, after all, as to the means to an end. I would like to deal with the practical and economic features of this measure. I would stop to analyse for a moment Canada's position in respect to the empire and with respect to the conditions prevailing within her own bounds. What is expedient for her, using the word expedient with its wide and proper meaning. It is a question of expediency, having Tegard to our conditions, having regard to our situation, having regard to the problems which we have in hand at this time, and which we anticipate having in hand in 159
the near future. In determining that question of expediency we must not forget that everybody's problem in life is not to fancy what he would like to do but to find out what he has to do and make the very best that he can of it. What is thus true of the individual is true in the larger sense of nationhood. Now, the Bill involved in the motion of the right hon. leader of the government is one that is worthy of consideration. Let me say at the very outset that I have always agreed and do now agree with the principle of that Bill. I question its necessity at this moment. I question the judgment that would conclude that it was necessary to introduce it before the people of Canada at this moment, but that is merely my opinion and I hope always to have the courage of those opinions born of conviction and sincerity.
Now, I want to make a little personal explanation. I have been credited with the coinage of a term that has been freely circulated from one end of this country to the other. I refer to the phrase ' a tin-pot navy.' Let me say that if there is any credit for the coinage of a phrase, I am not entitled to any credit for the coining of that phrase. More than that, I am not aware that I ever made use of such a term I know that I never voiced the words, and yet I am told that this was given free circulation in some of the public newspapers in Canada. If I had used the term, I would stand by it, but as I did not, I must relinquish claim to the credit and repudiate this as an utterance by me. But, Mr. Speaker, we must realize in dealing with this measure the conditions under which we are living to-day. Canada has many great transportation problems. The extension of our canal system and the creation and construction of magnificent railways are necessary to the development of our rapidly expanding country. The deepening and widening of our waterways, the extension of our trade abroad, the establishment, in the interests of the people of this Dominion, of commercial agencies wherever there is trade to be had, the initiation of a policy which would have, as representatives of this Dominion in every country where Canada has trade, agents of our Customs Department in order that they might spy! out the opportunities and report the conditions affecting the internal affairs of Canada, our tariff conditions and our trade, to our government, which reports could be disseminated through the country to the advantage of the commercial world and the business element which are becoming so prominent within our borders-these are all great problems that must be solved. We must also recognize that we have assumed immense burdens, that we have taken hold of difficulties that to greater countries, and countries of greater wealth, would be recog-



REVISF.D EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
nized as almost insurmountable. We have one great transcontinental railway, and we have two others in course of construction, and both nearing completion. The people of the country to the south of us, although they have a population of upwards of eighty millions, although they have been in advance of 'us in the business and industrial world, have not one single transcontinental line of railway spanning their country from the shores of the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific. That is a startling fact, but it is one that is true, nevertheless. They possess railways connecting one with the other whereby you can start from the Pacific ocean and reach the Atlantic, but they have never assumed the burdens in connection with transcontinental railways which the people of Canada have had the* courage to undertake. We want, in addition to that, to bring about the development of our transportation facilities. We want population. Canada wants more steamship services from the St. Lawrence and the maritime ports, to every port in the world. She wants to enlarge and deepen -her canals and improve her river channels so as to accommodate the largest ships. She requires the construction of new canals, new railways and branch lines for those railways. Then, these branch lines must connect sections wherever population is to be found with the centres of population. She wants these lines projected into- every section where a mining or agricultural population can be maintained. She demands large expenditures, not only in furthering a great national policy of transportation, but also in promoting the increase of her population. The people want a live, up-to-date and intelligent grasp of the necessities of the hour, with hustling action on the part of governments and those charged with the responsibility of the development of the country. They do not want, timid hesitancy in respect to these matters. The prophecy of the right hon. leader of the government that the twentieth century would be Canada's will be realized if we are but measureably active and alert with regard to the illimitable and rich natural resources of our country.
These are some of the wants of Canada. We are face to face with meeting, those wants, and in that connection comes up the question of the advisability of the construction of a navy at the present time. Well, Sir, I do not take very great exception to the initial cost, either of the commencement or the completion of a navy in itself. But, one must bear in mind that we are embarking on a wider sea than, these limitations would indicate. There is the question of the maintenance of that navy, and as to that I shall not refer particularly. What I want this parliament to remember is that in the adoption of this Bill we must Mr. EMMERSON.
be careful not to overlook the fact that if you have a navy to defend your coasts you must have in conjunction with it modem fortifications in every sea-port, and harbour on the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, and so, when we embark on the construction of a navy we are of necessity launched into immense expenditure for these fortifications. The question then comes for our consideration, are we in a position to assume the burden in the manner proposed? As an incident of a navy we must have dockyards, we must have dry-docks, and I suppose we must have admiralty boards and councils. I am no pessimist with respect to the strength, and the willingness, and the power of the Canadian people to accomplish great undertakings. I believe that our people are able to overcome any difficulty that is likely in the ordinary course of events to confront them, but, we are charged with the responsibility of legislating, and we must hesitate before we place burdens upon the people. I am not now speaking of the proposal in this Bill as a contrast to what has been proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. His proposal means a grant of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 offhand, and the proposal of the right hon. the Prime Minister means not so many millions at the outset, but it involves great incidental expenditures which may be, and will be in my judgment an obligation upon the Canadian people for all time to come. Then, let us ask ourselves if this navy in one form or other is a necessity at this moment. And, Sir, in considering that question, while I defer to the judgment of the right hon. gentleman, and of those by whom he is surrounded in council, I do say that the spasm and the paroxysm that has seized upon hon. gentlemen opposite in their clamouring for a contribution, and for Dreadnoughts ad libitum to be sent across the water has impregnated _ the atmosphere to some extent although it seems to have lost some of its power in its passage across the floor. However, there is not a difference as to principle, it is simply a difference as to detail, Now, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the expenditure foT maintaining the proposed navy, and for the continuance of admiralty boards and councils is, perhaps, not an obstacle that should frighten the people. But, when we realize that Canada has expended in the last twenty years for the maintenance of our militia upwards of $60,000,000 we can form some estimate of what the establishment of a navy, and naval boards, and naval councils will mean. I may be somewhat radical on these points; it may be that I have not a due appreciation of the requirements of this country, but I have felt that already we have had too much of these military councils; that we have had entirely

too much of men going from one end of the country to the other, who toil not and neither do they spin, and yet none are arrayed like one of these, and who have placed in their hands, by the influence of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House as well as on this, thousands and hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars year after year to sustain this great establishment. And, Sir, when I realize what that expenditure would have done in other directions, I confess that I am sorry it has not been spent in what to me would appear a manner more conducive to the welfare of our country. I am no lover of post mortem examinations into the past, but I feel it my duty to invite the attention of the House to that expenditure in order that we may realize in some degree what may be expected from us in the future if we duplicate these organizations in the form of a navy, and navy boards, and naval councils-Lord high admirals and admirals, and so on. Now, Sir, I can read the condition of Canada to-day in the light of history. When the thirteen colonies declared for independence they had terrible difficulties to surmount in the matter of their maritime power, and the success which attended an earnest sincere, and valiant people was little dreamed of by Lord North, and those who inspired him at the beginning of that struggle. I can come down further in the light of the history of the war of 1812, and realize what an effieient navy meant to the American union at the time of the declaration of that war. Although the union had been preparing for that conflict she had not more than seventeen war vessels, but she had a splendid merchant marine which was found to be an efficient auxiliary to the naval force, and which in a very short time was supplied with 50,000 men. The union did not have more than six warships proper, and these were frigates of no large size, manned by 5,000 sailors. I may be told that conditions have changed, and so they have. But, Sir, although I have spoken longer than I intended, I must continue in order to say that I would have been glad if the government could have presented a Bill containing the very principles which this Bill contains, but also containing suggestions which I shall with all due deference place before the House, and especially submit for the consideration of hon. gentlemen opposite as a restraining influence upon their frenzied brain style of reaching forward towards Dreadnoughts ad libitum.
I would have been glad if the government had introduced a measure providing for training ships in sufficient number to meet the requirements of the Atlantic sea-board, the Pacific sea-board and the inland waters of Canada, the great lakes. Training 1591
ships to do what? To furnish the personnel for a navy that must come. If we are to reach out into greater nationhood, if we are to expand and develop, if our population is to increase, it is not so very far in the future where, without regard to any condition that may exist elsewhere, but as a necessity of our internal conditions, our growth and expansion, there will be a necessity for the establishment of a navy suitable to our means and our conditions. That training could provide, first, somewhat on the lines of the Newfoundland naval reserve, a scheme to educate the seamen of the east and of the west and along the lakes, so that they would graduate into a navy almost automatically. We must remember that in the manning of a navy conditions have changed from what they were in 1812 and in 1775. To-day it is not merely able-bodied seamen and men of valour that are required; Out you want technically trained men; you want the machinist, the mechanic, the electrical engineer. You want men with trained eyes and trained hands and trained brains, and they cannot be created in a day. They are the condition precedent ot a navy; and I would add, and I think the people of Canada would add and demand, that when we have a navy it should be Canadian-built and Canadian-manned. And what is more, I never want to see a ship of the naval force of Canada launched into the waters of our coasts commanded by any other than a Canadian or controlled by any but men of our own Canadian brain and brawn. That would be my idea. Correlative with that I would provide for an emergency. I would have that training fleet in operation, and I would begin to provide for what might be termed a peace fund in Canada-a fund that could be changed into a fund, if necessity arose, for the protection of the empire. Now, why have such a fund? Canada can, it is true, stand, and would be willing to stand, large contributions for her own development and for the defence of the empire. We all recognize and gratefully acknowledge the fact that our trade routes and our commerce are protected by the navy of England. In proportion to our trade and in proportion to the protection given to it, our customs revenues expand and increase; they are expanding and increasing year by year; and the people of Canada would do right, and they would be willing to do it, to set aside year by year a percentage of those customs revenues-it might amount to $3,000,000 or $5,000,000 or more each year; and the fund so formed could be placed, if you will, to the credit of Canada in the bank of England, and named, if it needed a name, 'Canada's peace fund.' It would be a notification to the nations of Europe and to the world that Canada was determined to
[Stage Direction]
support the empire in her hour of need, if that hour ever came. That fund would grow. In the meantime, it would cost nothing to maintain. There would be no outgoes in the maintenance of it, and it would be ready at any moment, if the emergency arose, and could be contributed at once to the empire for the benefit of the empire. Is there anything more needed by a nation in stress of conflict than money? Recent l istory has demonstrated that. The war between Russia and Japan and the war between Spain and the United States are illustrations. Even in the Boer war Great Britain did not find it very easy to provide the funds to enable her to put down the Boers. Votes of money were given, and given generously and freely; but the burden on the people of Great Britain was very great. The additions to the budget were enormous, but they were cheerfully assumed by the people of Great Britain. But if in case of an emergency we were in a position to place at the disposal of the empire 950,000,000, or $40,000,000, or $30,-000,00J, this would certainly be a contribution that would be of advantage, and would demonstrate to the world that we were doing something in support of the empire, even if we did not send Dreadnoughts. What, Sir, would such legislation mean? After all, what was wanted by Great Britain was a declaration on the part of the overseas dominions that would have a moral effect with the nations of tne world; and if it were known by Germany or any other European nation that Canada was preparing a fund primarily for the preservation of peace-because, after all, as I understand it, these armaments are justified because they tend to preserve the peace of the world-consider the moral effect the knowledge of such a fact would have. At least that is how the nations justify the creation of great naval fleets and the establishment of great armaments. They plead that they are incurring these heavy expenditures in order that the peace of the world may be preserved, il an enactment by Canada would not be a notification to ail these nations that Great Britain would have our support, I do not know of any other course that could more effectively convey that idea. I shall not touch upon the fact that the United States and Japan have lessened their war appropriations at the verv moment when we are proposing to launch out into this heavy expenditure. Japan, in its last estimates, decreased its vote for the navy and army, and so did the United States, whereas we in Canada are going to branch out into an increased expenditure this year and a still greater expenditure next year.
I could not divest myself of my personal responsibility even if I would. I owe a duty to my constituents, and I recognize Mr. EMMERSON.
the fact that I am absolutely and unreservedly opposed to the policy of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and also to the do-nothing policy of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). Then what shall I support? I shall take a course without fear, favour or affection, and I assume that every hon. gentleman will do the same. But I find myself, as I have said, very much in the position of Lord Dundreary's peacock. I am obliged to flock all by myself alone, but there is a bird near me which is more to my own liking. I cannot have what I would. All government is based on compromise. We cannot all have our own way, and I have given this matter great consideration. I am bound to say that there has not been any man on either side who has asked me wdiat my attitude was on this question. My declaration by my vote will be in favour of the principle which I have enunciated-that is a principle which involves a policy which is Canadian, which is for the future, and which means something for the empire. To give a contribution this year or next year to Great Britain would mean perhaps that we would be expected to do that the following year, but there would be no fixed understanding. One government and one parliament might do it, and another might not. But to put it in a form of an enactment, showing what Canada is prepared to do, is a tangible something which governments and parliaments cannot violate, which would go on for the benefit of the empire and the advantage of Canada, particularly as I see it. I did not intend to take up so much of the time of the House. I have given criticisms on the details of the Bill which perhaps would have been more opportune in Committee of the Whole; but its principles are quite in accord with my own and the scheme proposed is in a sense identical with my views except in this respect, that I say the time has not come for us to launch it. My hon. friends say: yes, it has. My hon. friends opposite say send millions and send Dreadnoughts; do that without plebiscites, but do not do the other without going back home and consulting the people.
Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I do not intend to weary the House by following the argument, if it may be so called, of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Emmer-son), further than to congratulate him upon being, as he assures us he is, the only member of this House, amongst two hundred odd, who has not gone into paroxisms and spasms on this question. While he was making his plea, one would have thought that his argument would have lead to the very reverse of the conclusion

he arrived at. The hon. gentleman compared himself to the historical peacock. I should have thought that he would have added another bird to his aviary and would more fittingly have likened himself to a peacock of canabalistic propensities with a dish of crow before it which it was eating with undoubted enjoyment. The hon. gentleman has given us reason after reason why the Bill of the government should not pass, and he consequently felt impelled to state that no doubt we would be surprised to find that after all he was supporting the government. Well, speaking for myself, I was not at all surprised. I had no idea that he would do anything else except eat crow. I was therefore not at all surprised that, after making a speech bristling with declarations of independence, he should wind up by supporting the government. He still, however, tries to leave the House in some doubt as to what he may do in the end, because he still reserves the right to bring forward in committee a do-nothing policy of his own. He is not going to do this, that, or the other thing. He does not approve of the government policy, he cannot vote for that of the leader of the opposition, and he is very much incensed at the policy introduced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, which he styles a do-nothing policy, and he winds up by declaring, what no one doubted, that he would support the government, taking care, however, to throw out some obscure intimations as to some [DOT] other course which he may take during the debate in committee.
The main reason why he opposes the policy of the leader of the opposition is that, first of all, there is no emergency, and secondly, that he wants the people of this country to understand that the proposal of the opposition is not one of policy, but of expediency. Let me ask the hon. gentleman: Can he name to me a wiser, a higher quality of policy for this great country than the declaration to the world at large that any nation which interferes with the mother country will at the same time interfere with Canada? I see that the hon. gentleman has gone out. Will some one kindly ask him to come back before the debate closes, because 1 would like to put to him this question; and I would use my influence- with my party and try to prevail on the leader of the government to allow the rules to be broken end give the hon. gentleman another opportunity to speak on this question, and tell us, if he can, what policy would be grander, nobler or better for the country than one by which Canada would declare, not only to Germany, but the world ai large, that, in case of emergency, no matter how many millions were required, Canada would stand by the mother country first,
last and all the time. The hon. gentleman, throughout his remarks, indicated that he was in favour of British connection, but if there is anything in his so-called flocking alone policy, it means that Canada should go meandering along, taking the benefit all through the ages of everything that Great Britain has done for this country in the way of constructing a navy for the advantage of the trade of Canada to enable us to produce, as we all want to do, flourishing manufactories, with the means of shipping our wheat to foreign countries, and doing all this while sponging on Great Britain to protect our products while we send them forth into the universe. My hon.- friend talked about dignity; my hon. friend talked, I took down his words, about a ' dignified policy for Canada.' Well, now, I would not like to give my boys a lesson upon dignity in the sense that the hon gentleman understands dignity. I would not like a boy of mine, after I had educated him and fitted him for a successful career in life, after I had taught him lessons of manliness, and endeavoured to instil in his heart a love of uprightness and nobility, nationally as well as individually, after I had done all this for him, and after he had grown up to manhood, I would not think it would be dignified for him to say to his father: I am 21 years of age, and the old man is 65, -and it is dignified in me to repudiate him if I can save a little money by so doing. The hon. member may consider that dignity in the county of Westmorland, but my constituents would call it gross meanness.
He talks about the meaning of the word ' speedy.' He voted for that resolution, which the leader of the opposition put forward as an amendment in order to save the honour of this country by giving speedy relief; and the hon. gentleman, forsooth, wants to beat around the upper lakes with a few fishing boats, and still he does not make up his mind what kind of a flag they are to sail under. And he does not want to do even this for five, ten or fifteen years. Sir, I must say that his opinion of what is speedy relief is entirely at variance with the idea of an ordinary school boy, let alone a grown up person in the county of Lincoln. But just as the hon. gentleman wants to do his duty to his constituents, so I am bound to say, in doing my duty to my constituents, that that is not my view of what constitutes speedy relief to the motherland.
Now, the hon. gentleman pooh poohed the idea that there was any emergency. The hon. gentleman has a colleague here from his province in the person of the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean) who declared, as he was bound to declare, the other day, in my hearing, and in this same debate, that he did not

agree with the contention of the other government supporters that there was no emergency; he made a very powerful argument to show that there is an emergency, and that this country requires something to be done in order that Great Britain may understand our position in that emergency. So, while the hon. member for Westmorland is trying to walk alone, he is up against the arguments of a gentleman on his own side of the House, as well as against the arguments of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. Having said this much in criticism of the hon. gentleman's speech, I need not bother this House any more with him.	. .
Now, as to the Bill itself, what position are we in? The government admits, by the introduction of this Bill, that something has got to be done.
Now, the whole issue between us is.: Are we to deal with Canada alone, or with Canada as a part of the British empire? That is the crux of the question, and we must facv it. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you realize that as well as any other hon. member in this House-must we consider Canada as an independent nation, or as a part of the British empire? The hon. gentleman no doubt is sincere in the stand he takes. I do not say that in any sneering manner, because I believe that hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere, although they may forget themselves on occasions. But I apprehend that hon. gentlemen supporting the government are sincere when they say that there is no emergency, and that consequently we should shape our course as though Great Britain did not need our assistance. For my part I believe that there is an emergency, and even the government supporters admit that if there were an emergency it would be the duty of Canada to render effectual assistance to the empire. However, they deny the existence of the emergency and hope that no emeregency will ever occur, although we fear it will. Now, if they are sincere when they argue in thi3 manner, it does seem strange to me that they have not seen a way out of the difficulty. If they are sincere, why do they not adopt the amendment of the leader of the opposition and so relieve themselves from the difficulty? Let them adopt the amendment of the leader of the opposition if they are desirous of maintaining the integrity of the British empire, and every one of their views will be complied with. If there is not an emergency, they will still be showing their adhesion to the view that Canada is an integral part of the British empire, and is bound to do something for imperial defence; while if there is an emergency, they are rendering that speedy assistance to the mother country which the resolution of last March calls for. Sir, it is not the paltry value of the money gift Mr. LANCASTER.
that counts in this matter, but it is the great moral influence which Canada will exert upon the whole world by taking her stand by the side of the mother country. Every hon. gentleman on that side of the House assumes in his argument that if Great Britain were attacked it would be wise and right for Canada to stand at her back.	,
Now, I appeal, if it is not too late, to the Prime Minister himself. Could _he not call his supporters together again in caucus and say to them: Gentlemen, I gather from the arguments of those of you who have spoken on this question that it is very desirable that the parliament of Canada should be united, and as the amendment of the leader of the opposition meets the objections of the member for Westmorland, as it does not propose any permanent tax upon the people of this country, as it does not propose the adoption of a naval policy until the question has been discussed upon the hustings, let us all vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition. Sir, there can be only one reason why the Prime Minister wont do that, and that reason must be because he is not prepared at all hazards to say that the Canadian fleet, in time of war, must be controlled by the British admiralty. That must be his only reason, because there can be no other. I would not suggest that the right hon. gentleman is not loyal. It is not fair to suggest that hon. gentlemen, his supporters on the other side of the House are not loyal; but it doe3 become fair and right to discuss the question of loyalty when a proposition is made that modifies in any way our constitutional relations to the mother country. It is right to ask whither such a course is tending. Now, I am going at first to discuss this question upon the basis of what is best for us standing alone; and then I will discuss it from the point of view of what we should do as an integral part of the empire.
First of all what have we to gain by having a navy in this country that is not to be controlled by Great Britain, and, again what harm can it do us if our navy is controlled by Great Britain unless, I say again, you are determined to leave the door open for separation instead of locking that door and make sure that you and your descendants for all time will remain British subjects. There is nothing in the amendment of the leader of the opposition that can do the Canadians any harm whatever unless the Canadians are anxious to have the door left open, to have a chance to escape British connection and to become independent. If some hon. gentlemen, as two or three have admitted, are voting for this Bill because it may lead to independence, that of itself seems to me is a reason why the rest of us ought to rise and say: Under the British North America Act we

cannot do that, it is not only illegal but absolutely disloyal in the sense of a breaking of the allegiance which, while the British North America Act continues and this country remains under the constitution, cannot be broken except by rebellion. These hon. gentlemen, it seems to me, are not so much to blame as the Prime Minister who has led the way in regard to this Bill. The Prime Minister undertook to say he was neither an imperialist nor an antiimperialist. With all deference I am bound to say there are some things in this world that must be either yes or no. I cannot believe that I am married to my wife and I am not married to her. I cannot believe that Edward Hamilton Lancaster is my son to-day and reserve the right to say, ten years hence, that he is not my son. I cannot believe that I am free to reserve the right to say I am an imperialist and I am an anti-imperialist. I do not believe that I can owe. allegiance to Great Britain unless I am an imperialist, I cannot see any difference between an oath of allegiance and imperialism. What is allegiance? I am speaking only for myself in what I am going to say. I believe that every gentleman has a right to be guided by his own conscience. I have to be guided by mine and many a time my conscience has caused me to refrain from doing things because I thought them wrong while other men felt free to do those things. It is a matter between the man and his Maker. I have three times taken the oath of allegiance to King Edward. There is nothing in that oath permitting you to change your mind ten or fifteen years hence. Before I was allowed to take my seat in this House I had to take that oath. It is absolute and unalterable, a man taking it swears allegiance to King Edward. I do not see how I am to keep that oath and vote for a Bill which would construct a navy not under King Edward's control if we are to remain a part of the empire. The arguments of hon. gentlemen would tend to the belief that we have reached something which we have not reached. They argue that it is just as well to have an independent Canadian navy. And why? So that they may or may not interfere in wars in which Great Britain may become engaged. The very minute that you establish the principle that a navy built by Canada may or may not, as it sees fit at the time, join the motherland in its wars, that very moment you are proposing a rebelion if that policy is insisted on. Why do I say that? There is the navy constructed, there is the navy ready to fight. An order comes from Ottawa saying whether or not our navy is to join in that war. Suppose it does not join in the war. What is that navy? It is not an imperialist, it is an anti-imperialist. The imperial navy is at war with Germany or Austria, or Russia or some
other country and where is the Canadian navy under those circumstances, what condition is it in? How can any one say that Canada can remain part of the empire and take such a stand as that, it is an absolute contradiction in terms? It is claimed sometimes that a man has a right to fence. I have never thought it wise to fence. Although I have a close constituency which at the time I first ran was supposed to be strongly hostile to my party I have never thought it would pay, I have never dared to insult my constituents, my wife or my children, by undertaking to say both yes and no on any question. A man is no good in my opinion if he cannot find what his duty is under such circumstances. The Prime Minister is in an impossible position when he says he is neither an imperialist nor an anti-imperialist, just as Edward Hamilton Lancaster, must be my son or must not be; it is impossible to say that he may be one day and may not be another day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The right hon. gentleman thinks this is very funny, that it is quite a joke. I am trying to illustrate in a practical way what I understand by my oath of allegiance and by allegiance to any country. It may appear to be very clever to take this double position. Just as it may appear to be clever to denounce the Manitoba school question in Ontario and uphold it in Quebec, so it may appear to be clever to say in some parts of the country: Sir Wilfrid said in the House that he was not an imperialist, and to have 'Hansard' scored out with pencil or with scissors, and to say in another province: The Prime Minister said in the House that he was an imperialist. Thus I say the Prime Minister has set a bad example to his followers and we see the fruits of that example, when he says that he is not an imperialist and not an antiimperialist.
The right hon. gentleman made a quotation which I think was an unfortunate one for him. He quoted Kipling:
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
Daughter in his mother's house? What kind of a daughter? What kind of a good-looking little Canadian girl, I do not care about the English or the Scotch or the Irish girl, but what kind of a little Canadian girl? What about my daughter? -for I have got one-I wish I had a dozen. After her father educates her and teaches her all he can and after her mother teaches her and brings her up to honourable womanhood, suppose that she is given a magnificent fruit farm and is allowed to use it without rent or taxes; suppose some

one comes to her and says: Do you know that your mother and father are being beset by barn burners and others? What kind of a daughter in her mother's house, would she be if she would not give up everything she had to protect the old gentleman and the old lady? Daughter am I in my mother's house-yes, a most unworthy daughter who would have the contempt of the whole world, if under the circumstances of this Bill he did not do what we are advocating. Kipling said both things, daughter in my mother's house and mistress in my own. Mistress in my own? Yes, mistress in Canada, in the autonomy of Canada, in dealing with great transportation questions, in making protective or free trade policies for her farmers, her manufacturers and all her people. Absolute autonomy is what I fight for, absolute autonomy in Canada. Let Canada attend to its own affairs absolutely. Let Great Britain keep its hands off the British North America Act. But the same British North America Act which gives us autonomy in Canada to deal with our domestic affairs has given us no right when we get outside of Canada to interfere with imperial affairs. Daughter in my mother's -house, is not Canada's autonomy. 'Daughter in our ; mother's house' is outside of Canada, it has relation to imperial affairs. Mistress in our own house is dealing with Canada's affairs and this Naval Bill is going beyond Canada's affairs and interfering with imperial' affairs. Under those circumstances I cannot but regret that a gentleman like the hon. gentleman from South Huron is induced to ask in this House: What did Great Britain ever do for us? The poison, so to speak, which was sown upon the second reading of the Bill has reached him. He is a Scotchman, or a gentleman of Scotch descent, and he is a man above all others, perhaps, except an Englishman which I am myself, who would be expected to suggest that these imperial rights should exist in this country. As I am referring to what he said, it is fair to quote his exact language and therefore I would refer the House to page 4520 of 'Hansard'. After saying that Great Britain had done nothing for us, that she never gave us any more for our lard, our oats, our wheat, our cabbage, or something of that kind, than any other country, that she did not give us more than our goods were worth-and I do not know of any Canadian who would be undignified enough to want to get more than his goods were worth-he proceeds to say:
It is quite proper that I should say that our love for and devotion to the mother country is only commencing. Filial affection, I am sure, is one of the noblest traits of human nature; but filial affection divorced from self-preservation does not amount to a Mr. LANCASTER.
very great deal. It is the boy, the young man, which makes the best use of his opportunity and the gifts with which he has been endowed, and who shows a disposition to carve out his own future and to paddle his own canoe who is always dearest to the mother's heart.
Yes, because she expects that if some burglar or horse thief waylays her, this young man, because he is her son, will come to her relief. This love is just commencing according to the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean). What kind of love is the boy to have for his mother? When it has arrived at its completion? Because he is twenty-one years of age does that mean that in spite of her love, and her up-bringing he is going to murder or assassinate her when his affection is complete? Is that the kind of love he is commencing to have for his mother?


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.: The words used were not ' only commencing,' but were ' highly commendable.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am sorry if ' Hansard ' has done the hon. gentleman an injustice.


Murdo Young McLean: These words do not appear in the original, but in the corrected ' Hansard ' it is all right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am bound to accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but it is fair to ' Hansard,' that I should say that the words appearing there are:
It is quite proper that I should say that our love is only commencing.
I am not sure that the context would bear out the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. However, the hon. gentleman thought that there was some necessity of the boy, at some time, loving his mother, but that when he had become a big fellow, twenty-one years of age, thick in the chest, and doing well, and all this because of his mother's kindness, the mother's love and affection for her boy should only commence to bear fruition. To go a step further, we want to -see our boys and girls manifesting always an affection for their mothers and fathers, and the more there are of these the more strength we will have as a nation. You cannot disassociate the character of the nation from that of the individual. What the individuals are, so is the nation. It is absolutely impossible to be otherwise.
I wish to commend what the hon. member for Queens and Sunbury (Mr. H. H. McLean) said, although he has not said that he is going to flock alone. Although he has not taken a position very much different from that of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmer3on), although he has not said that we should give aid in paroxysms and spasms, and although he has not said that this is necessary, he has

said that there is an emergency existing and that something should be done. I appeal to that hon. gentleman under these circumstances, before this vote is taken, and I ask him if he does not think that he, could carry out his views better by voting for the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. How can he, consistently with what he said, vote for this Bill? He has also said tha^ he believes-that this navy should be controlled by the mother country, and in that respect he is at daggers drawn with the government. Under those circumstances, I say that there can be no question in the mind of any intelligent, and fair minded member of this House, that the policy of the government is utterly impossible from a practical point of view. It is not practicable. If you are going to be in unison with the mother country, you cannot for five or ten years at least expect to give relief to any body. Hon. gentlemen opposite, in their emergency, as I say, and I think that they are in more of an emergency than Great Britain is, in one way, are considering how they can square their views with the necessity of voting for the government. We cannot help but laugh at the remarks of the right hon. leader of the government in introducing, and in moving the second reading of this Bill, in which he undertook to rail at the opposition, because they did not all express the same views upon this question. He forgot that the opposition, no matter what views they expressed, had not the ear of the Governor General, and could not bring in a Bill of this kind. He forgot that no matter what policy we proposed we could not, under the rules of the House, because we are not the advisers of His Excellency, introduce a Bill. But the right hon. gentleman has his own language coming back upon him because his supporters behind him are more at sea upon this question than we are, and there is more disunion among them than there is upon this side of the House. One hon. gentleman says that he would have to vote that the navy shall be controlled by Great Britain. That is my hon. friend from Queens and Sunbury (Mr. H. H. McLean). Another, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), does not want a navy Bill at all, because he wants to give more grants to subsidize railways or dig a few canals. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Tur-eotte), says he ought to vote for this Bill, because it is going to bring independence. So we find that all these gentlemen are going to support the measure of the Prime Minister although they are not at one upon it. If the right hon. gentleman were well advised, if he were not determined to try and get in the thin edge of the wedge of independence for Canada by placing this Bill before the people, he would withdraw it.
As an imperialist, because I refuse to call him an anti-imperialist at the present time, although he says he is neither one nor the other, as a loyal citizen, and as the Prime Minister of Canada for the time being, I think he would be well advised if he withdrew this Bill, and go on with the domestic affairs of the country in parliament instead of interfering with the rights of Great Britain, as this measure must do. This measure must lead to independence, and for that reason, if for no other reason, my constituency would require me to vote against it. I am not talking about the Conservatives only of Lincoln and Niagara. Every intelligent Liberal as well as every intelligent Conservative in the constituency of Lincoln and Niagara would insist upon this being done if he really believed that it was going to lead to independence. When we find an hon. gentleman who is in the caucus of the right hon. Prime Minister, who knows what is going on, standing up here, and saying that that is the reason for his voting for this Bill, I think we are right in concluding that this measure is not one which this parliament should accept. An independent navy means an independent Canada. What else could it mean? The existence of Canada as a part of the British nation cannot be consistent with an independent navy. If you do not want an independent Canada, you do not want an independent navy because if you are to give Great Britain protection as it may be required you must put this navy under the control of the British authorities. We have heard a great deal about the pride and duty of Canada, and all that sort of thing, and there has been a great deal said about what we owe to Great Britain. In addition to what I have touched upon let us see what we owe to Great Britain. We owe everything we have here to Great Britain. Great Britain made us what we are. True we developed ourselves when we had the chance, true having got a start, we have gone ahead and expanded. Neither would the Prime Minister be sitting here nor would I be standing where I am if it were not for Great Britain. Great Britain made this country, Great Britain gave us our rights, her parliament passed the British North America Act, and said that we should do as we liked in respect to matters purely Canadian.
Great Britain's army and navy have protected us as they have protected our forefathers, and they have taught the world to know that if any hostile nation should interfere with Canada in her pursuit of the arts of peace, that nation would have to reckon with Great Britain. And what more has Great Britain done for us? For more than a century her navy has protected our commerce and enabled us to pursue in peace a policy which has tended so greatly to our

development. We have not paid a dollar for that army or for that navy of Great Britain, but that great strength has been behind us to warn pirates, confiseators and grabbers of territory to keep their hands off. What has Great Britain done for us? What would we amount to as a people today were it not that Great Britain has done for Canada that which she has done for every nation in which she has planted her flag? Great Britain has carried civilization and religion into every country, and proclaimed the doctrine that the weak are entitled to their rights as well as the strong. What would be our state of civilization in Canada to-day were it not that in past years we have lived under the British flag? I shall not now speak of sentiment; I shall put it on a lower plane. I shall speak from the material standpoint, and I will ask: How many of our wheat fields, how many of our factories would exist, how many of our people in all walks of life would have achieved their high stage of civilization under any other flag than the grand old Union Jack? Who protects the commerce of Canada, who guarantees that Canada shall pursue in peace her path of progress? Sir, oqr protection is to be found in the army and navy of Groat Britain, to which we have never contributed one cent as yet, but which, mark you, we might legally under our constitution be to-morrow compelled to contribute to. When a child is not manly enough to contribute to the support of his parent in need, that parent may, under process of law, compel him, and if Canada should persist in the mean policy of not contributing to the defence of the motherland (and her own defence as well), the day may come when we could be told by Great Britain: As you are not manly enough to do this of your own free will, we will impose a tax upon you and make you do it. And, Sir, if Great Britain did that, Great Britain would be acting strictly within her legal rights. But Great Britain has not done it in the past; she has trusted us to do our duty, and shall we fail? What has Great Britain done for Canada? Look around and you will find the answer. Get on board any railway train, go on board any boat, walk through our wheat fields, drive along any country lane, and you will see what Great Britain has done for Canada. Look at the manhood and the womanhood which exists in Canada to-day, and ask yourselves if we would have that civilization, that intelligence and that education in which we pride, under any other flag than the flag of England. The answers of every Canadian, irrespective of party, must be, no. Now, let me point out to hon. gentlemen that this is not the first time that a Prime Minister of Canada has undertaken to say that the British navy is entitled to some support from us. And, to show this, Mr. LANCASTER.
I shall quote an editorial in the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' of December 4, 1909. I shall submit this article to hon. gentlemen opposite to show that when they talk about building a little navy that has got to run away as soon as the enemy approaches, and when they talk about doing something for Great Britain, Great Britain can very well say: [DOT]Why, you o^ve us a back debt which you have never paid, and the payment of which we have never pressed you for. Now, this article which I shall quote, because it expresses in better language than I could use, the point I wish to make, says:



AN EARLIER CONTRIBUTION.

[Stage Direction]
That the idea of provision for naval defence is new some people believe. But the statutes of Canada tell a different story. By chapter 37 of the Consolidated Statutes of 1859 several thousand acre9 of land were vested in the ' commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,' for ever in trust for the service of the said department. The lands so vested were described in the schedule to the Act as follows:-
1.	-288 acres in the county of Sherbrooke, county of Haldimand.
2.	-389 acres in the townships of Tiny and Tay, in the county of Simeoe.
3.	-8 acres and 2 roods at Point Erederiok, in the township of Pittsburgh, in the county of Frontenac.
4.	-4 acres on the west side of Meadow street, in the town plot of Gwillimbury, in the county of Simeoe.
5.	-3,000 acres at Point Pelee, in the township of Mersea, in the county of Essex.
6.	-200 acres in the township of Vespra, in the county of Simeoe.
7.	-500 acres on the Island of St. Joseph, Lake Huron.
8.	-106 acres on the said island in Lake Huron.
9.	-4 acres and 2 roods in the township of Pittsburgh.
In the Act provision was made authorizing the Governor in Council to grant other lands to the commissioners under a similar trust, and they were also authorized to purchase other lands out of any funds provided for the purpose by the imperial parliament. Sales of lands were to be made by the commissioners, the moneys received therefor to be paid as they should direct. This Act and two other Acts respecting ordnance lands (chaps. 24 and 36) were repealed by the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, chap. 55, in which some of the lands were re-described, while parcels 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were omitted, and the following new parcels were given in the schedule, intitled ' Naval Reserve transferred to the Dominion of Canada ':-
1.	-556 acres at Fort Henry, known as the Barriefield Common.
2.	-23 acres, Cedar island, tower and glacis.
3.	-<125 acres, 2 roods and 1 perch in the township of Pittsburgh, purchased 6th July, 1844.
4.	-<102 acres in the same township acquired 20th March, 1840.

Chapter 58 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, repealed the above Act and gave a schedule, in which some of the old parcels of 1859 appear, namely, 4, 5, 7 and 8, together with the following:-
1.	-219 acres, Grand river.
2.	-18 acres, 2 roods and 3 perches, Barbet Point.
These are in the schedule, intitled ' Admiralty Lands, or Naval Reserves transferred to the Dominion of Canada/ The total of the three schedules gives 5,674 acres; but, as none of the schedules agree, there is doubt as to the present position of the trust. A statement ought to be laid before parliament showing what lands are still available for naval defence.
That article commended itself to me, and I place it upon ' Hansard ' for the benefit of the government and for the benefit of the country. It is important that the people should know that in the early part of the last century there were lands in Canada devoted to the admiralty of Great Britain-not to the Governor General of Canada and his advisers1-and that that trust remains in Canada, ignored now as it always has been, and to-day Great Britain could properly ask for an accounting in respect to these lands. And yet, we talk about our magnaminity, and we talk about our charity in contributing a little navy fifteen years from now, When either Great Britain is licked or has licked the whole of the world that attacks her. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say a word about the legality of this Bill, for I have so far endeavoured to discuss it only from the material and sentimental standpoint, and from the standpoint of Canada irrespective of what the rights of Great Britain may be. As to the legality of the Bill, I am bound to say that if we were to pass it as it has been introduced by the Prime Minister, we would be_ ultra vires of our rights, and Great Britain would be intra vires of her legal powers in disallowing such a Bill.
For that I have to look at the British North America Act, on which the whole constitution of this country depends. To hear some hon. gentlemen talk, one might suppose that already Canada was an independent country, and that Great Britain was allowed to float the "Union Jack over these buildings, and to have a picture of His Majesty the King in this chamber merely as a matter of courtesy, and not as a matter of right. But we must remember that Great Britain still can tax every foot of land, every gold mine, and every thing else in Canada. Great Britain says that we may handle the land of Canada for ourselves, but she might say: 'You are not able to handle it properly,' and take from us the control of it. Great Britain has passed the British North America Act, by which she says that certain things may be done in Canada. She says by one section of that Act:
The command-in-chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King.
It says not only the navy ' in ' Canada, but the navy ' of ' Canada is to continue and be vested in the King. This Bill undertakes, by three or four sections, to say that the navy of Canada is not to be vested in the King, but that it is to be vested in the Governor General, which means practically in the Prime Minister of this country; and no matter how much we may venerate or respect the personnel of any Prime Minister of Canada, we cannot by any vote of this House ou3t the King from the control of the navy, and put the Prime Minister of Canada in his place. We would have to get another British North America Act passed before we could do so. There is another section of the British North America Act which provides that the King in imperial council in Great Britain can disallow within two years any legislation passed by this parliament. It has often been said, and the matter has come up in debate as to abolishing the Senate this year, that Great Britain would never think of interferring with any legislation of ours in regard to any domestic affair. 1 agree with that. Great Britain say3 in the British North America Act that in our domestic affairs we can do as we like; but she reserves the right, if she sees fit to disallow our legislation within two years; and I cannot conceive of a case in which that right ought to be exercised if it i3 not such a case as this, where we go outside of our domestic matters and undertake to say what will be done with a navy manned by British subjects and part of the imperial navy, and, according to the British North America Act, under tne command of His Majesty the King. This being the condition of affairs, I say advisedly, that even if we thought it wi3e, which God forbid, to cut loose from the British empire, we could not legally do it; and we cannot by this Bill do what it purports to do, give control of any navy to the Governor General. The words in the Bill to that effect are useless; and in order to prevent a conflict of authority, I would think it wise on the part of Great Britain that the King in Council should disallow this Bill as soon a3 a certified copy is sent, to the Secretary of State (as has to be done with every Bill we pass), and should say to Canada: You have exceeded your jurisdiction; we cannot have one navy to fight against us, and another to fight for us; we never gave you permission to do what you have done; these matters you must leave entirely to the control of the imperial parliament; therefore, under this other section of the British North America Act, we must disallow your Act as improper and illegal.
[Stage Direction]
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must vote against the second reading of this Bill. If hon. gentlemen opposite are anxious to do only what is right, I cannot see why they cannot accept the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition, which puts no permanent tax, and no permanent policy upon Canada until every body in Canada has a chance to discuss it with their would-be representatives, who will come here in another parliament to vote on the question. They have no mandate from the people for this measure. They had no mandate in 1908 to do this thing, and they have none now. It is practically a breach of faith towards the people of Canada to pass an Act of this kind. When they will not accept the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition for the sake of unanimity which they pray and beseech us to give them; when they will not see that the way to prevent Germany, or any other nation from attacking Great Britain is for Canada, and all the other colonies to show a united front in supporting Great Britain; and when they reflect that if Germany or any other country thinks that at least half the people of Canada are against always supporting Great Britain, and that it does not necessarily follow that Great Britain will be supported by Canada in a war, then the government supporters are creating the very emergency which they pretend does not exist. When I see them put their political party before the empire, I need make no apology for voting against this Bill. Before sitting down, I will read one stanza of a poem which seems to me to voice the feelings of the intelligent Liberals as well as Conservatives of my county:
There is no flag in all the world save Britain's blood-red cross
That guards pure justice, honour, truth; and keeps the weak from loss.
That gives the poor the righteous law, that lifts the bitter wrong,
And champions in the war of life, the weak against the strong!
What other nation keeps its pact though all its world shall fall?
What other leaves the ease of life to follow duty's call?
Honour and duty! noble stars! by which our race is led!
God grant their double light may shine forever overhead.
Mr. F. R. LALOR (Haldimand).: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would not be doing my duty to the constituency which I have the honour of representing were I to permit the vote to be taken on the question before the House without giving my reasons for voting against the Bill proposed by the government. We have had a long debate on this question, a debate lasting for several weeks, and I think the House and the country are getting weary of it. I believe in a full and complete dis-Mr. LANCASTER.
cussion of such a very important measure. I think it wise for the leading men m both sides of the House to express their [DOT]dews on a measure of such great importance; but the speeches have been characterized by too great length, there has been a great deal of repetition in them, md many of them have been read from manuscripts. I think the country would have been better satisfied if the speeches had been shorter. I believe that the people send us here to do business and do not care to have us fill pages of ' Hansard ' with speech after speech, long and wearisome as many of them are. What they want is that we should do business in a business like way and show more brevity in our discussions. One result of our long sessions is to keep out of parliament men of great prominence in business, and in the professions because they cannot afford the time which our interminable sessions would compel them to devote to parliamentary life. As a business man, I should like very much to have our sessions shortened even though that would necessitate the curtailing of speeches to a very great extent; and I trust that I shall not sin against my own views by making remarks which may be found too long or wearisome.
We had yesterday the pleasure of hearing from the splendid representative of the county of South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). If there is any man in this House who can claim to represent here a special nationality, my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) can claim to represent the German people of the Dominion as well as the splendid county of Waterloo; and I am sure that we were all delighted with the speech he made and the sentiments to which he gave expression. For my part, I reiterate the sentiments so well expressed by my hon. friend because I too have the honour to represent a county in which there are a great many Germans, and I can only say that a more industrious, thrifty and law-abiding people you could not desire. I have lived among them in the county of Haldimand all my life, I have grown up among them, and I know that there are no better citizens to be found in that county or anywhere else. We may bring in immigrants from England, Ireland, Scotland or from anywhere else, but we shall get no hetter class than the good German element residing in the counties of Haldimand and Waterloo.
We have been told by many of the speakers who have addressed the House on this question that Germany is preparing for war, that she is a great and warlike nation, and is extending her army and increasing her navy. Well, I presume that Germany has a perfect right to indulge in this extension and in carrying out what she deems to be the best policy

in her own interest. But if the Germans are a war-like or quarrelsome people, that description certainly does not apply to those who have settled in the counties of Haldi-mand and Waterloo because they are just the reverse. They are very quiet, inoffensive and industrious, desirous of living at peace with their neighbours, and they are among the best farmers and the best people in the county I have the honour to represent. Should there be trouble between Great Britain and Germany, we would all greatly. deplore it because Germany and England are bound together by ties of relationship as well as commerce and business, and we hope that no trouble of that kind may ever come between these two nations but that they will continue to live at peace in the future as they have done in the past.
It is my intention, in me course of a few weeks, to visit that great country of Germany. I am not going there for the purpose of studying their war-like preparations, but to see, if I can learn something from those German people in regard to their industries and ability to manufacture merchandise in a way to surpass any other country. And I am sure that as a Canadian and a representative from this House, I can say to the people of the German empire whom I may meet that the people of Canada have the most kindly feeling for them and hope that the time will never come when there will be any trouble between Great Britain and her colonies and the German empire. But in the speeches delivered in this House I have heard sentiments which I was very sorry indeed to hear. I have never, in any election campaign, made any utterances upon the public platform or elsewhere -which would excite racial or creed difficulties. I have been always opposed to that^ sort of thing. I do not believe that it is for the good of either party that such sentiments should be brought up either in the House or out of it, and I am not in accord with any expressions which call into account the loyalty of any section of our people. We are all good Canadians although we may belong to different nationalities. But I have heard from the lips of gentlemen opposite sentiments which rather surprised me, and I must say that that distinguished gentleman, the right lion, the leader of the government himself, has given utterances to some which are not in accord with the views of the Canadian people. In introducing this measure, the right hon. gentleman told us that the navy he proposed constructing was to be a Canadian navy, that it was not to be in any sense an imperial navy. For my part I think that a Canadian navy, if we are to have one, should be certainly an imperial navy. It
should be a navy at the disposal of Great Britain, not by the vote of the Canadian parliament, but automatically. It should be an imperial navy, in every sense of the word, under the command of the King. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Ger-vais) yesterday told us, in speaking about a Canadian navy, built in Canada of Canadian material, by Canadian workmen and manned by Canadian crews, that it would be under the command of the King but at tire direction of the Canadian parliament. The latter condition, I think, was a rider to the imperial character of the navy, which changes entirely its condition. The navy we want is a navy to be under the command of the King and not under the direction of the Canadian government.
The right honourable the Prime Minister told us, when introducing this Bill, that in case of trouble, such as the Crimean war, he would hesitate about the Canadian navy taking any part in it. I think that such an opinion came as a surprise to the members of this House and the people of this country. I do not believe that it was in accord with the sentiments of Canadians, regardless of politics. I can only compare that declaration that he would not allow the Canadian navy, under similar cirumstances, to take part in a British war, with the sentiment expressed by that great Canadian, whose name is revered and loved by the people of Canada, the late Sir John Macdonald. Speaking of the Crimean war, the late Sir John said:
Who can look back to the time when the Crimean war broko out and not remember with pride how Canada rose as one man to stand by the mother country and by France when the French Tricolor and the Union Jack were joined together fighting the battles of liberty against absolutism on the shores of the Crimea? There was a rush of Canadians to the battlefields, and I had great pleasure-
I notice the contrast.
-I had great pleasure as a member of the government of Sir Allan McNab, to be instrumental in carrying a vote of twenty thousand pounds sterling given unanimously out of the public treasury in order to show tlnat Canada made common cause with England and with France in the Cremean war.
What a contrast between the sentiments of the present Prime Minister of Canada and the sentiments of Sir John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative party and the head of the government of Canada for so many years. Is it any wonder that the memory of that great statesman is loved so well, and that he is held in such reverence by every loyal and patriotic Canadian? Is it any wonder that we on this side of the House, and I believe the people of Canada generally, feel that there is some.

little doubt as to the object of the right hon. leader of this government in establishing a Canadian navy? Is it any wonder that the people of Canada, or the great majority of them, are opposed to this proposition for a Canadian navy? I know that in my section of the country the sentiment is growing every day in opposition to_this scheme, because the people feel that" the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister himself, in introducing this Bill, did not have the right ring about them. They were not good Canadian sentiments; and consequently, although they .are opposed to the idea of the Canadian navy on general principles, they are still more opposed to it when they reflect upon the expressions of the Prime Minister in introducing his Bill. We find that the same sentiment prevails to a considerable extent among the more humble followers ,of the right hon. gentleman sitting to the right of the Speaker. Only a few days ago we heard an hon. gentleman opposite expressing the idea that the ultimate destiny of this country, if not independence, was annexation to the United States. Sir, this kind of sentiment does not meet with much response in the hearts of the people of this country. Let me quote the words of the hon. gentleman to whom I allude, a member coming from the province of Quebec:
But I ask of these men, shall not Canada sooner or later have to choose between annexation and independence?
And a little later in his address he says:
It is neither patriotic nor loyal on the part of these men to put obstacles in the way of the complete development of our political organization and to pretend that we ought always to dwell under the protection of the British flag. But, thank God, I am convinced that this will not he the case, and the creation of this naval fleet in my humble opinion is the last step towards independence.
That was the sentiment expressed by an hon. member of this House from the province of Quebec, sitting on tbe government side, only a few days ago. And the member for St. James Division, Montreal (Mr. Gervais), in his speech yesterday, made reference to the same subject, hut although his language was veiled, there can be no difficulty in understanding his meaning He referred to the American revolution, and he said that had it not been for the possession of a navy by the thirteen colonies, they would not have been able to resist the imposition of taxes upon them by England; and he stated in his address that England has the power, if she likes, to impose taxes upon Canada. I wonder if he means that a Canadian navy will be the means of protecting Canada against an effort on the part of Great Britain to tax this country against her will. I do not see what Mr LALOR-
other meaning he can have for making such a reference. I do not think, Sir, that the people of this country have much fear that Great Britain will ever impose any taxes upon Canada that are not in the interest of the great empire to which we belong.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: At six o'clock I was alluding to some of the remarks made by members from the province of Quebec.


Mr. SPROULE.: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me rather unique and strange to open the House without any member of the government being present. A cabinet that has no representative in this House-I am glad the right hon. the Prime Minister has put in an appearance, since the debate was going on without any representative of the cabinet in the House.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I am entirely opposed to any sentiments that may be expressed in this House in favour of independence. The expressions we have heard here not only advocate independence but some of them separation, and, failing that, annexation to the United States. I hope the time will never come, no matter how large a country we may grow to be, when there will be any sentiment in this country in favour of separation from Great Britain, for independence, of course means separation from the British empire. I believe that in expressing those sentiments I express the sentiments of the county I represent as well as of the people of Canada generally. I do not believe that the people of Canada endorse the principle announced by the Prime Minister that parliament would be called together to consider whether the Canadian navy should be used in case England was at war with another country, for I believe that the people of Canada will be at war when the empire is at war, and that no Prime Minister of this country, whether he be a Liberal or a Conservative, no matter from what province he may come, no matter what government might be in power, could hold back the sons of Canada if the British flag were attacked, and to provide in a Bill presented to this House that a Canadian navy built by the Canadian people with Canadian money can only be used with the sanction of the Governor in Council, which means the parliament of Canada, is a course -that will not he approved by the people of this country, for I believe our people, regardless of political allegiance, are loyal and prepared to stand by the British flag whenever that flag is attacked, or whoever mav attack it. If

Great Britain were at war we would have a repetition of what we saw in connection with the South African war where the Canadian boys would rush to the front, and no government or Navy Bill could hold them back. I believe the people of Canada love the British flag and are ready and willing at all times to show their allegiance to that flag and to our King. But, Sir, while I was surprised at the expression I have already mentioned, I was still more surprised that a member representing a great constituency in Ontario, South Huron, a constituency with which I am acquainted and in which I know the people are loyal and patriotic, should tell us that we owe Great Britain nothing save good will. I believe that when he goes back to his constituency and asks his electors to re-elect him for this parliament he will be buried under the ballots of the people of that county, because I do not believe they would support a member who made such a statement in this House.
We are told that there is no unity in the Conservative party. A few days ago I met a leading physician from an Ontario city, a very strong Liberal in politics. He was very much opposed, as I believe the Liberals throughout Ontario generally are,, to the present Naval Bill. The only argument he could present in favour of his own party was that the Conservative party were divided on this question. The Conservative party are not divided on this question when it comes to being opposed, to the building of a Canadian navy: the Conservative party are as one man all opposed to the building of a Canadian navy. There may be differences of opinion as to what is best for Canada and for the empire, as to the best method to adopt, but there is no question as to the unity of the party so far as their opposition to this Bill is concerned. But, when we are told about differences of opinion on this side of the House, we hear occasionally a discordant note from the opposite side of the House. We heard one to-day from an exminister of the Crown, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) who, in a lengthy and eloquent speech has given us a new policy as emanating from the front benches on the government side. He reminded me of the chipmonk that came out of his hole to find the hole closed up after him when he tried to get in again. But the hon. member for Westmorland was not to be caught in this way and he left a little loophole open that he might crawl back. After denouncing the government Bill and saying that the project was too expensive, that our people could not afford it and that we should expend our money in building railways and canals and other great undertakings-and I felt quite proud of him when he was
making these remarks, because I felt he was taking an independent stand.
But I was surprised to find that in the last two sentences he announced that he was going to support a measure that he was so strongly opposed to. I noticed the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) sitting beside him. You know what a kindly feeling exists between the hon. Minister of Public Works and the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, both coming from the province of New Brunswick and sitting beside each other. The Minister of Public Works applauded his remarks and pounded his desk very gently, of course, when he heard the sentiments uttered by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. I wondered if the Minister of Public Works himself had some little independent thought in connection with this navy. It is reported that he has. Rumour says that the Minister of Public Works did not like such an enormous expenditure to take place unless within his own department. It is said that the Minister of Public Works actually advocated that all this expenditure that it is now proposed to be made upon the navy should be made upon dry-docks and in the department over which he has charge. He probably had in his mind at the time the Richibucto wharf, known as the sawdust wharf, that he no doubt thought of making use of in connection with these docks for naval defence. But if we were to know the exact sentiments and feelings that exist among the government supporters in connection with this measure, if we could see the letters that they are receiving from day to day by hundreds from their constituents and the petitions that they are receiving from farmers all over the country in opposition to this measure we would know bow much unanimity of feeling there is amongst them. The Prime Minister has a great influence upon his followers. We are free to admit that. They have a very great love and admiration for their leader, and no doubt they are prepared to stand by him and support him in this measure, even though it may be objectionable to them and not to the satisfaction of the constituencies which they represent. But there are other reasons why they support this measure. Some of them have judgeships in view, others have senator-ships in view, others have public offices in view which they know they cannot get unless they stand man to man in support of the Prime Minister and in support of any measure that he may bring before this House. I think that some of them perhaps have in view the fate that befell those who expressed independent views in opposition to the government. I refer to the late Hon. Mr. Tarte, the late Hon. Mr. Blair and many others in the same list,

who, having some independent sentiments, found themselves landed outside of the party and the party councils as a result. The unanimity that may exist upon this measure and the solid vote that may be given by supporters of the government in connection with it, I do not believe is the result of their own consciences or feelings in the matter, but is the result of party caucuses and party whips, because I believe that throughout the whole country, whether it is in the provinces by the sea, in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, or in the great provinces of the west, there is one very general sentiment, and that is in opposition to the building of a Canadian navy, which has been styled a tin pot navy. I think that is a very good name for it. You might add a little more to it and call it the Quebec navy, because I think it is designed to try and give the people of the province of Quebec some halfway measure, some resting place, so that hon. gentlemen opposite may feel that they are satisfying Quebec and at the same time meeting the views of the other provinces of the Dominion. But in this they mistake the sentiment of the country, for if they appeal to the country they will find that the people are opposed to them. The measure should not be submitted as it is to the members of this House merely for them to sanction and carry into effect without it first having been discussed before the people of Canada. I think it should be submitted to the people to have their opinion upon it, and if not, for the people to actually vote upon the measure it should be submitted to them at least in a general election, when every man could stand upon a public platform and advocate either the programme of a Canadian navy or manifest his opposition to it according to the views that the candidate might hold, and upon this measure and upon these views the candidates might receive and expect the votes of the electors in the constituencies that they were contesting.
I am opposed to a Canadian navy first, because I believe it will be absolutely useless. I do not believe that the government or anybody in this country take it seriously. I do not believe that the people think that the navy, when built, will be of any use to Canada or the empire. It is practically a do-nothing policy. It means nothing at all. It means, in the first place, according to the statements made on behalf of the government, that for one year at least they will do nothing and that four or five years must elapse before they can turn out any ships. Probably, if we interpret that statement correctly, it will be ten years before this small, worthless, tin pot navy can be launched or be of any service to the country. Then, the enormous cost of it is too great for the people of Mr. LALOR.
this country to stand at the present time. I do not say that the time will not come when we should have a Canadian navy under the direction of the British admiralty, because the time may come, when the population of Canada may grow to be much larger than it is to-day. Perhaps then we should have a navy. But, I do not believe that a people numbering six or seven millions can afford to build a navy of their own. The government tell us that this navy will cost $16,000,000 or $17,000,000, but I do not believe they know what it will cost, I believe it is only guess work when they talk about the cost of the navy. The right hon. leader of the government told us when the Bill in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific was introduced that the road would cost $13,000,000 and not one cent more. If we are to judge of the cost of the Canadian navy according to his estimate of the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific I think that the people of Canada will have a very heavy burden to stand before they get through with the building of the Canadian navy. In place of it costing $16,000,000 or $17,000,000, in a short time, it will be $25,000,000 and it will soon run up to $50,000,000. For the upkeep it is estimated that it will cost $7,000,000 annually which will almost certainly soon run up to $10,000,000 or even $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 a year and even at ten million dollars of an annual expenditure in twenty years we would spend the enormous sum of $200,000,000. When we consider this question from the point of view of what is most economical for the people of Canada we must come to the conclusion that it would be better to present Great Britain with two Dreadnoughts, even if they cost $20,000,000, because the interest upon $20,000,000 would be about $700,000 per year and the people of the country would know just what they are getting and exactly what it was costing them. But, we enter in the thin end of the wedge of an expense in connection with a Canadian navy as to the cost of which we have no definite idea. When the Prime Minister presented this Bill the other day he told us that it was going to cost $16,000,000 or $17,000,000 and he was asked by the hon. member for South Simcoe if there was included in the expenditure the cost of arms and guns. To my surprise, and I think the surprise of all the hon. members of this House, he hesitated and did not know whether it included the cost of these things or not. We know that the greater part of the cost is for armament, so that we can easily judge how enormous the cost of this Canadian navy is going to be. A few days ago I received a letter from a farmer who has been a very strong Liberal in the county that I have the honor to represent. He and his family lived in my county all their lives and he

was always a very active Liberal politician. He has recently moved over to the county of Wentworth and I am sorry the hon. member for that county (Mr. Sealey) is not here in order that he might hear what a gentleman who supported him at the last election and who is a strong Liberal in politics has to say in reference to the Canadian navy.
This gentleman addresses to me an open letter, the last few sentences of which I shall read. He speaks of the representative of the county (Mr. Sealey) as his hired man, and he wants to know what he is doing here, and then he goes on to say:
Who are you going to have for admiral on this fleet. Peary, I presume, or Cook the pole climber. Whoever he is, see that he is a good swimmer and also able to fly for it is my opinion that when this fleet gets into deep water it will either go up or down. No Mr. Member, no Canadian fleet for me hut give Great Britain two Dreadnoughts that will he a credit to Canada, something that Britain can depend on in time of war. Tell my hired man to see that this is done and you help him all you can.
These are the sentiments of a good Liberal farmer in the county of Wentworth whom I have known for a good many years.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is his name?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would be very glad to show the hon. member the letter and give him the name, but I do not think I should give it in public.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I will be glad to show this letter to hon. gentlemen opposite and give them tha name if they come over to this side of the House. I believe, Sir, that this farmer and strong Liberal represents the feelings of the farmers of this country about the navy. We find the 'Farmers' Sun,' the leading farmers organ of this country, opposed to the Canadian navy; we find the farmers throughout the country regardless of politics petitioning parliament in opposition to the Canadian navy, and I want to tell the Prime Minister and his followers that there never was a more unpopular measure presented to the parliament of Canada than the proposal to build this navy. I believe, Sir, that when this government appeals to the people-and I only wish it were at once-they will go down and out on this policy. I believe that it is much better for us to give Great Britain a sum sufficient to buy two first-class battleships or two Dreadnoughts than to adopt the Bill submitted by the government. I believe the proposal of the leader of the opposition would be less expensive by far to us, and at the same time it would be more satisfactory to the British admiralty and more satisfactory to the Canadian people. I am opposed to the measure 160
submitted by the government, and I shall have great pleasure in supporting the resolution moved by my leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) which reads as follows:
That the proposals of the government do not fellow the suggestions and recommendations of the admiralty and in so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the empire in time of war are ill-advised and dangerous.
That no such proposals can safely be accepted unless they thoroughly ensure unity of organization and of action without which there can be no effective co-operation in any common scheme of empire defence.
That the said proposals while necessitating heavy outlay for construction and maintenance will give no immediate or effective aid to the empire, and no adequate or satisfactory results to Canada.
That no permanent policy should be entered upon involving large future expenditure of this character until it has been submitted to the people and has received their approval.
That in the meantime the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities of the empire can best be discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposal of the imperial authorities as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada, such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two battleships or armoured cruisers of the latest Dreadnought type, giving to the admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purpose of naval defence as in their judgment may best serve to increase the united strength of the empire and thus assure its peace and security.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, I begin with the prayer that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who, were he able to be here, would have presented this Bill to the House, may speedily be restored in health and to his accustomed seat. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the right hon. the leader of the government; I have listened to the Japanned oratory of my hon. friend the Postmaster General; I have also studied the cryptic formulas on this great mystery of a Canadian navy which were submitted to us by the hon. the Minister for War, and I have listened to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite in which they have lauded the leader of the government and his ministers. I have also listened to the speech which my hon. leader (Mr. Borden) delivered in this House when the measure was presented; a speech which in strength of reasoning and sustained eloquence will bear close comparison with any speech ever delivered within these walls. After listening to all these speeches, after reading the newspapers every morning and considering the various policies that have been dished up to us daily for our consumption; after having taken counsel with my friends as well, I have come to the conclusion that the question now before us is one of the greatest moment and one which should not be trifled



with. It is a question that should not be discussed from the point of view of the Conservative, or the Liberal^ or the nationalist, or the imperialist; it is a question. which, to my mind, should be discussed entirely from the standpoint of the Canadian. It is a question which requires sound statesmanship, for, by this Bill, we propose to change the policy followed by this country for a great many years, and to embark upon a new career. And, Sir, it is my view that a question of that great importance should be approached in a nonpartisan spirit and that we should deal with it on the principles of broadest statesmanship. Statesmanship is not a matter of instinct; it means a close study of present events in the light of past experience and future contingencies. That light of experience is not given to us, so far as I can see, by a study of the life of Peter the Hermit, or of the career of Isabelle of Croye, and neither do I think that we can find much help in the solution of this problem in the life of Lord Durham or the story of his famous report, to all of which the Prime Minister directed our attention.
A good deal of water has gone over the - Chaudiere falls since March last when this question was first raised in parliament. The resolution then unanimously passed in this House has been quoted often, and it is not necessary for me to cite it again. Let me recall, however, some of the contemporaneous conditions existing a year ago. There was a so called scare passing over the British speaking world. For some years a state of hostility, without actual declaration of war, had been existing between Great Britain and Germany. The German emperor's message to Kruger, which was delivered after some German vessels had been seized in Delagoa bay, had caused the first break in the long friendship which had existed between Germany and England from the time of Frederic the Great and the Seven Years AVar. There was friction in Morocco, and other trouble between Germany and Great Britain over some railways located in the territory contiguous to the Persian gulf. These diplomatic clashes are the foster children of war, and as a result, for the first time in a great many years, the British fleet was concentrated for decisive action.
That will explain to some extent the real reason for the absence of a large portion of the British fleet from various seaports in Canada. An army scatters to distant continents, and to barracks during peace; but when there is war an army mobilizes or concentrates to fight. It is so with a fleet. This trouble, as I have stated, did not arise yesterday.
In the battle of the Sea of Japan between the fleets of Russia and Japan, Mr. CURRIE.
naval instructors and strategists learned several important lessons. The first of these was the deadly accuracy of the large guns at long range, the tremendous advantage the larger guns gave; the second was the great advantage the armoured battleship had over the unarmoured cruiser, and the third was the importance of the torpedo boat- in night attacks and blockades. The great battle fought in the Sea of Japan was decided in a few moments. The Russian admiral in that battle perpetrated the great mistake of placing his cruiser squadron, consisting largely of unarmoured cruisers, in the first line, and his battleships in the second. The Japanese reversed that order and opened upon the cruiser squadron of the Russian fleet at heretofore unheard of range, and in a few minutes destroyed the cruiser squadron. When panic reigned supreme in the Russian fleet, the Japanese massed their battleships and destroyed the Russians in less than an hour. The lesson learned from that battle I have already described. The first nation to realize that lesson was Great Britain, with the result that the British navy decided to adopt the big type of battleship known as the Dreadnought. For some fifteen years the Germans had been building a commercial fleet. It had grown from nothing to be the second greatest commercial fleet in the world. As long as this fleet was not protected by a navy, it remained merely a hostage in the hands of the British navy in case of war. The British navy had always been, and is to-day the trump card of Great Britain in a diplomatic fight in Europe. The German commercial fleet is the hostage for Germany's good behaviour, while the British fleet has enabled Great Britain, in all these diplomatic struggles, to prevent the balance of power in Europe from being disturbed, and also to a large extent to nullify what is known in Europe as the pan-German movement. Germany could not hope, in a great many years, to equal the preDreadnought navy of Great Britain, in the, number of ships or guns; but the moment this lesson had been learned in the Sea of Japan, and the British authorities had decided to build a type of capital ship which meets the conditions, in regard to speed, heavy armour, enormous guns and gun power, that very moment the Germans realized that since they were commencing to build a fleet of their own, they should take advantage of this opportunity, and virtually commence building a new navy on even terms with Great Britain. The advent of the Dreadnought, according to naval writers, and those in authority, marked as great an era in navy building as the ironclad did over the wooden walls. The Germans, therefore, started building their navy virtually on even terms with Great

Britain. They provided enormous subsidies, which had been voted unanimously by their parliament. Now, Sir, two courses remained open to Great Britain in that event. One course was to keep pace with the Germans, following them in building capital ships or Dreadnoughts, and instituting a system of conscription in Great Britain similar to that which existed in Germany. That course was virtually endorsed by leading military authorities, such as Lord Roberts, who were agitating at the time for conscription. The other plan was to duplicate the German ship-building programme, and let conscription go for the time being. This has been the plan adopt-ed._ Now, Sir, in order to arouse public opinion to the danger that hung over the horizon, it was necessary that a great many public men in England should speak out, and speak out in alarmist tones. A panic ensued, and was not confined alone to Great Britain. It spread to the colonies, as we all remember, and I might say that it spread to Germany also. When this panic was at its height, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) moved the famous resolution of March last. I would not trouble the House with a recital of these events, known to us all, were it not that we are often prone to forget the events which impel us to act in a certain manner. At that time, if we had offered to the British authorities two Dreadnoughts, following virtually the same lines as the other colonies, we would have saved this House, and this country perhaps a great deal of trouble. But that plan was not adopted. The plan that was adopted by this House was adopted in good faith, for the purpose of preventing any partisan spirit or discussion arising over this question in any manner, shape or form, and I regret very much that the right hon. leader of the House has brought in a Naval Bill which must of necessity cause partisan discussion.
Now, let us follow the events in their chronological order. In that way we may be able, as Mr. Gladstone would say, to sift this matter down to the bran. A few months after the resolution was passed, delegates from this government were sent to London to find out what Canada should do under 'the terms of that resolution. These delegates went to attend what was known as an Imperial Defence Conference. They were to find out all about the German peril, so that Canada could act in a manner suitable to her position as the premier colony of the empire. I take it that that was the principal business of the commissioners-to ascertain if there was a real ground for a war scare, or whether it was a business transaction of the music halls, and the great warship and gun-building concerns, which are represented in I60i
England by Vickers Sons and Maxim, and in Germany by the Krupps.
The resolution of March last declared that ' the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire, and the peace of the world.'
This commission went to London to ascertain if that supremacy were really threatened, and if so, in the language of the said resolution, to give:
To the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour to the empire.
Was there any peril? Did the commission find there was any cause for alarm, any need for mad haste in armament? Let the Prime Minister answer in his own words, he is supposed to be the chief fountain of knowledge on this point, and the commissioners were his associates in council, and surely would report the facts to him. He gave this House the result of his inquiry, the benefit of his knowledge in his speech on the second reading of this Bill. He said:
For my part I do not see any cause of danger to Great Britain at the present time.
Again:
It is true that Germany is creating a navy, but I see no reason whatever for supposing that Germany is creating a navy for the purpose of attack.
Now Sir, if the naval supremacy of the empire is not threatened, if what the Prime Minister say3 is true, I contend that the proper thing for him to do is to come to this House and courageously separate the question of emergency from the naval policy proposed for the future. In other words, revert to the statu quo, or the policy of 1907, which received the approval of the people at the polls.
1 can quite understand why there is such a large element of our people, especially such a large number of Liberals, not only in Quebec, but even more so among the English speaking provinces, who cry out against the proposed navy. The Prime Minister whom they have followed, in whom they believe, has said: * There is no danger to British naval supremacy.' Then they say: Why indulge in the luxury of an independent navy? Why tear up the tree of peaceful colonial development and expansion by the roots? Why launch this country alone, and not under the aegis of the British navy, on the mad torrent of European militarism, of bankrupting European competition in warship building? The millions that will be spent in useless warships might better be expended in improving transportation facilities, in enlarging our canals, in helping the farmer

to build good roads, in aiding him to contend with noxious weeds, in opening up new country to settlement, in developing industrial enterprises, in establishing technical schools, and doing the many things necessary to enable us to take advantage of the great undeveloped natural resources that lay dormant at our very doors.' These are the men who are going to pay this money for this navy. They are the true empire builders, and they say: ' If there is no danger to the naval supremacy of the empire, then allow us to turn the furrow and throw the shuttle in peace/ If there is no danger, if there is not going to be a war, why not stand pat, follow the old blazed trail, keep in the middle of the road. For many years this country has struggled against adverse circumstances. For years we have had to contend against the ignorance of the world as to our natural resources, our climate, and our opportunities. The republic to the south of us for years offered an asylum to the down-trodden masses of Europe, who sought to escape from grinding, hopeless systems, of terrorism, despotism and militarism. There they could start life anew. There they had equal opportunity irrespective of birth or fortune. There the conscription did not tear them away from their homes and workshops. There they had no grinding tribute to pay to the god of war, who constantly hovers on the European frontiers. The arts of peace, there predominated over the arts of war. Historians and observers of social customs tell us that it is the brightest minds, the most intelligent, courageous and energetic are those who immigrate. These people did not know that within the boundaries of Canada there were equal opportunities, equal freedom. But now we are coming to our own, and what happens? We are about to establish a navy and institute an old-world system which is one of the chief objections of these people against the countries from which they came. They say it is not disloyalty surely to wish to develop the resources of this country in peace. It is not disloyalty to desire to keep as long as possible free from the terrible financial drains, the grinding taxation, the economic waste, that follows in the train of a standing army or its collateral, a navy. Ten millions per year this toy navy will cost, and we will forfeit forever the right to say to the prospective immigrant, Canada offers you an asylum free from the terrors of old-world militarism, free from the domination of the sword/
If the Prime Minister is right, and we *will rest the responsibility upon him, that there is no danger to the naval supremacy of the empire, then those who believe in standing pat, are quite justified in opposing this Bill and denouncing the govern-Mr. CURRIE.
ment which has forsworn Liberal principles and traditions.
I wish to say a word on behalf of the old Reformers. The right hon. leader of the government and the Postmaster General called upon the spirits of Papineau, Lafon-taine, Baldwin, Mackenzie and all the old Reformers to witness that they were the true descendants of those old Reformers, and that in foisting an independent navy upon the people of this country, they were doing just what these heroes would have done under similar circumstances. I never realized more fully that famous chapter of Macaulay, where he recalls the scene in Dante, in which is described the transformation of the woman and the serpent, and he says that parties change, that the Tory of yesterday is the Radical of to-day, and the Radical of to-day the Tory of to-morrow. The Prime Minister and the Postmaster General are not the only students of history in this House. I confess that I have read a little of the history of those stirring times, the days of the men of 1837. If I have judged the characters of these men right, they would have been found fighting on this side of the House, before they would have permitted any government of this country to tie this country up to any standing army or navy.
These men fought their fights for principles, for new world freedom, against old world ideas. They would not have swallowed in 1910 what they deemed as right in 1907. In this debate some aspirations have been cast upon the actions of these men of '37. It is too late in the day to revive old partisan feeling. I am a Tory, and whilst I cherish the traditions of my party, if I found that those traditions clashed with what I considered the true interests of my countrymen of to-day my voice and my arms would be with my country, Had I lived in '37, who knows I too might have come linking down the forest trail with Lount, and the men from Simcoe who followed him, with their old iron pikes and rusty scythes, seeking what? Not victory, for I have spoken to many of these old heroes, and they never expected victory, not wealth and power for there was neither to be had in the country at that time. Not even immortality, but they took arms in their hands and marched away bravely. They said ' Morituri morituros salutant,' in order that if some of them should die, the attention of the whole world would be called to their grievances and these righted. It requires courage to die for one's country in this way. To die, on the gallows with the stigma of traitor sounding in one's ears, in order that one's country may be delivered from tyranny. But it is from sueh sacrifices that we have obtained what liberties we possess, even our civilization.

Our brothers in Quebec have never been behind, in opposing wrong in seeking to destroy the tyranny of the placemen, who were then as now ruling this country after old world methods. That was then the real issue. Carpet baggers was the name given to this class of men in the United States, after the civil war. This government has a similar system in vogue in Canada today. A government despotic, irresponsible, retained in office by placemen. Knowing the lives of these men as I think I do, I can imagine how the hero of Montebello, would have rallied his followers against this Naval Bill, how Lafontaine would have thundered his burning periods against the administration. How the calm analytical Baldwin would have criticised the fallacy of the measure. How the fiery Highlander Mackenzie would have indulged in fierce invective against such a Bill. They would have insisted strenuously upon the statu quo. They would not seek to lay violent hands upon the policy of free democracy which by their sacrifices they had succeeded in establishing in this country. It is well in studying the lives and actions of these men to glance at contemporary history. If we do, we will find that similar struggles were taking place in the mother country. These were the days of the Chartists, of riots and blood shed when men there also fought for representative government. The right hon. gentleman cannot read Papineau, or Baldwin, Lafontaine, or Mackenzie, neither can they read Lord Durham into supporting this measure. If they read and studied the lives of these men more closely; if we all who seek to legislate for this country did so, we would take a more statesmanlike view of things. The lives of these old Reformers will shine brightly from the pages of our history, let us give them credit. They and the men who consistently opposed them in maintaining British connection would on a question such as this be found fighting on the same side. For this independent Canadian navy is a new departure, a complete reversal of our old colonial policy.
Now at the time of the Imperial Defence Conference where did our ambassadors stand? The old question of participation in naval defence had been discussed in 1902, and in 1907 it came up again. Australia and New Zealand agreed to accept the proposals of the admirality, in other words, they agreed to join in a great naval league of defence of the empire. The Canadian ambassadors refused. They pleaded the peculiar situation of this country. That was an obscure term. They agreed, however, that they 'would carry out a modified programme. They would not accept the fleet unit idea, because they had ideas of naval strategy of their own.
Australia accepted the programme, and let us see what the Australian government did. Instead of bringing down a naval Bill, such as this government has brought down and is endeavoring to force upon parliament, they went to work by way of presenting a resolution. Here is the resolution which was moved by Mr. Joseph Cook, Minister of Defence for Australia, in the House of Representatives, on the 14th of November, and remember this was before any Bill was introduced:
That this House approves the new scheme of naval defence adopted at the recent imperial conference, and it is of opinion that immediate steps .should be taken to provide the proposed Australian unit of the eastern fleet of the empire.
In introducing this resolution he said that he asked the approval of the House for the scheme in simple form leaving ways and means for further consideration. He said:
Should the motion which I am moving be carried we shall turn over a new leaf in the book of our evolution. Our tutelary stages are past, our time of maturity is here. Let us hope that with it has come a deepening and increasing conviction of the immensity of the debt which we owe the mother country for sheltering us while we grew. In passing the motion we shall enter what has been called the Great Sea League of the empire. The Pacific will be allotted to us as the worthiest and most adequate contribution to the defence of the empire that the highest naval authorities can devise.
Having dodged that issue, this government are introducing the principle of a Canadian independent navy by a Naval Bill and endeavouring, with much casuistry and loud professions of loyalty, to carry it through this House. It would have been fairer to this House, and better for this country had the Australian plan been adopted.
The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) the other day charged some of the Liberal leaders in Quebec with voicing the idea of the separation of Canada from the mother country. But the separation issue is not confined, Mr. Speaker, to Quebec alone. I am assured that it was in Ontario that this idea first took root. The Ihon. the Postmaster General acknowledged that he was associated with a gentleman by the name of Elgin Myers, on the platform a few years ago in Montreal. The idea of the independence of Canada has been
prevalent	for	a number of	years,	andI. may	say	that I have	here	withme to-ni:	sfht	a book which	has	beenpublished	by	a gentleman	who	is a
resident of this city, a Mr. John Ewart.
Mr. Ewart has pubished a great many speeches which he has delivered at Cana-

dian club banquets, and the study of this book shows that it was written largely for Ontario consumption. In this book the virus of autonomy, or so-called independence is strongest, and in it he suggests that the vast majority of his compariots in Ontario are in favour of his ideas. I understand he is one of the leading counsellors and friends of the right hon. the First Minister. In his book he rails against imperial federation, against the imperial conference, against the British people. Anything that has ever happened in this country, from the Quebec Act down to the fall of the Quebec bridge, is described by Mr. Ewart to our British connection, or to Downing street. On the matter of imperial defence, Mr. Ewart, by innuendo and those petty-fogging methods which are adopted by lawyers of his kind, lays down the doctrine that in case the empire should be at war, Canada's policy should be: Not a man, not a gun, not a dollar. His idea is separation, he does not call it autonomy. He calls it separation, independence. The only thing he would retain is the King. No doubt he does not wish to lose the initials after his name, the K.C. He made converts among the English speaking people of this country, so did Dowie, and the chiefs of Holy Boilers. In this book he immortalizes the Prime Minister. The Minister of Marine, and the Minister of War, also find a place in this temple of fame. The Prime Minister apparently believes that Mr. Ewart voices the aspirations of the young English speaking Canadians, because they listened to his trash at the Canadian club dinners without dousing him in the horse trough. Mr. Ewart calls this separation; the premier calls it autonomy. Mr. Ewart is his ideal. He had to be honoured. Instead of incarcerating him in a mad-house, because I consider any man a mad man who talks separation, which spells revolution, and the shedding of fratricidal blood among Canadians, instead of putting this sensation-monger in a straight jacket he was given employment by the -government. On him is bestowed one of the highest honours that could be bestowed upon a member of his profession in this country. He was selected as counsel for this country before the Hague tribunal, and that was the endorsation given to him and his book by the right hon. Prime Minister, and the" Minister of Justice. Thus they approved of the book, of the man. He was in London, I understand, while this imperial conference was going on. He had to have more time for the preparation of his brief for the Hague. He was no doubt too busy pulling wires behind the scene for this beautiful separatist navy. This policy bears the marks of his hands. Even the flag incident. He is strong on a Canadian flag in his book. Any ship in the world might be proud to Mr. CURRIE.
fly the white ensign of the British navy for many brave deeds have been performed under its folds. Deeds for humanity, as well as for freedom and country. But he wants a Canadian flag. He says we must have separation-or you may call it complete separation, and a King. The King of England, or the King of Canada.
A Canadian King would mean a Canadian court, with Canadian lords and dukes and counts and viscounts. They call this autonomy. Are we to have the folly of the Maximillian Mexican empire duplicated here? Mexico had separation first. Then there was an attempt to set up an empire with an emperor and a court. It did not last long. The irate Mexicans took their emperor out one fine morning and shot him. Brazil had separation or autonomy, also an emperor, and he had to flee to escape the fate of Maximillian. The atmosphere on this side of the world is not healthy . for local kings or home made emperors.
This government, as I have already said, endorsed Mr. Ewart and any one who reads his book will come to the conclusion that the idea underlying this policy and this Naval Bill is undoubtedly the same idea as is enunciated by Mr. Ewart. The trouble with a country of this kind, in fact one of the troubles of the British empire, is the plague of cranks who w'ant to turn everything upside down and provide new constitutions. It is assumed by the Prime Minister in nearly all his speeches that there has been a constant struggle for liberty or so-called autonomy in this country. The policy of Great Britain has always been to allow the colonies to develop and thrive as free self-governing democracies. That was the old colonial policy ended with the American revolution. It is also the new colonial policy, which was inaugurated in this country by the Quebec Act, and which ante-dated Lord Durham by 200 years, the policy of Great Britain giving to her colonies absolute freedom. That was the principle always. Petty oligarchies set themselves up, they surrounded the governors, got the ears of the governors and endeavoured to stifle the will of the people. Any one who reads Canadian history, will find that in all the struggles in this country the British government had never departed from their policy. Let any one read the despatch sent by Lord Goderich on this orin-ciple, dated November 8, 1832, to Sir John Colborne, which has frequently been quoted. That despatch says that the people must not be interfered with in having a free election of their representatives or in having free government.
The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) some time ago, at Montreal, said that the time might come -when we might

elect our governor. He took to cover when some one questioned this. He would not need to, it would not be the first time. In 1756 the British empire was far greater than it is to-day. The colonies of all the European countries had fallen by conquest to Great Britain. Canada, Cape of Good Hope, India, every desirable spot in the world was ours. The United States were then happy and flourishing colonies. The glory of the British empire was on every tongue. If we talk of autonomy, why they had more then than we have now. They wrote their own charters or constitutions. They had free, representative self-government. They were free democracies. Rhode Island and Connecticut elected their own governors. Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut could pass laws that were not even subject to revision or the imperial veto. The Navigation Laws gave absolute inter-imperial preference. This preference went so far as to confine colonial trade to British bottoms; colonial built ships, of course, being included. A monopoly in the manufacture of wool and bar iron (1719), felt hats (1732), molasses (1733), and steel furnaces was conceded to Great Britain: It was the trade and the wealth which this system gave which enabled Britain to face single-handed and overthrow the combined navies of the world, and which brought the empire triumphant through the seven years war. The policy of a self-sufficing empire dominated both JJreat Britain and the colonies. The colonies were not a bit behind in contributing to imperial defence. In 1741, 3,000 colonials *shared the glorious victory of Carthagena under Vernon. During the seven years war, 25,000 men from the colonies were in the field. The colonial contribution to the navy at that time was over 400 ships of war. Pennsylvania and the other colonies spent millions of dollars in this war. In 1756 the loyalty of the colonies was unquestioned. In 1776 this great imperial federation which had reached a more advanced stage than the empire of to-day, was torn asunder, shattered to fragments. Students of history will tell you that the reason was that there was no statesman of the time with sufficient power and influence to evolve a form of government whereby a strong representative executive of the empire could reconcile the particularist or provincial tendency of the individual parts. No great constructive statesman appeared. I am of the opinion that had he been permitted, had) not legislation, human ignorance and passion hurried a climax, Franklin would have worked out a constructive solution of the problem. But the false stigma of a colonial prevented the British people from giving proper heed to his counsel, and when the crash came he, of necessity, joined his own colonial brethren and showed the world by his constructive work on the American constitution, what might have been done had Britain only called in the colonials for advice and counsel in the crisis. The same crisis is bound to arise again in the empire; I doubt but it is here. The theory of taxation without representation is bound to clash with too ardent patriotism and imperialism. And we, Sir, into whose hands in a measure the destinies of the empire are confided, should study the history of the empire in the period preceding the American revolution, to equip us the better to work out our own future destiny, looking to a united and greater empire. The true light of past experience is to be found in those musty, torn, and tear bedimmed pages that tell the story of the saddest days of the empire.
Sir, you ask me why I reier to that unfortunate period. It is because I am opposed to this Naval Bill. The Prime Minister of Australia said the time had come to turn a fresh page in history, we, too, have turned a fresh page, and on it what do we propose to write?-the fatal word 'separation/ for this independent navy spells separation. Better contribute four, yes and ten times four, Dreadnoughts than place a Bill on our statute-book that means ultimate separation. Better do nothing at all than involve this country in a quarrel with the motherland over the fatal principle of no taxation without representation. Why not tell the mother country the truth? Why not tell this government of England, which is now tottering to its fall, that before any scheme for contribution to imperial defence can be safely considered other and greater questions must be settled, that when the time comes to consider an adjustment of the relations of the colonies to the empire, while kindred blood and common ideas can bind two peoples together as strongly as links of steel, each must feel that its material advantages and privileges are associated in that union.
The empire is not lost, far from it. Thanks to the efforts of the greatest constructive statesman the British empire has yet seen, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, one of the great parties in Britain to-day is formulating a plan for further solidarity along material and business lines, and in full sympathy with the colonies. The future of the empire must rest upon a business foundation. Let us not repeat the errors of 1776 by adopting this naval policy, this Naval Bill, which is turning the hands back on the clock.
Sir, one of the excuses for this Bill is that we are doing something tor ourselves and at the same time for the empire, that we can no longer be charged with sponging upon the mother country. Let us ex-

risen to such greatness in this respect that they challenge the attention of Great Britain. It is for us to consider, if we are going to spend so much of the money of this country on a navy, whether we should not adopt a policy which'has been so successfully followed by these two nations, rather than the policy adopted by the United States, which experience has shown to be wrong. On various occasions the Americans have endeavoured to secure the adoption of a policy along the German and Japanese lines; but their tremendous expenditures on the navy, which a great many of their people consider useless, have prevented the adoption of such a policy. France also has adopted a policy of subsidizing ship-building and operating ships. In 1891 the French mercantile fleet amounted to only 300,000 tons, whereas to-day it amounts to 1,300,000 tons. Norway also has recently adopted the subsidy system. A ship subsidy Bill has been before the United States Congress on numerous occasions, and has been defeated because the people have had such enormous sums to pay for their navy. The result is that the United States tonnage in 1810 was virtually just as great as that of to-day. There is at the present time a Bill before Congress for the purpose of fixing a subsidy for the building of these ships, which proposes that they shall be fast merchant ships, with a speed about equal to that of our Canadian cruisers, and with considerable freight tonnage capacity, and when subsidized, they are expected to establish lines of communication between the United States, Brazil, Argentina, China, and New Zealand. These ships will carry freight, and will have gun platforms, on which guns of as great power as those of the Canadian cruisers can be mounted. They will thus be not only merchant ships of the latest class, but cruisers equal in speed and armament to ours. I think it would be wise for this government to consider the advisability of adopting a policy of that kind. The Canadian farmer, when he gives up his ox-team, goes and buys a good team of general purpose horses-he does not start a racing stable. In carrying out their naval policy, that is what this government should do, because cruisers built under these specifications would be able to carry our produce to the mother country in time of peace, and, in case of war, they would do the same thing, and at the same time have guns to fight the enemy's cruisers. The hon. members of this House know that I am deeply interested in ship-building, and I realize that it would be of great advantage to the maritime provinces to be able to regain once more the great industry of ship-building which they possessed twenty-five years ago, when Canada stood fourth in the great ocean-tonnage countries of the world. The policy proposed by this Mr. CURRIE.
government is not founded on business principles, and if adopted will involve such a great expenditure that this country will never have the ship-building industry established along sound commercial lines like other nations. In order to build a fleet you may establish shipyards and dry-docks, but after you have built three or four ships, what will you do? You will have nothing further to go on with, and the men who have come here from Glasgow, Belfast, and the Tyne, and have built these ships with foreign material, will have nothing to do. The beams will come from Great Britain, the plate from Germany and the United States, the machinery from Glasgow, the guns from Birmingham, and when you are through, what will happen? Your yards will have nothing more to do. The guns and machinery will represent about one-half the cost, and the armour about twenty-five per cent, which will leave about twenty-five per cent to be divided between the material for the hull, and the labour of assembly.
And I say that all the Canadian people will get out of the building of this fleet will be about 15 per cent. I do not think that is good business. The proper way to establish ship-building is to establish it on commercial lines. If you establish it by giving a subsidy, say of $3 per ton, on ships built in Canada and in addition confine your mail and shipping subsidies to ships built in Canada, you will soon find Canadians ready to put their money into the enterprise and make it a success. You will soon find that business established on a sound basis and your ship-building yards will always have plenty of work for the artisans. Then, if necessary, to build say torpedo boats and small destroyers, you will have workmen trained to do the work rapidly and efficiently. When we have that industry .established on a sound basis, you will also find establishments in this country willing to go into the manufacture of the material required. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company have a large -mill for the rolling of plates, but they have it housed up in a shanty because, under existing conditions, they could roll in a month all the plates used in Canada for a year, But, if you can show a substantial policy of this kind, they would soon erect their mill, and in a short time we would not only be rolling our own plates but be able to furnish all the machinery required, and the time would not be far distant when we will make our armour plate because the nickel that goes into the armour plate of the world comes from this country. We will also be able to -make our own guns and even tender for the building of warships for the British navy. The government should seriously consider this. If they should adopt the policy

they now advocate the door would be closed for the next 25 years in Canada as far as ship-building is concerned and as far as the hopes of the maritime provinces in that respect are concerned for the next generation. That is a consummation which no patriotic Canadian desires. What every one wishes is to see a ship-building industry established in the maritime provinces because .such an industry will give an impetus to agriculture and every other development in this country. It will also bring a large influx of population which, instead of coming here from Glasgow and other ship-building centres and going back as soon as the ship is built-because it is only a few days journey back home, will make their homes here since they will have plenty of work all the year round and will thus form an important adjunct to our population. But, instead of doing this, the government are proposing to establish the navy on such unsound lines that no member from the maritime provinces would be justified in supporting it.
I now come to another point and that is the command of this navy. As this House knows the command in chief has been taken out of the hands of the King and placed in the hands of the Prime Minister of this country, because that is what an order in council means. When this question came up at the conference the Minister of War (Sir Frederick Borden). quoted the Militia Act. I would like to deal with that Act, and point out what has been done with it. It is said that the Militia Act did not permit our Canadian forces to. be employed in the defence of the empire outside Canada. That statement has been made on many occasions. Let me say that the old Act did permit our military forces to be used outside Canada and so does the new Act.
Let me tell the House something about our militia and military affairs before going further. Let us for a moment glance at history and perhaps obtain some idea of what is at the bottom of this Navy Bill and what the results are likely to be. The militia was originally, in England, a parliamentary force. It was established previous to the time of Cromwell, but the army was reorganized in 1660 when Charles II. come to the throne. He was allowed a small standing army, and the same Act which established a standing army, established a militia, and placed the command of that militia in the hands of the sovereign. Two years later, with the^ dread of the standing army in their minds, the parliament of Great Britain declared that the King was the supreme officer of the militia, and by another clause gave the command of that militia over to the lord lieutenants of counties. While the King was declared to be the commander in chief
in substance, he was not in fact, because the command of the British militia was in the hands of the lord lieutenants of the counties, who took their orders from parliament. That existed until the reign of Queen Victoria, when an Act was passed which gave the command in chief of the militia and standing army personally into the hands of the Queen. That was the Act in force when confederation wras enacted. If any one will take the trouble to go back to the time when the Conservative party was in power in this country and will look up the Revised Statutes of 1884, he will find th-at the command in chief was personally in the hands of the sovereign. The member for Jacques Cartier, in his speech, touching the relations of the sovereign to the militia, expressed the ideas of the old Act. He was mistaken, there has been a great change in the relation of the militia of this country to the Crown. Clause 3 of this Act, of the Act of 1886, says:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all the military and naval forces of and in Canada is vested in the Queen and shall be exercised and administered by her personally, or by the Governor General as her representative.
The House will observe the term ' naval forces ' in that clause, and also that the command is personal, not legislative. Now clause 4 of the Consolidated Statutes of 1906 says:
The command in chief of the militia is declared to continue vested in the King and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.
One clause enacts positively, the other is purely declaratory, and what is more, the command of the naval forces is cut out entirely. Why? Was this independent navy anticipated when the Militia Act was amended in 1904? Was this amendment prepared in anticipation of what we now have? It looks like design. The King so far has certainly been written out. Let us now take up the clause dealing with calling out the militia, for that is really the enacting clause of the statute. Clause 79 of the old Act says:
Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for active service either within or without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection or danger of any of them, and the militiamen when so called out for actual service shall continue to serve for at least one year, from the date of their being called out, for active servjce, if required so to do, or for any longer period which His Majesty approves.
That, Sir, was the Act that was in force when our soldiers went to South Africa. The King notwithstanding anything said to the contrary had the power then to order

militia regiments for foreign service in the cause of imperial defence. The Crown could call out the militia at any time for service anywhere. The new Act is different. The present government, not a Tory government, made the charge also an English minister. Let us examine the new Act and see what it says on this point, and we will begin to locate the thin edge of this separation wedge.
Clause 69, R.S.C., 1906, says:
The Governor in Council may place the militia or any part thereof on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Sir, you will see that the Act of 1904, and the revision of the same of 1906, has not only taken the command of the militia away from the King, but further it has taken away the authority of the Crown, to order the militia on active service. It does exactly what the Act of 1662, did to Charles . II. in another way. Whilst the King is normally the head of our militia the only authority to order that force on. active service is an order in council. In other words the Prime Minister has usurped the functions and prerogatives of His Majesty. The same idea is carried out in this Naval Bill. Was there any necessity for taking the personal command of the militia away from the King? Is there any necessity for depriving the King of the personal command of this navy? His Majesty has not shown any signs of seeking to become an absolute rather than a constitutional monarch. There is no indication, that the people of this country are to be deprived by the Crown of those British laws, and institutions, that freedom greater than any other country which we possess and which is given to them under the British North America Act. Let us see there may be something else. Has this separatist policy gone further? We found in the old Militia Act, the following provision:
Clause 78, says:
The officer commanding any military district or division or the officer commanding any corps of active militia, may upon any sudden emergency of invasion, or unsurrect-ion or imminent danger of either, call out the whole or any part of the rn ilitia within liis command until the pleasure of Her Majesty is known, and the militia so called out by the commanding officer! shall immediately obey all such orders as he gives, and march to such place within or without the district or division as he directs.
Now, Sir, that was a wise provision which enabled a commanding officer to call out his men in case of invasion or insurrection to take the initiative in preserving the statu quo and await his sovereign's commands. But, Sir, I search the new Act in vain for a similar provision. It is not there Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
and why was it removed? Was its removal another step in the policy of separation when there could be established by civilians, and political clubs, a new constitution, free from that tyrannical British justice, and British guarantees? What is the result of this tampering with the Militia Act, with the King's executive authority? Let us see. The only authority to call out the militia now in Canada, is an order in council. Commanding officers can no longer oppose insurrection in the King's name. Five hundred resolute men with arms in their hands, under a bold leader could seize the person of the Governor General and the loyal members of the cabinet in this city, and they could easily overturn our constitution, and proclaim a separate kingdom or a republic or dictatorship. That is a startling fact, but nevertheless true. The old Act provided that the King or the officers commanding corps could call out the troops in such an emergency, to protect parliament, and the Crown's authority. If the council were prisoners, if they refused by collusion or otherwise, in such a case to call out the militia to defend the constitution what would happen? Nothing. The revolutionists would be in absolute control. If a commanding officer called out his militia men to oppose separation now, he could be treated as a rebel, and shot, and the law' as it novi' stands w'ould not give him the rights of a belligerent, in maintaining the statu quo, or the dignity of the Crown. Everything has been arranged so as to make a possible coup d'etat. Why? Honourable gentlemen may make professions of loyalty. They may pull up big red herrings out of the' sea, and clothe them in the British lion skins, and roar themselves hoarse. But the country has a reason to ask then, why has the authority of the British Crown, the guarantee of o/ur constitution, been eliminated from the Militia Act, and now from the naval force ? That is a question that will need a lot of answering. It is a question which every peaceful Canadian should ask-Why have such great changes been made in the relation of the British Crown to the militia and armed forces been made without a discussion, and a full disclosure? That should in itself be sufficient to kill this Bill. Why has the authority of the King been usurped by the order in council or in other words by the Prime Minister? Is this navy going to be a royal navy, or another instrument under the absolute control of the Prime Minister? Where is this ambition going to end? We have a Laurier militia. Now we are going to have a Laurier navy. Let me warn the Prime Minister that there is but a step from the Capitol to the Tarpeian rock.	,
Now, during this debate reference has been made to the question of guarantees.

There is no doubt in the -world but that some guarantees were made in the British North America Act. Consider the condition of the country at that time. It was torn by dissension and agitation, it was threatened with invasion from the south. All parts of the country had reached that state of political agitation when business was suspended and something had to be done. On the 10th of October, 1864, the Quebec conference met and lasted eight days. At that conference was written out the charter of our liberties. At that conference the various provinces represented exchanged guarantees, guarantees respecting the rights of religious minorities, guarantees with respect to language, guarantees with respect to property and with respect to commerce. All these guarantees were included in the constitution agreed upon in 1864. Now, Sir, after these guarantees had been agreed upon, it was necessary to ascertain whether the British government would assent to them, and at a meeting in Great Britain guarantees were also exchanged between the representatives of Canada and the representatives of the British Crown. I have before me a report made by the great men of that day, men whose names stand high, not only in the councils of the Reform party, but also in the councils of the Conservative party. The men who signed that report were the Hon. George Brown, a well known Reformer; Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George E. Cartier and A. T. Galt. Now, the question of defence was discussed in London at that conference, and they stated in this report what Canada would guarantee so far as defence was concerned. I will trouble the House by reading one or two sentences of that report:
On the part of Canada, we expressed the desire that this plan for the defence of all parts of the province should be taken as the basis of arrangement; and that a full and candid discussion should be had as to the share of the cost that ouvht to be borne respectively by the imperial and provincial exchequers.
We expressed the earnest wish of the people of Canada to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain, and their entire willingness to contribute to the defence of the empire their full quota, according to their ability, of men and money. '
That was the pledge given by Canada to Great Britain at the time of confederation, when Great Britain agreed to pass the Act of Confederation. Sir, what did Great Britain do? Great Britain gave to Canada the following pledge:
It will be gratifying to many devoted subjects of Her Majesty throughout British America, whose fears have been excited by the language too often heard of late years, on the subject of colonial connection, that we
received from Her Majesty's ministers the assurance that the British government acknowledge the obligation of defending every portion of Canada with all the resources at its command.
I feel very strongly on the matter of these guarantees, and I think when any question arises in this country involving any change in the guarantees exchanged between the provinces or between Canada and the British Crown, we should go very slowly and not rock the boat too much. It is much better for us to maintain the statu quo in matters of. this kind than to rashly enter upon changes. The guarantees are sacred. The ministers of the Crown will not grant an appeal to the people. They have not had a mandate from the people on this naval question, which certainly to my mind involves a reversal of our own policy, the adoption of a new policy, the possession of an independent navy. If they refuse us the privilege of going to the people ourselves to discuss this question then the least they can do would be to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and submit this very important and serious question to the people. My leader has made the same suggestion. The guarantees winch were exchanged at the time of confederation should not be lightly set aside, l am sure the people of Ontario are just as eager to maintain the constitution established as the result of the Quebec conference, that is the British North America Act, as any other portion of Canada, and if the rights of my province were threatened I would be the first- man to raise my voice. While this navy may not perhaps involve a question affecting any province directly, it certainly involves the question of the separation of this country from the motherland. To that question, as far as I am concerned, there is only one answer, that is the word, no.
While the resolution of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier does not enter into any discussion of the greater issues involved, such as a contribution, it deals directly with this Bill, and, for the benefit of this House, I shall read and examine that resolution so that we may better judge whether we should vote for it or not. This resolution, as I have already said, deals only with this Bill, which after all, is the only thing that is actually before the House. The resolution of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was proposed by him as a sub-amendment or substitutional amendment. Every one who understands the rules of proceeding from a school meeting up to parliament, knows that every amendment to the amendment is an amendment to the main motion. It involves three principles. Let us examine them.

This House, while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown, is of opinion that the Bill now submitted for its consideration changes the relations of Canada with the empire, and ought, in consequence, to be submitted to the Canadian people in order to obtain at once the nation's opinion by means of a plebiscite.
In the first place the hon. member recites the unalterable devotion of this House to the British Crown. I cannot feel in my heart that I can vote against that. In the second place he states that in his opinion the Bill submitted for the consideration of the House changes the relation of Canada with the empire. Every body who has followed the debate, especially in the last two weeks will realize that that is the direction in which this debate has tended, and that hon. gentlemen opposite have not been afraid to rise and state that it is the ultimate object of such legislation as this to bring about separation from the British Crown. Therefore, I say as a sound constitutionalist, and as a believer in the British North America Act that I cannot find it in my heart to vote ' no ' for that proposition, because I firmly believe that this Bill does endeavour to change our relations to the British Crown, and ultimately lead us to separation. He says it ought in consequence to be submitted to the Canadian people in order to obtain at once the nation's opinion by means of a plebiscite. Many people will take the ground that it is not British nor constitutional to have a plebiscite. We have heard some professors of constitutional history recite their views in this House, and some of those views to my mind were very misty and hazy, but it seems to me that any one who knows any thing about constitutional history knows that this our constitution was based largely on the American constitution. I have stated that the fathers of confederation at that time met and wrote our constitution at the Quebec conference. These men understood constitutions and constitutional history a thousand times better than we do and why? At that time they had written constitutions in other countries, some of which had failed, and some had succeeded. France had a written constitution. A few years before that the constitution was torn to pieces by Napoleon the Third. Italy had just been united as a limited monarchy under Cavour a few years before. Spain had been in the toils and struggles of revolution, and to the south of us the United States was fighting out the principle of the rights of states as against federal authority, which involved very serious constitutional changes. The fathers of confederation were seized of all these facts, they realized the importance of the work they had in hand, and the British North America Act which they prepared is, to my mind, Mr. CURRIE.
one of the soundest and ablest state papers that ever emanated from any people-. They knew all about these matters. They established in that Act the principle that we, the members of parliament, represent the people, the principle of representative government. In the United States they believe in representative government, and there is no man in this House who will say he does not represent his riding. The principle in England is the reverse, as far as representative government is concerned, prerogative comes from above; our prerogative comes from the people, we believe in representation by population. The United States government has a written charter, we have a written charter, and when any change is involved in the American constitution what happens? They put the amendment to the constitution before the people in a plebiscite. I believe it would be wise for us to adopt that principle in this case, especially as this is a matter which, involves a very great change in our relation to the empire. We have a change here involving the setting up of a new empire, or a new King? One would think that we had no rights at all, that we had less liberties than they have in Great Britain. I would ask any hon. gentleman if we have not greater liberties than the people of Scotland have? They do not make their own laws, or impose their own taxation.


An hon. MEMBER.: Or Ireland.


John Allister Currie: Yes, poor Ireland. What about poor England or Wales? We have greater liberties than they have in any of these countries and we find that this Naval Bill challenges these liberties. As far as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is concerned I cannot find it in my heart to vote against his amendment. I will vote for it because it involves a great principle and a principle that I think every one ought to vote for. As far as the principle involved in the amendment of my hon. leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) is concerned, I shall vote for his motion because it meets with my heartiest approval. Because two good things are presented to us and because the lesser is included in the greater it is no reason why we should reject either one or the other. From the purely business standpoint and the sentimental standpoint the amendment of my hon. leader is one that should be adopted by us and that is that we should contribute to the cost of our insurance like men and be done with it. If a policeman guards my property I pay taxes for his protection. If you have ships to carry your trade away you establish the principle that you pay subsidies to those ships. If you do not wish to establish a navy of your own, if
50G9

you feel that the burden is great in opening up and developing the resources of the country, you do not need to go to that expense because there is one of the largest nations of the world that has had a long experience in the construction and management of battleships which is ready toi do it for you which has guaranteed under the British North America Act that she will aid you. For that reason, as far as I am personally concerned, I intend to vote for both these resolutions. To every one. who has read the pages of history it must be apparent that there are other very grave questions involved. We should adopt the soundest and wisest policy and move as slowly along this line at the present time as we can. We have Scylla on one side and Charybdis on the other and unless we have the wisest statesman to guide us we may get into very serious trouble with the old country or with some other nation. A year or two previous to the trouble between the mother country and the American colonies one of the greatest statesmen of the time-Franklin-wrote the following:
I am of the opinion that the foundation of the future greatness and stability of the British empire lie in America, and though like other foundations they may he low and little now, they are nevertheless broad and strong enough to support the greatest political structure that human wisdom ever yet erected.
m
These foundations are being laid in this country by us. It will be time enough when we have twenty or thirty million to take into consideration the question of any changes in our constitution. Let us remain a free and happy people and let it not be said that for over a hundred years the people who have lived in this country have been trying in an humble wav to realize that prophecy of Franklin's and they have failed. For forty years we have lived a united people working out our salvation along those lines. Let us make haste slowly with regard to this stupendous question. Those questions that form the basis for debates in the schools and colleges as to whether Canada should be independent or annexed to the United States are all childish questions and the men who bring them up in this House or try to voice them throughout the country simply show that they are acting in a childish way. We have a constitution the equal of which cannot he found and we cannot hope to improve upon it at present. Let us maintain our constitution and in future years let it not be said in time of emergency that a great empire and little minds go together.


Mr. J. A. LORTIE (Soulanges).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before this debate is closed, I deem it my duty to express
an opinion on this burning issue, on this intricate question which is now before us, the creation of a marine, an issue which, for several months past, has agitated all minds, either in this House or outside of it. The note I am going to strike is likely to sound harshly and to grate upon the ears of many people, while it will be in accord and in tally with the feelings of all true patriots who endeavour to preserve in their integrity the rights and privileges guaranteed by our constitution; rights and privileges secured to us by the indefatigable and incessant efforts of our great statesmen and faithfully adhered to by Sir George Etienne Cartier, Sir John Macdonald, Tupper, Angers and Monk.
As remarked by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Ecrement) in his speech, in seconding the address:	'We are at the
parting of the ways in our history; we are entering upon one of those history-makers, one of those epoch-making periods in the history of Canada.' Are not such words, Sir, calculated to cause us to ponder, and do they not warn us to deeply think over the responsibilities we are going to assume and the action we are about to take?
The Bill providing for the establishment of a navy is, to my mind, the most important piece of legislation the Canadian government has been called upon to deal with since confederation. The creation of a fleet, the control of which passes automatically into the hands of the British admiralty in time of war, destroys our autonomy and effects our constitution, of which all Canadians are justly proud.
I notice that in the report of the imperial conference (page 24), there are three conditions mentioned as means of assisting in imperial defence.
The first form in which to assist in imperial government from expenses which bution of money or material.
A second form would be to provide local naval forces and place them at the disposal of the Crown, in the event of war.
A third one would be in undertaking certain local services not directly of a naval character, but which may relieve the imperial government from expenses which would otherwise fall on the British exchequer.
Tihs last condition is the one that has been so far carried out, it is the one, I say, that this country should stick to, while putting forth greater efforts for the development of our territory.
Look at the thousands of miles of railway we have built so far! We shall soon have three transcontinental railways which will cross the country in every direction. Besides, we have improved our waterways, by dredging our rivers, by making canals and providing better accommodation and facili-

ties at our ports. There are so many efficacious means of abridging distances from ocean to ocean and facilitating, in the event of war, the transportation of British troops and goods. Besides, are we not responsible for the protection and defence of our territory? Have we not undertaken to protect our coasts, our ports and our fisheries, so many ways of relieving the British government from expenses they would have to face otherwise?
We are a colony, but a colony with a territory as vast and as immense as that of Russia. When we assumed the responsibility of developing, protecting and defending .a territory which is five or six times larger than the British isles, with a population of six or seven millions, did we not give an extraordinary proof of our gratitude and loyalty towards England? Could she now require anything more from us, for the present. Therefore we are wrongly charged with disloyalty when we ask to remain in the statu quo.
I want to remain in the staru quo: first, because the creation of a navy which will be part of the imperial fleet, involves too large and expenditure of public money, which will-result in considerably retarding the development and progress of the country.
Secondly, because it completely changes our relations with the empire.
Thirdly, because the people have never been consulted on that point.
Are we now in such a financial position as to be able to build a navy? If I open the blue-books and examine our financial position, I find that the country is saddled with a debt of 472 millions. In his budget speech, did not the Finance Minister tell us that the public expenditure had exceeded the revenue by 45 millions? What will happen, when we are fairly embarked upon this scheme of militarism? Is not the example of all countries launched into militarism a sufficient warning to make us shudder with fear. With tne construction of that navy, I have no hesitation in saying, without fear of misleading public opinion, that as early as next year, the deficit of our budget will be considerably increased and even doubled.
That debt of 472 millions snows that we are poor; we are a mere population of seven millions to meet such a large debt and provide for the new expenditures we shall have to incur for the development of the resources of Canada. Would it not be far better to devote * our money, our revenue, our energies and our labours to the development of the country, instead of building a navy which will probably prove a source of danger for Canada in the future?
We have duties to discharge towards the empire under the British flag; we have Mr. LORTIE.
faithfully fulfilled those duties in the past, and we are quite ready to continue so doing in the future. But, on the other hand, we cling to our flag; and we think that to impoverish Canada in order to indulge in sentimentalism and pseudo-marine, is far from being a practical and patriotic policy.
If we now turn our attention towards the great public works which are an absolute necessity, in order that our country may keep pace with its development and the increase of population, we find that we shall need fabulous sums of money. What will be the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific? Two hundred million dollars will hardly be sufficient to complete the work; an amount quite different from the estimated cost given by the Prime Minister and his followers. I still remember the pompous and emphatic tone assumed by the speakers when haranguing the people on the pubic platforms, when they exclaimed: ' We are going to build, a transcontinental railway, from ocean to ocean, at the cost of $13,000,000. The public domain will not be sacrificed, as under the Conservative rule, in the building of the Canadian Pacific railway. We won't see a repetition of the famous plunders of the boodlers of those days. If our public lands have not been sacrificed so far, I may say that the public exchequer has been looted. So far, the cost of that undertaking exceeds 160 million dollars.
After such contradictions on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite, could I not say, without fear of leading public opinion astray, that the government is going to spend three times more than is necessary for the building of the navy, which would increase that exenditure to 45 millions.
Here is the proof of my assertions. In January last, when introducing the Naval Service Bill, the right hon. the Prime Minister said: ' The estimated annual cost of maintenance is $3,000,000.' Now, upon the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, three weeks later, he stated that the cost of maintenance would reach $4,150,000. Oil January 10, the prime minister's right arm, the Minister of Militia, said that the estimated cost of maintenance would be $4,680,000; and he continued; ' I have here a paper prepared by Admiral Kingsmill. It reads as follows: Estimated annual cost by Adm|iral Kingsmill for maintenance?, interest on the cost of the navy, $468,000; of the cost of the navy to provide for replacement, $1,560,000; maintenance of college, barracks, &c., $1,030,000; maintenance of training ships, $1,244,000; maintenance of Bristols, and torpedo boats, $1,885,000; total of annual cost, $7,157,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all agreed that the construction of the Georgian bay canal is a necessity. According to the reports of

experts, the cost of that undertaking will be $100,000,000. The consensus of opinion in this country is that this is a matter of urgency. Should the building of that canal be delayed a few years longer, the western trade will be diverted from Canada to the United States. Why have we not started building that waterway? I leave the answer to the hon. Minister of Marine, who, at a banquet tendered by the Reform Club to the Secretary of State, said: ' The causes are want of money and the insufficiency of our resources.'
If our resources are insufficient for urgent works of paramount Importance, if we find it impossible, for lack of "means, to construct works which would yield us enormous revenues, is it not ridiculous, not to say absurd, to build a navy the pressing necessity of which for the country has not yet been shown, and which may, in the future, prove adverse to our interests?
Would it not be preferable and more logical, Sir, to devote those millions to the building of the Georgian bay canal, which would be an important step taken in the right direction for the development of our commerce and the progress of the country?
Besides those great works, those undertakings of first magnitude, are these not works of secondary importance which are more pressing than the building of a navy?
Are not the harbours of Quebec and Montreal in need of better accommodation and of more modern equipment, in order that they should be on a footing of equality with the neighbouring harbours? Halifax and St. John are far from having the requisite equipment to become national ports. The needs of the harbours on the Pacific ocean should not be ignored either. I am quite satisfied that the majority of the inhabitants of this country realize that there is a more urgent need of undertaking, improving and completing those works than building a navy? I do not think I am very far from the mark in estimating at 400 millions the cost of those works. In my opinion, therefore, from the financial standpoint alone, irrespective of other considerations, it is impossible for Canada to undertake the building of a navy.
What will be the cost of that navy? We have, it is true, the statements made by the Prime Minister, who says that it will not exceed $15,000,000. If the right hon. gentleman had never led public opinion into error, I would most willingly accept his word. But the history of the past is calculated to cast some doubt in our minds. I need no other proof than tne history of the building of the transcontinental, in regard to which the people of Canada were led into error and completelv deceived.
The creation of a navy involves other expenditures besides the building of the warships. There are many necessary ex-161
penditures. Besides the cost of the dockyards, equipment, uniforms, stores, ammunition and coal, have we not also to provide for fortified revictualling harbours, offering an armed refuge in case of damage suffered by ships. Those ports will be for repair of ships, with dry docks and floating docks. Moreover, in the memorandum of the admiralty, is not a pension for seamen mentioned?	[DOT]
What is the life or term of service of those warships going to be? Their lease of life is very short, according to the statistics in connection with such navy. Owing to the fact of keeping those ships on the open sea, as stated by shipbuilders, their life is about twenty years. On the other hand, owing to the rapid development of the naval science and of mechanics, the existence of these ships becomes still shorter. After ten or twelve years' service, they become obsolete, out-of-date, and ships of a more modern type and more up-to-date are required.
The creation of a navy, according to the scheme subm'tted by the Prime Minister, changes for the future our relations with the mother country. Our autonomous constitution, the Militia Act, and particularly section 69, militate against such a scheme. Section 69 reads:	.
The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Emergency means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended!
It is clearly enacted in the above section that the militia may be called out on active service only for the defence of our territory. Therefore by that section we are not bound to take part in the wars of the empire.
Therefore, our soldiers, our militia men are trained and maintained only for the protection of Canada, wherever those interests mav be.
Did not the Minister of Militia collaborate in the framing of the Act of 1904, and did he not approve of it?
Listen to what he said then:
The very fundamental idea of a militia force has always been and is now home defence. In every portion of the British empire, without any exception, the same principle is laid down which is found in the Bill before the House-that the militia of that part of the British empire shall be limited in their service to the particular part of the empire in which they live. I have taken the trouble to examine the old militia laws of the different provinces which made Up the Dominion of Canada, and in every one of those provinces, we find the same limitations.

them is the part of despotism or bureaucracy?
The plebiscite is not a new departure in our country; it is not even a new departure for this government. Has not the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues had recourse to a consultation of the people on the question of prohibition, a matter of very little importance in comparison with this.
This Naval Defence Bill is really a turning point in Canadian politics. In my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that 221 members should take on themselves to bind the country to militarism, that scourge which has brought about financial embarrassments in all countries affected by it, and that without obtaining the approval of the people who are the supreme judges in the>
matter, such action, I say, cannot be justified.
We representatives of the people hold from our constituents no mandate either! direct or indirect authorizing us to add to our obligations, which are already burdensome, contributions in money and men tors ards forwarding the ambitious aims of the mother country. And since no recourse is had to a plebiscite, is not the inference that the people have nothing to do with settlement of such questions? Must it then be admitted that the people's part consists in meekly bearing as best they can the burden of imperialism which the government is about to lay on their shoulders. Of course, hon. gentlemen on the other side are opposed to the plebiscite idea lest, impelled by legitimate indignation, the people should condemn that imperialistic measure and forever prevent its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I wish to state that I cannot vote for the Bill, because it will lead us to imperialism. Neither can I vote for the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, because it has not yet been clearly proven that Great Britain is actually and urgently in danger of losing her supremacy on the seas. Accordingly, I shall vote for the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), because I take it to be in harmony with our principles of selfgovernment and likely to safeguard us against imperialistic tendencies.


Mr. C. L. OWEN (Northumberland, Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, I have the very greatest sympathy for you, because, I notice that since the beginning of this debate, you seem to have grown older, and I am not much surprised at that. You look weary, Mr. Speaker, and sympathizing with you as I do, I shall not trespass on your patience for any length of time tonight. I have listened to most- of the speeches that have been delivered in this House during the past five weeks on the Naval Defence Bill, which I consider one Mr. LORTIE.
of the most important questions which has ever come befoi'e this parliament. I have heard a great deal about loyalty and disloyalty, and I would hate to believe that any minister of the Crown or any supporter of the government is disloyal. I do not believe it, Sir. I believe that every member of this House is a loyal man, and that our difference is after all only a difference of opinion. I give to every man the right to hold his opinions, and I claim that right for myself. We have listened to long speeches and to the reading of essays on this important question; speeches and essays that have taken us back almost to the time of the flood. No wonder, Sir, that you look weary. A good many hon. gentlemen have spoken of what took place 150 years ago, but I fail to see what that has to do with the issue before us, because I take it that we have been sent here to legislate for the present and the future, and not to bother about the past. Many mistakes have been made in the past, and we cannot remedy them now; let us do what we can in the interest of this great Dominion at the present time. I regret that the Prime Minister did not bring down a Naval Defence Bill so framed that every member of this House could have supported it. The right hon. gentleman did not choose to do that, and so I have to express my dissent to his proposal to build a Canadian navy. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the building of a Canadian navy for several reasons. I am satisfied, in my own mind, that Canada does not want a navy, and if Canada did want a navy, I would not approve of laying the foundation of it by building third-class cruisers, which will be out of date in ten years, and which will then have to be replaced1 at an additional expense of millions of dollars. In building this navy we are opening up an avenue for an expenditure of millions of dollars per annum, and I claim that the country cannot afford that at the present time. I believe that from the financial point of view we are not able at this juncture to lay the foundation for a Canadian navy. We are the banner colony of the great British empire, a fact of which every member of this House is proud. I hope we will always remain part of the British empire, and my hope is that this great Dominion shall become part and parcel of that empire with representation at Westminster. Now, Sir, I do not believe that any man who talks about separation from the mother country is sincere, because it would be the height of folly for us to dream of such a thing. The question has been asked often during this debate if we are not under an obligation to the mother country? Why, certainly we are. We have enjoyed peace and prosperity for many years; true, we had a little civil war which has passed into bir

tory, but we have been at peace with our neighbours, and that peace is due to the fact that we have been protected by the royal navy. The mother country has protected us in the past, she is protecting us now, and she is prepared to protect us in the future. And, Mr. Speaker, as Britain protected us while we were young and weak, now that we are older and stronger, it is our duty to in some way show our appreciation. We have heard a great deal of talk about the German nhvy, and you will remember that in 1900, when the German naval programme was submitted to the German parliament the preamble of the Bill set out that Germany was going to build a navy stronger than the strongest. We all know that Britain to-day possesses the strongest navy in the world, and when Germany announces that she is giong to build a navy stronger than the strongest, we may assume that she is not going to build it as a mere toy to look upon. 1 believe, Sir, that the designs of Germany are upon Great Britain, and I believe that if a naval battle does take place, the scene of it v/ill be in the North Sea. Germany is not going to divide hex fleet; she will keep it in active service in the North Sea, and as Great Britain must keep a stronger navy in the North Sea than Germany has, the contribution of two Dreadnoughts to the royal navy is most important. I think that every Canadian here to-night should be proud to do something to show his appreciation of the good old mother country and what she has done for us in the past, and I think that every member of this House who has the welfare of the British empire at heart should vote for the amendment moved by Mr. R. L. Borden, the honoured leader of the Conservative party, which proposes to send the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts to the royal navy, and to send it at once. Now, Sir, I have referred to the matter from the financial point of view, and I want to point out what this country has set out for itself to do for the future. We have pledged ourselves to complete the National Transcontinental railway, which will cost millions of dollars; we have to deepen and widen the Welland canal, which will cost many more millions; we have to complete the Trent canal, which will cost other millions, and we ha.jje also to build the Quebec bridge.


An hon. MEMBER.: And the Newmarket canal.


Charles Lewis Owen: Yes, and the Newmarket canal. Then, we are also committed to build the Hudson Bay railway, which will cost many more millions, and I notice that the Prime Minister stated the other day to a deputation that he would build the Georgian Bay canal as soon as the Minister of Finance could see his way clear to provide the funds. In face of all these obligations, I do not think we are financially strong enough to lay the foundation of a Canadian navy. Indeed, I do not see that we have any use for such a navy, because if we build the third-class cruisers which the Bill calls for, I cannot conceive of what value they will be after they are put into commission. For these reasons, I shall support the amendment proposed by my leader (Mr. Borden).


Mr.   E.@: PROULX (Prescott;. Mr. Speaker, if the subject before the House were not of such vast importance I would content myself with giving a silent vote, but I believe I owe it to my constituents on this occasion to state my reasons for the vote which I shall give to-night. We have before the House three policies: the one proposed by the government in the present Bill, to build a Canadian navy; the one proposed by the leader of the opposition, which I may call the Dreadnought policy; and the one proposed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) which I may call the do-nothing policy, at least for the present and until the people have pronounced upon it by means of a plebiscite. The government's position is based on a resolution which was adopted unanimously by this House on the 29th of March last. It is also based upon tne view that there is no great crisis, and that Canadian loyalty is best shown by forming the nucleus of a Canadian navy, which will eventually place Canada in a position to protect herself properly and be a strong arm of defence in time of imperial peril. Singularly enough, this policy was approved of by the hon. leader of the opposition, and in fact by all the members of the opposition last March and up to the opening of this session. When the leader of the opposition was in London last summer he attended on the first of July the Dominion Day banquet, at which he is reported to have said:
Some feeling was created in the British Isles owing to the fact that Canada did not, by resolution or by speech from the Prime Minister, vouchsafe the offer of one, two, or three Dreadnoughts. He (Mr. Borden) thought the resolution in the form in which it was passed, whilst its terms might not upon their surface seem as significant at the moment as the offer of one or two Dreadnoughts would have been, laid down a permanent policy for the Dominion of Canada upon which both parties united and which would serve a more practical purpose than any such offer of Dreadnoughts.
So we may conclude that the hon. leader of the opposition last July believed that the building of a Canadian navy would be a more permanent policy for this government to adopt than the giving of two or three Dreadnoughts. After he came back from England he spoke in his constituency

in Halifax, affirming the same opinion. He also affirmed it in Toronto last October. But when the session opened he appeared to have modified his views. I do not know whether the instruments of which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) spoke some time ago in this House, as having been used on this side of the House, were used by his own supporters in the memorable caucus at the opening of the session. At all events, the hon. leader of the opposition has come now to this position, that he wants to offer to Great Britain the cost of two- Dreadnoughts at present, and wait until the people have had an opportunity to pronounce upon a Canadian navy. So the opposition now preach another policy, which is called present and practical aid to the mother country. The gift of two Dreadnoughts, they claim, can alone meet the emergency. The opposition seem to believe firmly in Germany's hostile intentions towards England. They also claim for themselves the sole interest in Canada in the diffusion of loyal principles, and some of them declare that the policy adopted by the government will lead to the separation of Canada from the empire and the dissolution of the empire. It seems to me that the policy of the opposition depends on whether or not there is a great crisis in Britain's foreign relations. It has been proved many times in this House since the beginning of the debate that there is no great crisis and that the German peril does not in fact exist. The hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) has quoted high authorities, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has quoted the authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and some important newspapers in England, disclaiming any real cause for the German scare. The authorities of Germany have also spoken. The other day the Chancellor of the German empire, discussing the budget, said that Germany had no hostile intentions towards Great Britain, and was building a navy only for the purpose of protecting her shores and her commerce. We have also important German newspapers disclaiming any hostile intentions on the part of Germany towards Great Britain. Some of these expressions have been translated by the 'Literary Digest' of New York, as follows:
Germany's Denial of Evil Intent.
Words can scarcely convey the indignation felt by many German periodicals as they grasn the purport of Robert Blatchford's warning to England against the German navy, recently quoted in these columns. ' A flagrant attempt to appeal to the worst nature in both countries at the very moment when the official leaders of both nations are holding out the hand of good fellowship.' Such is the characterization, for instance, of a German resident merchant, Mr. Charles Huchmann, writing ' The Nineteenth Century ' (London). The Mr. E. PRODLX.
sentiment is echoed in many of the leading German dailies. They agree that no motive in the new imperial chancellor is stronger than that of friendship with the English government and people. The letters of Robert Blatchford have prodigiously impressed the people of England.' to quote the ' Vossische Zeitung ' (Berlin), which adds:
Blatchford is a sensational socialist journalist who has the ear of the English proletariat. In England the naval crusade has always been somewhat aristocratic in its temper, but to-day we have evidence of a determination to make the anti German agitation a working-class movement. It is likely to succeed. It is highly probable that every British workman will, before many years, imbibe the idea that the German Emperor is eager to conquer England.
The cunning of the agitation is thus evident. The English are not taught to hate the Germans. They are all the time assured that it is the German Emperor who has resolved to force his conquering fist upon the English. It seen's idle to repudiate any such intentions. As long as a battleship on the high seas floats the German flag, this English agitation will continue. We can afford to ignore it, hut it is calculated to he a source of peril to international peace for many years to some.
The socialist German dailies, on the other hand, tend to confirm, more or less indirectly, what Blatchford says. The 'Berlin Vor-waerts ' is perpetually referring to ' mad schemes of conquest beyond the seas ' which it attributes to ' exalted personages.' For this it is taken to task by that faithful organ of German imperial policy, the Berlin ' Kreuz Zeitung.' Germans never dream of invading England,' it says, ' and we feel sure that this latest scare is merely a rehash, for popular consumption, of the one that has done duty so many times before. It urges Germans everywhere to avoid any conduct calculated to irritate the English and to assist the German chancellor in his effort to cultivate the good opinion of the British government. The Berlin ' Tageblatt ' quite despairs of ever disabusing the mind of the English of its inveterate suspicions. It reminds us that the English, ' being crowded closely together upon a small island,' are prone to panic ' because of their delicate geographical position and the resulting nervousness it produces.' The Berlin ' Post ' observes:
It is fortunate for us that the English are willing to let us use flying machines in our tactical manoeuvres. Should they take -it into their heads that we contemplate an invasion of their coast by means of the aeroplane, we can think of no way of calming their agitation. Lord Cromer says Blatchford has obtained material for his latest panic from socialists in Germany. How true is that statement? It ought not to he forgotton that no German socialist is in a position to obtain information which is out of the reach of the German chancellor, and, in fact, which the chancellor says has no existence.
The real explanation of the latest English scare is the desire of many influential interests in London to prevent all understandings between the two powers. The attempt will unquestionably meet with some measure of success. The English distrusts us and they are likely to distrust us for a long time. That need not discourage us in our efforts to culti-

vate friendly relations with them. But we must be prepared for exasperations.
The government of Canada, in coming to a commercial understanding only the other day with Germany, has also tended to remove any friction which may exist between England and Germany. As my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Claik) has said, there have been many scares before. Russia was at one time a chronic bogey and there have also been French scares. Before the entente cordiale, England was very suspicious of the intentions of France. Canada, in building a navy, is simply carrying out the traditional policy laid down by Great Britain as far back as 1862. In that year, a resolution was passed by the imperial parliament enunciating the principle that the colonies exercising the rights of selfgovernment ought to undertake the responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security and assisting in their own internal defence. This principle was embodied in the Naval Defence Act of 1865, which empowered colonial governments to provide men and vessels of war, the same to be available for service in the royal navy when an offer is made by the government of a colony to Diace them at the disposal of the imperial government.
The main objection of those who favour the attitude taken bv the hon. member for Jacques 'Cartier (Mr. Monk) is that the building of a Canadian navy will involve a heavy expenditure. This was the main argument of the hon. member for Sou-langes (Mr. Lortie) who spoke to-night. Well, it is true that a Canadian navy will cost something. It is calculated that it will cost about three per cent of our revenue. But is that too heavy a price to pay for the protection of Canadian commerce and the maintaining of our position in the British empire? Should the policy advocated by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) prevail, that would in all likelihood involve .separation, from the empire; and then, if Canada were independent or became part of the United States, the burden of the Canadian people for the purposes of naval defence would be much heavier than if she remained a part of the British empire.
In my opinion, if a consultation of the people were had on this Bill, the great majority in Quebec, as in the other provinces, would vote for doing something- either build a Canadian navy or give a contribution. The people throughout Canada understand their duty, and I do not think we need resort to a plebiscite to inform ourselves as to their views. The Canadian press is almost unanimous in advocating the building of a Canadian navy or doing something to help the mother country by way of gitt or contribution; and the representatives of the people
in this House have duties to perform, the most important of which is to provide for the safety, peace and good government of this country. We do not need to ask people for advice in these matters. Great questions have been decided before and important steps taken in the political history of our country without any resort to a plebiscite. When the Canadian militia was established in 1868, there was no plebiscite. Before the various Canadian provinces went into confederation, there was no plebiscite to ascertain whether the people in each province were in favour of that change.
We also have the objection raised that in this country we are not able to build a navy; and those who raise that objection are not the ones who are in favour of the statu quo but are those who want to make a, gift or contribution to the mother country. For my part I think that the hon. members who raise that objection cannot have much pride or confidence in their own country or the capabilities of our own people. To decide whether our people have the ability to organize a Canadian navy, we need only study history. Take the great works which have been built in this country. Take the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway, the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern and the Transcontinental, take our Canadian banking and insurance systems and the development of our other great enterprises-all these bear testimony to the ability of Canadians to manage their own affairs and build their own industries. The hon. member from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) saicf he would be in favour of the government, policy if two Dreadnoughts were added to the ships to be built. Well, in that respect I differ from him; but if there are other ships to be built than those proposed by the government, I would like these to be merchant ships. I believe that these should be built as a corollary to our war vessels. They would carry food to the British navy in time of war, free of cost, and have in this way real commercial value. They would afford also training to our seamen in the art of peaceful trade; and if we should build these ships to carry Canadian cereals, meats and dairy products for the consumption of the imperial navy, we would relieve Great Britain's burden, build up a mercantile marine, and re-t move competition from Canadian farmers in the markets of the world. Canada's reputation and self-respect would best be maintained, so long as she remains within the empire, by continuing to control her own national politics. Australia and New Zealand are doing this, South Africa is also doing it, each part of the empire is

[DOT]doing it in its own way, and is thereby best promoting its own national strength. Mr. Goldwin Smith is reported to have said:
If Canada has a navy, it will be necessary to determine very clearly with whom rests the declaration of war.
This is what seems to worry the hon. member for St. Anne, Montreal, who spoke the other day. The existence of a Canadian navy will not in any way affect Canada's liability to be involved in British wars. Whether we have a navy of our own, or pay the British government for our protection, or continue to pay nothing for naval purposes, so long as Canada is part of the British empire it will be liable to attack by any nation with which Great Britain is at war, and we may be sure that the enemy would not hesitate to strike that part of the empire which was most vulnerable and least prepared for war. But when Canada shows its willingness to bear a fair share of the defence of the empire, the King will not, if he wishes to secure the co-operation of Canada, agree to a declaration of war without consulting the government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House any longer. I will conclude by stating that I am opposed, both to the amendment of the leader of the opposition, and to the amendment to the amendment of the member for Jacques Cartier; I shall have much pleasure in voting for the policy of the government and in doing so I think I am acting in the best interests of my constituents.


Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: stituency, and to this country that I disaffirm his position utterly. I refer not to all that was said by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, but -chiefly to the sentiment wherein he called in question, and in my view laid at the door of British diplomacy a charge of treachery to this country. In so far as his utterances on that subject were concerned, I must do everything in my power to dissociate myself from any sympathy with them. Therefore, on the main ground that it would be in my mind placing myself in the position of truant to the trust which a great constituency has reposed in me, I refuse to vote for the amendment to the amendment offered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I refuse to place myself in a position which I conceive to be rebellion to a great trust imposed so.
Haying disposed of my own position, having without fear, and without hesitation, and after such careful consideration as in my view the serious consequences, the great import of this question demands of every member, having discharged to the best of my ability the duty that I believe rests on me, then, Sir, the situation is changed, but for the present I cannot believe under our form of government, under the plainest rules, at all events, rules that are more than plain to me, I cannot conscientiously or fairly or consistently support the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. THOS. MACNUTT (Saltcoats).: There is little new that I -can add to this debate, and I intend to be very brief. I believe we are safe in assuming that the empire will be threatened with war at some time or other. The natives are arming and the millennium has not yet arrived. Great Britain has been in the past, and is at the present time, well prepared to defend herself. While her colonies were growing, she in effect, sai-d to them:	Go on and get
strong, we will protect you, and when you do get strong we expect you to do a little to assist in the general defence of the empire. The question is: What is Canada going to do? I do not think that Canadians intend to take the stand of sheltering themselves behind the guns of Great Britain or the Monroe doctrine any longer. I think they realize that it is up to them to do something to assist in the defence of the empire. What line should they take? There are three -propositions before the House. The first is that we build a Canadian navy. Some hon. gentlemen opposite describe this as a tin-pot navy, but if it is there are many units of navies connected with other nations that might be so described. It will be, as I understand, allied with the British navy, and prepared to take its part in co-operation with the British admiralty. I am no naval expert. Although this debate has de-


Arthur Meighen: ties for training our young Canadians on sea as well as on land, and the proposal of the government certainly gives an opportunity for this. The amendment of the leader of the opposition calls for a contribution to the old country which evidently the old country does not want very badly, and it also provides for a referendum to the people with regard to the navy. The amendment to the amendment calls for a straight referendum. Now, last election in my constituency I was in a peculiar position. I had two opponents, one a Conservative and one an independent. The policy of the independent candidate, who was a very respectable man, and who was endorsed by a newspaper edited by a clever writer, was in favour of the referendum, and although his party was well organized in the district, yet he received only 347 votes and lost his deposit several times over. In view of this I think I am free to say that the people whom I represent do not want a referendum, and if we are to accept that as a fair sample of public opinion in the other constituencies of the Dominion, the people of Canada generally are not in favour of the referendum. It stands to reason that if every time the government had constructive legislation before the House it was to be referred to the people there would be nothing but referendums, and as we have elections to the House of Commons about every four years, I think the people generally are pretty well satisfied with the constitutional machinery at their, disposal.
I feel that in voting for the Naval Bill as presented by the government I shall express the feelings of the people whom I was sent here to represent.
House divided on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Monk).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Blondin,
Broder
Chisholm (Huron), Currie (Simcoe), Doherty,
Forget,
Herron,
Jameson,
Lewis,
Lortie,
Monk,
Nantel,
Paquet,
Sharpe (Ontario), Verville,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Worthington.-18.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Aylesworth,
Barker,
Barnard,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Best,
Bickerdike,


Thomas MacNutt: McAllister,
McCall,
McCarthy,
McCoig,
McColl,
McCraney,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Black,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce, ,
Boyer,
Bristol,
Brown,
Bureau,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Cowan,
Crothers,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Eerdment,
Edwards,
Elson,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Nipissing), Graham,
Guthrie,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Harty,
Henderson,
Hodgins,
Hughes,
Hunt,
Kidd,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lanetot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanetot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Lennox,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Maddin,
Magrath,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meighen,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Middlebro,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Owen,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Porter,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Roche,
Ross (Middlesex),
Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Russell,
Rutan,
Savoie,
Schaffner,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Smyth,
Sperry,
Sproule,
Staples,
Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Taylor (Leeds),
Taylor (New Westminster), Templeman,
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
W allace,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval),

Low,	Wilson (Lennox &
Macdonald,	Addington),
Macdonell,	Wright.-175.
MacNutt,
Amendment, to amendment negatived.
On the amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden,


Mr. WILLIAM THOBURN (North Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the permission of the members of this House, I would like to offer a few remarks on this most important question. You will agree with me that the air of this chamber has been surcharged for the last two or three weeks with rumours of war, Dreadnoughts to the right of us, Dreadnoughts to the left of us, Dreadnoughts volleyed and thundered-that is, as far as the speeches of hon. members of this House are concerned. I have been much interested in what I have heard on both sides of this House. From some of the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite it is very difficult to understand just where they stand on this question. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. M. Y. McLean) the other day spoke as follows:
I notice that in nearly every speech hon. gentlemen opposite profess disappointment with the provisions of the Bill now before the House, on the ground that it is not comprehensive enough? that it does not go far enough. I, too, am disappointed, but I am agreeably disappointed; for, I am free to confess, I did have a lingering fear, if I might so express it, that the government would ask this House to commit the country to an elaborate scheme requiring an immediate expenditure of millions of money which, I think, could be more profitably devoted to developing the latent resources of the country.
Now, how is it possible for the' government to carry out their policy of expending five millions of money to build the navy they propose to build when the hon. gentlemen lives in constant dread of their spending any amount of money for such a purpose? The hon. gentleman went on to say:
I also believe that whatever we do should be done entirely in the interest and for the benefit of Canada, and not in a payment of any supposed debt which we owe the mother couutry.
Members on this side of the House have been accused of disloyalty. I fail to see where the loyalty of the hon. member comes in when he says that everything that is done should be done, not for the benefit of the mother country, but for the benefit of Canada. A few weeks ago, when one of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House was referring to the great benefit which Canada had received under the preferential tariff, I asked him what great benefit Canada had received from that. I thought the question was a proper
one, to which I should nave received a fair answer: but the answer I received was a story which the hon. gentleman told about a school house, where there was a hole in the wall and a flag was put up to hide the hole. I could not imagine why the hon. gentleman referred to that unless he felt like crawling into the hole instead of giving a straight answer to my question. But the hon. member for South Huron has answered that question better than I ever heard it answered in this House:
Now, Sir, I would like to bring the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite down from the realm of pure sentiment in 'which some of them so much delight to dwell, to plain facts, every day facts. If I can do this, they will find that Canada has never received one dollar from Great Britain for which she has not given a good big dollar's worth in return. It may be said, and it has been said in this House, that Great Britain furnishes us our best market for our surplus products. ' That is quite true, but it is equally true that this is a mutual obligation, because Great Britain requires our products just as much as we require her market. And she has never given us the fraction of a cent more for our products, for our apples, our cheese, our butter, our bacon, our bullocks, our cereals, than she could get them for elsewhere, or because thev were Canadian. On the contrary, she has persistently, for years, maintained against this country a harrier to our live stock going into her markets. Now remember I do not blame her for this. If she considers such a policy in the interest of her own people she has a perfect right to pursue that policy, and we have no reason to complain. But what I want to point out is this, that Great Britain adopts the policy which she considers in the interest of her own people, irrespective of the results which it may have upon Canada; and so I say in that respect, as well as in pverv other respect we should follow her example.
I am glad to have such a frank statement from the hon. member for South Huron. When I think of the millions of dollars of textile machinery standing idle in this country and the thousands of people out of employment as the result of that preferential clause in our tariff, I say that the government should remedy this state of affairs in the interests of the workingmen of Canada, especially in view of the statement of one of their own loyal supporters that Britain has never given us a fraction of a cent more for our products than she has given any other country.
Some hon. members opposite have tried to lead the people of this country and Great Britain to believe that we on this side are opposed to granting any aid to the mother country in time of war. Such is not the case. The members of the loyal Conservative party in Canada are ready and willing to grant aid to Great Britain and grant it immeditely if needed. 1 cannot understand why hon. members op posit-e should accuse hon. members on

this side of not 'wishing to grant aid to Great Britain in time'of need. I hold in my hand the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and I fail to see in it one word which would lead any one to accuse members on this side of not wanting to support the mother country in time of stress. I shall not take up time reading the whole of that amendment, but will just read one clause:
In the meantime the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities of the empire can best be discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposal of the imperial authorities, as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada, such an amount as may he sufficient to purchase or construct two battleships or armoured cruisers of the latest Dreadnought type, giving to the admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purposes of naval defence as in their iudgment may best serve to increase the united strength of the empire and thus assure its peace and security.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


William Thoburn: I am not going to detain the House much longer, but hon. members opposite should remember that some of them have occupied the time of this House for three long hours, and for all the information they furnished this House or country they might have taken only a very few minutes. I hold in my hand a photograph of the latest war vessel added to the British fleet, and my blood warmed when I saw that photograph and compared that vessel with the type of vessel which hon. gentlemen opposite propose to build; and I thought it would be a credit ft>
Canada if such a vessel "were being built by this government instead of the little river boats they propose to construct. Let me give a description of this vessel in a very few words. Recently the new battleship of Dreadnought type, His Majesty's ship 'Vanguard', left Barrow amid a scene of great enthusiasm to go to Devonport. Her dimensions are; Length 500 feet; displacement, 19,250 tons, indicated horse-power, 24,500; speed 22 knots per hour, and she was built in a little over 19 months; and the thought occurred to me what a grand thing it would have been for Canada if that were Canada's tribute to the motherland, and if, instead of reading 'His Majesty's ship Vanguard-' we could have read 'His Majesty's ship Canada'.	'
With the amendment of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) I cordially agree. I stand by my leader on this great question. The great Conservative party of Canada stand by our leader on this question. More than that, I believe that the vast majority of the Canadian people stand by him.
My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Mr. THOBURN.
f
Lalor) expressed his sincere desire for peace between Great Britain and other nations. That desire I cordially endorse, and I do not know that I could do better on this occasion than repeat the statement made by His Most Gracious Majesty the King regarding peace throughout the world. I find in the English press, dated March 3rd, that at a reception to the Archbishops of York and Canterbury and the members of the convocation of each diocese, King Edward made some noteworthy comments on peace, in reply to the address presented to him.


Mr. NESBITT.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to quote the King.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It has already been ruled in the British House and in this House the other night that the name of His Majesty the King, or His Excellency the Governor General cannot be used in debate.


William Thoburn: I can read the item without referring to the King.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Th&.t would be an evasion. The practice has been not to allow any reference to any remarks by His Majesty.


William Thoburn: Then I can express my own sentiments with reference to the matter. Your recognition of my efforts to maintain the peace of the world gives me pleasure.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: ' My point of order is that the hon. gentleman cannot refer to the King in "the way he is trying to do.


William Thoburn: Upon peace the health, happiness and material progress of all nations depend. It is my constant prayer that onr country may be spared the perils and miseries of war, which, in this modern age, must involve the ruin of millions.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I want a decision on my point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) raises a point of order.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman is still disobeying the rules, he is still referring to what the King has said.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. member for Lanark to acquiesce in my ruling that the name of the King or his representative cannot be used in debate before this House, and therefore cannot be ouoted. Any evasion of that rule is out of order.


William Thoburn: I will accept your ruling. I did not know that it was out of order to quote what His Majesty had said at a meeting in reference to the peace of the world. I did not think that it would be objected to by any hon. member in this House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question is on the amendment.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,	Macdonell,
Arthurs,	McCall,
Barker,	McCarthy,
Barnard,	Maddin,
Best,	Magrath,
Blain,	Marshall,
Borden (Halifax),	Meighen,
Boyce,	Middlebro,
Bradbury,	Northrup,
Bristol,	Owen,
Broder,	Perley,
Burrell, Campbell, Chisholm (Huron),	Porter, Price, Reid (Grenville),
Cowan,	Rhodes,
Crocket,	Roche,
Crothers,	Russell,
Currie (Simone),	Schaffner,
Daniel,	Sexsmith,
Doherty,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Edwards,	Symth,
Elson,	Sproule,
Fraser,	Stanfield,
Goodeve,	Staples,
Gordon (Nipissing),	Stewart,
Haggart (Lanark),	Taylor (Leeds),
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Taylor (New
Henderson,	Westminster),
Herron, Hughes,	Thoburn, Thornton,
Jameson,	Wallace,
Kidd,	White (Renfrew),
Lake,	Wilcox (Essex),
Lalor,	Wilson (Lennox &
Lancaster ,	Addington),
Lennox,	Worthington,
Lewis,	Wright.-74.
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Allen,	McCoig,
Aylesworth,	McColl,
Beauparlant,	McCraney,
Beland,	McKenzie,
Bickerdike,	McLean (Huron),
Black,	McLean (Sunbury)
Blondin,	McMillan,
Boyer,	Major,
Brown,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bureau,	Martin (Montreal,
Carrier,	Ste. Mary's),
Carvell,	Martin (Regina),
Cash,	Martin (Wellington
Champagne, Chew,	Mayrand, Meigs,
Chisholm (Antigonish),Michaud,	
Chisholm (Inverness), Miller,
Clare,	Molloy,
Clark (Red Deer),	Monk.
Clarke, Essex),	Murphy,
Congdon,	Nantel,
Conmee,	Nesbitt,
Currie (Prince	Neely,
Edward),	Oliver,
Delisle,	Papineau,
Demers,	Paquet,
Devlin,	Pardee,
Douglas,	Parent,
Dubeau,	Pickup,
Ecr^ment,	Proulx,
Iimmerson,	Prowse,
Ethier,	Pugsley,
Eielding,	Rankin,
Fisher,	Reid (Restigouche),
Forget,	Richards,
Fortier,	Rivet,
Fowke,	Robb,
Gauvreau,	Ross (Middlesex),
Geoffrion,	Ross (Rimouski). Roy (Dorchester),
Gervais,	
Girard,	Roy (Montmagny),
Gladn,	Rutan,
Graham,	Savoie,
Guthrie,	Schell,
Harty,	Sealey,
Hunt,	Segmn,
King,	Sinclair,
Knowles,	Smith (Middlesex),
Kyte,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Lachance,	Smith (Stormont),
Lafortune,	Sperry,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Stratton,
Napierville),	Talbot,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Templeman,
Lapointe,	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Todd,	
Lavergne,	Tolmie,
Law,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
LeBlanc,	Turcotte (Quebec
Lemieux,	County),
Loggie, Lorfie,	Turgeon,
	Turriff,
Lovell,	Verville,
Low,	Warburton,
Macdonald,	White (Victoria, A1
MacNutt, McAllister,	Wilson (Laval).-12
PAIRS	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Borden (Sir F.),	Foster,
Brodeur,	Ames,
Paterson,	Crosby,
Harris,	Beattie,
Gordon (Kent),	Osier,
McIntyre,	Maclean (York),
Amendment negatived.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I rise to move an amendment to the motion before the Chair, but as the hour is so very late, and we have already had two votes, perhaps the leader of the House will consent to my moving the adjournment of the debate.


Some Eon. MEMBERS.: Go on.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had understood that it had been arranged between the whips that we would conclude this debate this evening, but if my hon. friend thinks he cannot do justice to his amendment to-night, we on this side of the House do not wish to curtail the freedom of debate and will consent to an adjournment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 10, 1910.