1910-02-24

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Kingston, Smith s Falls and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.


Mr. PERLEY:: Have Canadian vessels carrying freight the right to use the canals of the state of New York? If so, what statute authorizes it? If not, what statute or regulation prevents it?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH.: By the treaty of Washington the government of the United States engaged to urge upon the state governments to secure to British subjects, the use of the several state canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by, or contiguous to, the boundary line on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, but this government is not aware that such urgency has, up to the present time, been productive of any practical result.
The matter is, of course, not governed by Canadian legislation, and the government is not in a position to answer as to the legislation on the subject (if any) there may be in the state of New York.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SHED AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: To whom did the Department of Railways grant permission, if any, to erect a coal shed on the property near the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup. Who gave the permission, and when?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM.: In August, 1908, Mr. Doucet met Mr. T. C. Burpee, engineer of maintenance, of the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup, and suggested that he be allowed to shift his coal sluce from

where it was originally (that is from the . west side of the dump to the east side) stating, that he could unload and release cars much quicker if he were allowed to do this. Mr. Burpee consented to Mr. Doucet making the above change, as it would be in the interest of the railway, 'but no authority was given to erect a coal shed at the place mentioned.


PETAWAWA MILITARY REVIEW.
Mr. GERALD WHITE.: I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Militia is not in his seat, as I wish to draw his attention to an article in last night's 'Journal' as follows:
The arrangements for the great review of Canadian troops at Petawawa military camp when General Sir John French, one of the idols of the British public, visits Canada, are becoming more definite.
The expectation is that Sir John French will be here next June, and that the occasion of his visit will be utilized to have a review of as many troops as it is possible to gather together at one time at Petawawa.
It is likely that all city and rural corps from Toronto on the west, and Quebec on the east at least, will be assembled, during June, and be reviewed by the famous commander. This will mean, if the arrangements are perfected, that there will be no camps at such places as Rockliffe or Brockville this year.
The question of transportation of the troops is one of the chief problems, but it is learned that the railways have been consulted, and that this portion of the arrangements will be negotiated with thoroughness.
It will be remembered that last year when the 'Journal' made this announcement first, its contemporaries rushed into fierce denials, based on interviews with unnamed ' high officials ' of the Militia Department.
I would like to ask if this statement is correct, and if so, when this review will take place and how many troops will take part in it?


Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: I am sorry my colleague is not in his seat, but I will see that the question is put to him, and he will probably answer it to-morrow.


NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (Montreal, St. Anne).: May I be permitted, in opening, to express the gratification, which I am sure is felt by all the members of this House, on seeing the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in his seat, thus indicating my right hon.
friend's complete recovery from his recent indisposition, which we all regretted an i in which we all sympathized with him. But, to my regret, I have to follow that expression by the admission that I felt somewhat pained that my right hon. friend should, so soon after his return, be called on to listen to my contribution to that dissonant cacophony, which emanating from this side, has had such a jarring effect on the right hon. gentleman's musical ear. That euphonious expression, by which he characterized our contribution to the discussion of this subject forms part of a scolding which the right hon. gentleman thought necessary to bestow on hon. members on this side with perfect impartiality when he introduced the Bill under discussion. He scolded us for talking and producing thereby a dissonant cacophony; he scolded us also when we were silent, because our silence gave rise to all sorts of apprehensions in his imagination with regard to the thoughts that were passing through our minds; but he scolded us most severely because, when we proceeded to deliberate upon this important question, so frought with serious consequences to our common country and the empire of which we form a part, he found that we had gone quite beyond anything he could be expected to forgive. I am, therefore, at some difficulty to conceive precisely what line of conduct would, under the circumstances, have won for us my right hon. friend's approval. And it occurred to my mind that he might perhaps have expected us to follow the line of conduct, followed in his parliamentary career by a certain great naval hero, who once occupied the position and played the role of the First Lord of the Admiralty in the British cabinet, and which is aptly described in that great naval composition, familiar to most of us in the days of our youth, entitled, 'Her'Majesty's Ship Pinafore.' That very distinguished gentleman, as he strode his deck in all the pride and pomp of power, was wont to tell admiring audiences of his previous parliamentary career, and how he specially prided himself that throughout that career-
He bad always voted at bis party's call And never thought of thinking for himself at all.
But the right hon. gentleman should not have expected that line of conduct from us, even if he had expected us to live up to the record of that great naval hero; because he should have remembered that that distinguished man went on to add the reason and explanation of his conduct, and to tell his aforesaid admiring audiences that:
I thought so little they rewarded me
By making me the ruler of the King's navee.

On this side we could look forward to no such enticing consequence of our following the example of that very great man. I do not mean to insinuate, because I desire to refrain from any insinuation that might be in the slightest degree offensive, I do not mean to insinuate that, in consequence oi that natural human feeling prevailing among all my distinguished and hon. friends who sit on that side of the House, they may hope, by following the example, to attain the reward that came to that distinguished man, and all find themselves rulers of the King's navee-or, perhaps, I ought to say, under this Bill, of the Governor in Council's navy.
After the right hon. gentleman had administered to us that powerful castigation in the course of which, with his rhetorical bludgeon, he came [DOT] down heavily on the phylacterial foreheads of the Pharisees whom he saw sitting opposite him, as well as on the bare brows of the unrepentant publicans whom he also suspected of taking a view adverse to the measure he was introducing, he seemed to be in the humour which is sometimes attributed as peculiar to my own fellow countrymen, namely, whenever he sees a head to hit it. And so he hit all those bobbing up heads on this side of the House with perfect impartiality; and then, I have no doubt, he looked round on his own side of the House, to see if there was not an odd one that he could give a whack to, and as he did not find it, why, he evoked the ghost of our dear old friend, that holy man, Peter the Hermit. I have been wondering ever since whether that holy man has had time to get his halo on perfectly straight since the right hon. gentleman came down so heavily on him. But, Mr. Speaker, my reference to this scolding, which ended by a contrast which the right hon. gentleman drew between the gentlemen who s't on this side of the House and himself in particular, and those who entertain the same opinions with him, was merely to point out that so far as that scolding applied to myself, I have nothing to say but to plead guilty to the reproach that was levelled at me. Fortunately for me, I was not among those who had spoken, I had not as yet, at that time contributed to the dissonant cacophony he complained of. If I had had that misfortune, I do not know that I would have recovered as perfectly as I have from the effects of that scolding. I have wondered how the gentlemen to whom it was applied had managed to recover so completely. I do not know anything that could be more awful than to be so accused of creating this dissonance, unless indeed it were that one should find himself in the awful predicament of having been named by yourself,


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker; and even then, I have the most absolute confidence that if you ever found yourself under the painful necessity of naming, say, myself, your kindness of heart would prevent you from calling me any such awful names. But, Mr. Speaker, I was among the men who ventured to think; there were many others, I think I may say all those on this side of the House, who were entitled to share the right hon. gentleman's scolding for having thought. We deliberated in the morning, and we deliberated in the evening, and I am not quite sure that some of us did not even lie awake at night thinking about this great question. For my part, I confess my share of guilt in that respect, and I say it with that legitimate pride that a man may take in the conscientious performance of as solemn a duty as any member was ever called upon to fulfil in his capacity of a representative of the people of this country, and as such to take part in the decision of probably the most momentous question that has presented itself for decision by this House since this House has existed.
Having said so much with regard to what was said in opening this debate, it is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to go into any other matter that might rise to a difference of opinion upon any question, either of party politics or personal conduct. We are in face of a question that is quite beyond any considerations based either on the past personal conduct of any individual in this House, or the past record of either of the parties who sit face to face before you. It seems to me that the question before us imposes on each and every one of us the duty of approaching it so far as possible free from the influence either- of party feeling or of race feeling, or of those feelings that may be engendered in the human heart by difference of creed, or by differences resulting from points of view of the different sections in the community to which he belongs.
We are the parliament of Canada. It is as such that we are called upon to deal with the momentous questions that are involved in the project of the government and in the amendments to it that are proposed. .What Canada has a right to expect from us is the calm, the most judicial exercise of the best judgment which Heaven has conferred upon each one of us. We are here as the parliament of Canada, charged, in the first place, so far as we are a legislative body, with the making of laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. But we are here also as the parliament of Canada charged with something that is more important than that-charged with the protection, the preservation of the rights of this great country, whose destinies an all-wise and beneficent

Providence has committed to our hands. We are charged with the defence of the interests of that great country; but charged -and this is even more important still- with seeing to it that the duties of that great country are so performed as to preserve before the eyes of the world intact and above suspicion, our country's honour.
Mr. Speaker, the Tight hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), after he had condemned others for standing in the temple and claiming, Pharisee-like, to be the only right exponents of the true doctrine of what our duties are toward the empire of which we are a part, and for having take to themselves credit for possessing alone the true incense of loyalty, proceeded, as it seemed to me, to almost out-Pharisee the Pharisee as he thanked God that he and others who thought with him were Canadians-and consigned all the rest of us to outer darkness, where, though there be not weeping and gnashing of teeth, yet, according to him, there is nothing but ultraloyalty, ultra-imperialism, and, above all, the most fierce hostility to the autonomy of this countrv. Mr. Speaker, I desire to protest against the drawing of the line which the right hon. gentleman thought he could draw between those who support him and those who find it their duty to object to the measure that he has proposed. I claim no special quality or virtue for myself when I say that I, too, am a Canadian in as full, as complete, as wide a sense as the right hon. gentleman may seek to give to the expression. I think that we in this House are two hundred and twenty-one Canadians, each of us realizing with pride what it means to be a Canadian, and none of us forgetting what it means to be a Canadian. Because, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I am a Canadian, I say it with the memory clearly in my mind of the answer that was given, about a hundred and fifty years ago at the capitulation of that great city in which I had the honour to be born, and a portion of which I have the greater honour to represent in this House. When to the general representing the .conquering army was put the question as to what was to be, in future the status of the inhabitants of the territories which then constituted the province of Quebec, his answer was: 'They become subjects of the King,' Sir, that means that from that day, to be a Canadian, while it implied the right to profess oneself a son and devoted citizen of this country, also carried with it _ the right to proclaim oneself a British subject. For' my part, I know no dividing line between the two. That answer, when it was given, perhaps fell with a harsh sound on the ears of those who had put the question. But that answer contained in itself the charter of the liberties that we in this country enjoy to-day and that, for my
part, I trust we and our children's children shall, through the ages that are to come, continue to enjoy under the same title. No doubt, there were at that time some disabilities that affected certain classes of persons who might be British subjects, but they have long since been brushed away until even their memory has been forgotten, and, to-day, as Canadian subjects of the King, we are entitled to the enjoyment of as wide a plentitude of liberty as is enjoyed by any people on the face of the earth. It is for that reason that I say that the right hon. gentleman was not acting the part of the publican- not confessing himself in all humanity a sinner-but playing rather the part of the Pharisee, when he claimed as his own, exclusive possession the title of Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I approach the consideration of this question as a Canadian. At this stage of the debate, I do not think that it can possibly be questioned that the main feature of this measure is that it makes of it a measure for contribution on the part of Canada to imperial defence. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). in his very eloquent speech of yesterday afternoon, was at pains to minimize what the government propose to do until he got it down to so small a thing that he felt justified in describing it as a maritime police.
I do not know what conception the hon. gentleman had of what the functions of this maritime police were going to be. So far as I know, piracy on the high seas is not very prevalent. So far as I know, no great country, or little country, in this world finds itself to-day called upon to establish and maintain a maritime police for the protection of its trade and commerce. Why, Sir, the protection of the trade and commerce of Canada, in common with the protection of the trade and commerce of the world in general, is found in the fact of the existence of the great and powerful navies of the great civilized countries of the world, the very existence of which navies serves to protect the universal commerce against any danger from depredators and malefactors. As far as I know, the function of a police is to attend to people of that character. But in spite of all the efforts which are made for the purpose with a view of affecting-it is not for me to indicate or point out with what view it is done-of making this thing that is proposed appear something which it is not, I feel absolutely safe in saying that this measure comes before us as a measure intended, or professing to be introduced, for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation on Canada's part to contribute to the defence of the empire. Now, with the question of whether what is proposed is or is not effective to that end I do not propose to deal. It has been exhaustively, if not exhaustingly dealt with, I think,

already, but I say as a basis of what I desire to present to the House, that to my mind it is an uncontrovertible proposition that this Bill is before this House because it purports to be the first step on the part of Canada in the direction of establishing a permanent policy of participation in and contribution to the maintenance of an imperial naval force and of sharing in the naval defence of the empire as a whole. I wish it to be well understood that I do not desire to object to this measure because of that fact, but because, to me, it is absolutely clear that that fact carries with it consequences-I desire to correct myself, because that fact implies-necessarily implies-compliance with conditions precedent to the carrying out of. this proposed policy, to which conditions the right hon. gentleman and his government, who pride themselves on being in a very special and particular manner the guardians of the autonomy of this country, have never given a thought, at all events, so far as we can hope to trace the result of -their thoughts in their actions. Mr. Speaker, a navy is essentially a force that finds its field of operations on the high seas. To talk of a purely defence navy, that is a navy that is always to stay at home, is to speak of a navy whose usefulness is to be reduced, if not abolutely, almost to the vanishing point. A navy, since it does not seem to me that in times of peace we need it for that police duty which looms up so large, and forms such an important part of the measure in the eyes of the hon. member for Beauce, is a something that is to he used in war, and a something that is to be used in war upon the high seas. I do not pretend to speak with any authority upon this subject, but I think I may invoke in support of the proposition which I have laid down the testimony of as competent an authority as is known by any hon. member, or members, of this House, and an authority which is invoked in support of their respective contentions by hon. gentlemen advocating the one or the other of the propositions which are before the House. I mean the British admiralty. We find a memorandum on sea power submitted by them to the colonial conference of 1907, in which they set forth the principles which are involved in sea power. After a long disquisition upon the different functions of the navy, we read the following:	-
In the foregoing remarks the word ' defence ' does not appear. It is omitted advisedly because the primary object of the British navy is not to defend anything

We are evidently going to have a navy that is not going to be on the plan of the British navy, and still the British navy has to its credit some successes.
But to attack the fleets of the enemy, and, by defeating them, to afford protection to Mr. DOHERTY.
British dominions, shipping and commerce. This is the ultimate aim.
To use the word defence would be misleading, because the word carries with it the idea of a thing to be defended, which would divert attention to local defence instead of fixing it on the force from which attack is to be expected.
I lie traditional role of the British navy is not to act on the defensive, but to prepare to attack the force which threatens-in ocher words, to assume the offensive. On one occasion England departed from her traditional policy, and acting on the defensive, kepc her ships in harbour unrigged and unmanned, with the result that the Dutch fleet sailed up the Medway and burnt the ships of war ac their moorings.
I think that justifies me in saying that the navy is not a weapon of defence, it is a weapon of offence. And I think there is something almost prophetic in the declaration of these distinguished gentlemen that to use the word ' defence ' would be misleading. But, Mr. Speaker, the word 'defence' is used by hon. gentlemen on the other side with redundant reiteration and repetition, as an excuse for the creation of this navy. I need only say, in the words of the Lords of the Admiralty, that the use of the word 'defence' is misleading. I shall not take it upon myself to say for what purpose or with what intention hon. gentle-ment opposite say that this navy is for defence. I am not concerned in this or in any other discussion with mens' motives. If a measure a man proposes or the thing a man proposes doing commends itself to my mind as a desirable thing to be done, I shall support it no matter how bad his motives may be. On the other hand, if the measure proposed, or the thing suggested as a thing that ought to be done, does not commend itself to my judgment I shall not advocate it no matter how good may be the motives of him who proposes it; I am, therefore, not concerned in the slightest degree with what may be the motives that underlie either the terms of this measure itself or the terms in which it is supported and defended. But I do say, and in that sense I do not think my language can be taken as offensive, that the word 'defence,' as applied to this navy is misleading. One might properly apply to naval warfare, and indeed to any warfare, the theory which that very shrewd and very entertaining Yankee horse trader, David Harum, found of direct application in his own business. True, it is a very unscriptural rule, but after all war is a very unscriptural thing-and so is horse trading. David Harum said that the one rule to which you must always adhere when you went out to trade a horse was to do unto the other fellow as the other fellow would like to do unto you, and do it first. Mr. Speaker, the navy that is going to be

exclusively for defence and to wait until the other fellow comes over to do it first won't do very much second. In the very nature of things, therefore, it is impossible to conceive of a navy that is purely for local defence. The field of a navy's operations, the very purpose of its existence and that which is necessary in order that its operations should be effective puts the idea of mere local defence out of the question. And, when we propose to establish a naval force-call it what we like and talk as much as we like about absolute and exclusive control of it, and about keeping it absolutely for ourselves and about letting nobody else get any good out of it unless this parliament says in each particular instance what it shall do-unless we are going to condemn it to absolute uselessness we shall find that we shall have to submit to its going from beyond the control of the governing authority of this country and taking its share in whatever operations may be necessary in war time upon the wide field of the ocean. If these operations are going to be carried out effectively at all they must in the very essence of things be carried out under one central control. I am not advocating that this ought to be so or that it ought not to be so, but we are face to face with the fact that if we are going to have a useful navy wo cannot have a stay-at-home navy. And, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a useless navy, why, we might a little better keep our money. Therefore, Sir, the overshadowing feature of this measure by which we intend to create a naval force is that it of necessity leads us into the situation that we cannot avoid participation in the wars which may result from the foreign policy of the mother country, and, by that foreign policy we are absolutely bound because the mother country exclusively-and under our existing conditions absolutely rightly-has control of the foreign relations which pertain not only to herself, but to all her colonies. After all, a navy is a weapon that is used to enforce the respective rights of the different nations, to vindicate the rights of one nation may consider that there has been a violation of its rights. It seems, therefore, to follow as clearly as can be that the control of a navy force is a function ol the power which controls the foreign policy-the policy that governs the conduct of the nation towards other nations - that a nqvy is called upon to enforce. From that it would seem to me fairly to follow that the condition precedent to our undertaking to participate in the naval defence of the empire is that we should be given an effective voice in the governing and determination of the foreign relations of the empire. When I lay down that proposition I am not saying something merely on my own
authority. You will find repeated statements of very distinguished British statesmen recognizing the absolute correlation of participation in naval defence and participation in the control of the policy which the naval forces of the empire are called upon to defend. In the conference of 1907, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, a statesmen whose memory I am sure is revered on both sides of this House, expressly declared, in language which was perhaps not the most elegant in the world, although it was essentially forcible:
It is, of course, possible to over estimate the importance of the requirements of the oversea dominions as a factor in our expenditure; but however this may be, che cost of naval defence and the responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs hang together.
The language, though not very eloquent, could not well be more concise or forcible. Then we have the declaration of Lord Tweedmouth, in which, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, and quoting words which he attributed to the right hon. leader of this government: ' If you want our aid, call us to your councils', his lordship expressly recognized that that was a perfectly proper requirement, that the two things corresponded absolutely, and expressed the readiness of the United Kingdom, if the dominions asked for it, to call them to her councils. Now, I want to say that I do not share his lordship's views in pointing out how that calling to the councils could be done. I am not here to propound any theory or to lay down any plan bv which what I consider the condition precedent to our undertaking the policy which is proposed may be carried out. What I desire to do is simply to make clear that the finding of a way by which we may have a voice, and a real voice, in the control of the foreign policy of the empire, is an essential condition precedent to our embarking upon any permanent policy of participating in the maintenance of naval forces, that that is an essential condition precedent, if our autonomy, to which the right' hon. gentleman attaches such great importance, and to which I may sav he does not attach one whit greater importance than I do, is to be maintained. Again, we find that the government of so small a colony as Cape Colony in presenting her resolution found it necessary at the conference of 1907, to point out that 'prior to accepting the burden and expenditure of such a responsibility (participating in the naval defence of the empire), the colonies would require to be represented on an imperial council at which questions concerning, inter alia, the peace of the whole empire be discussed*. And, finally, I may cite an authority which I may say, with me, carries very considerable weight. It is a work written by Professor Lawrence Lowell, pro-

fessor of the science of government at Harvard University, and, if I am correctly informed, its present president. It is a work written in a spirit which certainly no one can suspect of being hostile, which on the contrary is manifestly most friendly to both the mother country and all of her colonies, and a work which evidences a careful study of the principles and operation of British institutions, which entitles the conclusions reached to the acceptance of any one who has carefully read the premises upon which they are based. Dealing with this question of the relations between the mother country and the colonies, Professor Lowell, says:
While, therefore, the tie with the self-governing colonies might conceivably be put to a severe strain by war, that is highly improbable so long as England maintains a sufficient navy. But, in spite of her wealth, the burden of holding the seas against all the world has grown so heavy as to make her want the colonies, for whose joint benefit she conceives that she carries it, to bear their share, and this cannot be done without giving them a real voice in the foreign policy which the navy may be used to enforce.
Now, Mr? Speaker, I am not using this argument for the purpose of reaching the conclusion that we should never do anything to contribute to the maintenance of England's naval forces, or that we should never do anything to so contribute by means of a navy which we would provide ourselves. I am not seeking to invoke this principle as a ground upon which I would desire to see Canada, my country, shirk any duty or any obligation which the highest sense of honour might lead her to feel was incumbent upon her.
What I desire to point out is that, under our constitution, there is no obligation on the part of Canada, legally or constitutionally speaking, to contribute to the naval forces of the empire, and that position will continue to exist so long as the United Kingdom alone has exclusive control of the foreign affairs of the empire. It does not follow, however, that there is an insuperable obstacle in the way of our ever doing anything to aid the naval forces of the empire ; but what follows is that there is an obstacle to be removed before" we do that, if we are both going to aid the imperial navy' and continue at the same time to enjoy our own autonomy. It is most essential, right and proper, that the portion of the empire which charges itself exclusively with the burden of general imperial defence, and more particularly the naval defence, should have exclusive control of its foreign policy. To the hand that wields the sword of empire essentially belongs the right to wield the sceptre of empire. But it is represented that time has come when we should begin to take our part in the general defence of the empire, Mr. DOHERTY.
particularly the naval defence, and it is because this is recognized by the present government that we have before us the Bill that we are now considering. I have no desire to controvert that proposition. I am quite prepared to recognize that whereas Canada, up to the present, has been in the position of a protected colony, while she has been in the position of a child in the nursery or a youth just emerging from the nursery and therefore entitled to look to its parent for protection, or at most had reached that stage where it might properly be expected that she should take care of herself, she has now advanced to the position of a young man who has reached a certain maturity, who has gone out and established his own home, but is still under the advice, guidance and protection of his parents, and who has amassed for himself a certain competency and power. I am quite willing to concede that under those circumstances, it is perfectly proper that the parent should say to him: It is time that you should aid me in carrying the burdens which I have to bear; it is time that you, as a man, should aid me in the difficulties that may be created for me by troublesome and litigious neighbours ; it is time that you should stand by me and aid me, even at the expense of some portion of your wealth, and that you should bear your share of the consequences of the enterprise in>
which I am engaged- enterprises which, as they redound to my benefit and advantage directly, must indirectly redound likewise to yours. This proposition I would be quite prepared to accept. But it seems to me that the youth who, on reaching maturity, is asked to share in the consequences of the operations of his parents, should also have the corresponding, inseparable right to have his say in the control of the operations for which he is to be held jointly responsible. Should he take that position, I do not think it can be urged that he would be going beyond his rights. But it may be argued that even although that be Canada's right, she is within her right if she should choose to renounce it. I question that proposition. I have said that that was Canada's right, but I think I would have described the position more correctly had I said that that was Canada's duty. I realize that Canada, in taking upon her shoulders her share of the responsibility for the control of foreign affairs would be assuming a burden possibly more onerous even than a contribution to the forces of the empire.
I recognize that she would be taking an immense responsibility from which, I can well understand, men might shrink to the extent of saying that Canada had better take her shaTe in the defence of the empire, had better contribute to that defence in one way or the other, had better

contribute her share in tiding the mother country in the wars of the empire without asking for any voice in the control of foreign affairs, that it would be better for her to have nothing to do with assuming any such grave responsibility. That would be easier for Canada. I do not deny that proposition. It certainly would be easier for Canada, but we, in this parliament, are charged with something that is of vastly greater importance than the interests or even the rights of this country. We are charged with seeing to the performance by this country of its duties; and I say that for us to undertake to create a force to be used in war, and to declare at the same time that we divest ourselves of any responsibility, with regard to the wars in which this force might be used, is not simply to renounce a right, but it is to shirk a duty.
And, of all the things that we should not stand by and see our country do, still less so conduct the affairs of our country as to place her in the position of doing, I know of none that we should guard ourselves more absolutely against than that of either acquiescing in or aiding in her shirking of her duty. I have said that the autonomy of this country is as precious to me as it can be to any gentleman in this House. I include, however, in the autonomy of this country something more than the exclusive control of her material resources and the exclusive holding on to and retaining for ourselves of her money. There are things that, to a man as well as to a nation, are of value far surpassing worldly goods, far surpassing wealth, whether it consist of the ostensible wealth of money ot of those other things which go to constitute the real wealth of the world. If we are to have our autonomy, it seems to me that not only the control of our own internal affairs must be our own, not only must we keep it in our hands, not only must we retain for ourselves the administration and direction of the affairs of this our country, our particular portion of the empire to which that country belongs, but we must retain for ourselves and for our nation the right to claim that her soul is her own, that her conscience is her own. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to have it concluded that, because I say this, I am expressing any distrust in the authorities who now control the foreign affairs of this great empire. I do not wish to have it supposed that I desire to imply that there is reason to apprehend that they will try to call us into war that shall be absolutely unjust and inequitable. Nothing is further from my mind than that. The proposition I lay down is this: I may have the most implicit, the most unbounded, confidence in another man-I am glad to say that I count friends in whose honour and spirit of rectitude I
have as unwavering confidence as in my own-'but I have no right ito hand over to thp most trusted of these men the keeping of my conscience. And I say that this country has no right, however great, however implicit, however absolutely complete and perfect, her confidence may be in the imperial authorities, to hand over to their keeping her conscience. And there is no question which can present itself for solution to a nation that more closely and immediately touches its conscience than the question of when, and why, and against whom, her armed force is to be used. So, I say, I am not standing here merely claiming that we should not take our share in the burdens of defence because we are not given the right to a voice-because it is not recognized we have the right to a voice-in the control of the foreign policy; I am here to say that, when this duty is presented to us of our taking a share in the maintenance of the naval forces of this empire, there is necessarily presented to us at the same time another duty, the duty of our taking our share in the'heavy burden of the control of the foreign affairs of this empire. And I say that we are not at liberty to choose to do the one duty and refuse to do the other, because these two duties are inseparably bound up together. I have said that I am not arguing this proposition as a reason against the passing of the Bill, which is submitted to us and which purports to commit us to a policy of permanent participation in the maintenance of the naval forces of this empire, because I *seek to make use of it to evade any duty that is incumbent upon us in the way of aid to the empire from the point of view of what an honourable man or an honourable country ought to do; I had rather err-much rather err-on our country's behalf, as I had much rather err on my own behalf, in doing a little more than honour would require of men than run any risk of doing less than honour would require of me. Mr. Speaker, it is not an impossible thing that our relations should be so adjusted with the different nations that are comprised in this empire as that the doing of both these duties should be possible for us. As I have said, I am not here to propound a plan; I am not here to advocate a plan. I am here simply to point out what is a duty inseparably bound up with the duty which the government aTe asking us, by means of this Bill, to implement. And I say that it is for those who present this duty to us for our fulfilment to suggest and present, at the same time, a plan and a means by which we be enabled to fulfil the duty that goes with it.	.
I say that until that plan has been found, and presented, and adopted, we 1 are failing in our most imperious duty

from the point of view of the maintenance of the autonomy of this country, in undertaking to commit ourselves to the performance of that other duty involved in the project that is now submitted to us. It is proposed that this country should have no autonomy in its own soul. It is a poor man, Mr. Speaker, that cannot call his soul his own. It seems to me that with all her wealth, Canada will be a poor country indeed if she is not to be allowed to call her soul her own. I am not saying this by way of trying to raise an insuperable obstacle in the way of the performance of this other duty. I concede that there are immense difficulties in the way of constituting a system that will make it possible for us to have a voice in the councils of the empire, so far. alone as foreign relations are concerned, and at the same time leave to us our present autonomous position. This I concede, and I repeat again that I have no more desire to sacrifice one tittle of our autonomy than any other man in this House, or in this country. I concede that it is a difficult problem. But, Mr. Speaker, the statesmen of the mother country and the statesmen of thi3 country have faced difficult problems before, and have overcome them. I concede that the problem is difficult, and I concede that it is immensely difficult precisely because I, for one, would insist that that problem must bd so solved as to take from us no power of control over our own affairs that we have to-day. I have no more desire, I would no more consent to the intervention of any other power in the government of this country as we have a right to govern it to-day, than I would seek on her behalf a right to interfere in any way with the government of the United Kingdom, or any other of the nations of the empire. But it does not seem to me an impossible thing that the foreign relations of this empire should be guided and controlled by a body composed of representatives of all the different nations that constitute this empire; and it does not seem to me an impossible thing to find a means whereby to determine to what extent each one of those nations is properly entitled to a voice in the determinatin of the questions to which those foreign relations give rise. All these things are possible. If what I have said is true, that this participation in the control of foreign affairs goes hand in hand with the performance of this other duty that we are asked to fulfil to-day, then it is necessarily true that means can be found whereby that duty may be performed. There is no duty incumbent upon any man or any nation that providence has not made possible of fulfilment; and I believe myself thoroughly that without any sacrifice of our autonomy as we have it today, a means can be found of so adjust-Mr. DOHERTY.
ing our position and the position of other nations of this empire, as to create a situation where it would be quite right and proper that we should take over the burden of our share of the maintenance of the fighting forces of the empire, because then these fighting forces will be an instrument to enforce decisions which we have reached, and for which v*c shall have to share responsibility. So I say that we should not enter upon a course which means participation in the naval wars of the empire without first seeing to it that the means are provided for the performance of our part of this other duty from which, to my mind, it is absolutely inseparable.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I contrast for a moment this, as it seems to me, necessary method of the protection of our autonomy with what is offered to us by the government as the means of that protection. The method by which the government proposes to protect our autonomy consists simply, as it claims, in the fact that under the provisions of the Bill the government would be at liberty in time of emergency, that is when war is on, or there is immediate apprehension of war, to withdraw absolutely from any participation in the war. Now, Mr. Speaker, just let us look at this for a moment from the point of view of a man who is trying to guard Canada's autonomy. What does it imply, Mr. Speaker? We are proceeding to buiid a navy as the consequence of and following upon a conference to which our representatives were invited, which was a conference concerning imperial defence. We went to that conference by our representatives. They have returned to Canada, and they have brought us a plan prepared by the imperial authorities as being a means whereby we should contribute to a greater or less extent to imperial defence. The government proposes to go on and carry out that plan under the direction, with the guidance, with the advice, with the assistance, of the imperial authorities and their representatives.
The imperial authorities, or perhaps it is more correct to say the authorities of the United Kingdom, are entitled to expect that when that force is required for the purpose for which they have joined in helping to bring it into existence, namely, the imperial defence, it will be available. That force, whatever it may be, is to go on through all the piping times- of peace with, as its commander in chief, His Majesty the King, floating the flag of the empire. This government takes credit to itself that by the creation of this navy it is making a contribution to imperial defence. It is only when the war is declared, it is only in face of the enemy, that this government proposes that Canada should decide whether its navy is going to fight or not. Mr. FEBRUARY 24, 1910
Speaker, I said in opening that I wished to treat this question with as little feeling and with as calm and judicial a judgment as I possibly could, but I have to confess that when that is proposed to me as the method of protection of the autonomy of my country, I find it difficult to keep to a calm and judicial discussion of the question. Can it be pretended for a moment that when there is war actually on, or when there is a grave apprehension of war, that is the time that this country should take it upon itself to sit in judgment upon the action of those in whose hands this country, under the system of the government, proposes to consent to leave absolutely the control of all foreign affairs? When war is on, and when this navy, created and maintained in the name of imperial defence, is called upon to bear its share that is the moment- this government choose for this country to sit down calmly and quietly and pass judgment upon the actions of the men in whose hands it has left the control of her interests as far as they are concerned with foreign affairs, determine whether those men have acted wrongly and then determine whether our fleet shall stay at home. I do not believe that the government mean to exercise that power. My feeling of partisanship does not go so far as to lead me to believe that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues mean to exercise that power under the circumstances. If they do not, I ask them where is the protection of the autonomy of which they profess themselves the sole and exclusive protectors, defenders and maintainors against all the world? If, on the other hand, the right hon. gentleman and his government propose under those circumstances to exercise that power, then I ask where is the one thing in this world that is more precious to me and more precious to all Canadians even than Canada's autonomy-where is Canada's honour? The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), told us yesterday that this measure was the result of seven years of study. Of course, I cannot doubt and I do not question the absolute truth of the hon. gentleman's statement. There have been seven long years of study given to this measure and the result is what I have indicated. I can only say that this is the most unfruitful seven years of study that it has ever been my misfortune to observe. The hon. gentleman, was very severe on the result of our deliberation in the morning and our deliberation in the evening. Those deliberations only lasted after all three weeks, and I think that they did result in the propounding of views, which, while they may have differed, bore upon their face the stamp of the consideration given by manly men to the problem, with honour, with courage and with calm judg-132
ment. That result will at least bear comparison with this policy of the government that is going to lead us to choose, which compels us practically to choose between our autonomy and our honour. We may have one, but under the right hon. gentleman's plan we cannot have both. I think that the right hon. gentleman will find that the people of Canada are determined to have both. But the right hon. gentleman has a remedy that avoids all that. There is not going to be the slightest trouble. When the difficulty comes there is going to be a wave, the right hon. gentleman is going to be carried off his feet by that wave, and these little cruisers which will show the flag in time of peace are going to be wafted over to Great Britain's assistance on the crest of that wave. The right hon. gentleman attributed to some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House a desire to sacrifice responsible government. I would ask:	Since how long has responsible government been carried on by waves? Evidently the right hon. gentleman, or whoever succeeds him, will have no responsibility for *what our navy may do, because it will have been done by the wave and the right hon. gentleman, or whoever succeeds him, will have no responsibility for what our navy may perhaps not do; well, because there was not any wave.
And then possibly the right hon. gentleman, or some successor of his not as skilful as he. in determining just precisely and exactly what the wild waves are saying, may make a mistake as to what they are saying, and our navy may, perhaps, go when. it ought not to go or stay at home when it ought not to stay at home, and it all depends on what the wild waves may say, and this-this from a government that claims a monopoly of the protection of responsible government in Canada, But, Mr. Speaker, there is a more serious side to that. No doubt we all believe that if there were serious menace hanging over the mother country ot for the matter of that hanging over any nation of the empire, the people of this country -would in all normal conditions-I might almost say in all possibly conceivable conditions-be at readiness so far as was within their power to give their aid, including of course the aid of this navy. But while that is true, and while we may feel that confidence we must also realize that we cannot with satisfaction make the determination of the future conduct of this country absolutely dependent upon that particular thing happening whenever there might be a real cause for us to act. After all I do not think I am doing any injustice to the people who are to come after us or possibly to ourselves, when I say that looking at it calmly and reasonably, there might possibly coincide with the moment of urgent necessity some



passing irritation in this country that might keep the wave down. And, the wave does not require to be kept down very long, for if you have a few days of disinclination at the critical moment, the usefulness of the navy may be gone when the disinclination has disappeared, and the wave has come to a head. I say, Sir, that for a project submitted to a serious and a thinking people, for a project presented as the result of seven years of thought and meditation and contemplation and study, as the work of men desirous of seeing that this country does its duty to the other nations of the empire and to itself, this project, I have to admit, passes my comprehension. To my mind the policy of this Bill, if it has a policy, can be described as nothing else than a policy of drift. It is a policy of men who, faced with serious problems, do not choose to decide in the one sense or the other. The right hon. gentleman in introducing the Bill, prided himself that it was a measure that would meet with the approval of all moderate men, and then he looked out over this country and he described to this House the people of Canada as being in large measure composed of immoderate men to whose views no attention could be given, of men who were so separated by race feelings, local feelings, feelings of all kinds, that they never could be expected to come together and pronounce a rational judgment on a question of this kind. I think, Sir, that the right hon. gentleman unduly depreciates the people of this country. There may be and there are differences of opinion amongst the people, and I sincerely trust there will always continue to be differences of opinion on public questions as complex and as important as this, because I would despair of the intelligence of the people of this country if it were possible that they, following the glorious example set by the hon. gentlemen who sit on the government side of the House, could be of one mind on this question, without time, without thought, without consideration or examination.
I said that this policy is a policy of drift. My hon. friend the Postmaster General-I think I may say my very good friend the Postmaster General-


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hope I may he able to call him such even after this debate is over.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend the Postmaster General described the government as engaged in steering between the shoals. It is a most excellent accomplishment to be able to steer between the shoals, for it is a very unfortunate thing when the vessel of state runs upon the shoals on the one side or upon the other. And, I have Mr. DOHERTY.
nothing but commendation for the hon. gentleman for the carefulness with which he steers between the shoals, so long as he stays in such very shallow water as this government persists in navigating the ship of state in. But, I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that when the pilot's attention is exclusively centred on steering between the shoals he may forget just where the ship is going. It is well to avoid the shoals on your way, but it is well also when you are on your Way to know where you are going, and if I had advice to offer to this government it would be that they should gather their courage together and try to face like men the consequence of the course upon which they are entering, and which at its beginnings at all events they find so beset with shoals. I believe that the people of this country are looking for men and a party of men that will come out with courage and face this difficult problem with all the difficulties that surround it; face it like men and solve it like men. I believe that what this country is looking for is not successful navigators between the shoals, but men whom they can trust to take their barque out on the wide ocean of the world and guide it through in safety. While the chart which the government is following may perhaps keep it off the shoals, I for my part do not see where it is going to lead Canada to. At the beginning of these remarks I referred to some observations of Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman upon the relations existing between the different nations of the empire. Among other things, that right hon. gentleman said:
We found ourselves, gentlemen, upon freedom and independence-that is the essence of the British imperial connection; freedom of action on the part of the individual state; freedom in their relations with each other and the mother country. Anything which militates against that principle would be wholly contrary to the genius of our race and our political ideals, and would sooner or later be disastrous. . . . Gentlemen, freedom does not necessarily mean letting things drift.
Mr. Speaker, statesmanship does not _ necessarily1 or conceivably mean letting things drift. The right hon. gentleman has said to us, in his most eloquent apology for this measure, that no government can settle questions of this nature according to the ideal view of just what ought to be done. Certainly this government is giving us a most apt particular instance in support of that proposition. But he went on to plume himself of having found a means that was going to satisfy what he calls moderate mem He looks out upon this country and he sees it divided into classes-violent men, who I suppose are seeking to destroy each other, and moderate men, who guide the ship of state in such a

manner as to bring it sufficiently near -one shoal to pacify one class of these violent men whose views the government disapprove, and who then take another tack and bring it sufficiently near the other shoal to pacify another class of violent men whose views the government also disapprove; with a result which I fancy the government will find, when the time comes for the people to speak, no party and no considerable body of men in this country will approve. In the course of that scolding to which I have referred, some of us on this side of the House were condemned for being too hot, while others of us were condemned, I think more seriously, for being too cold; and then the right hon. gentleman proceeded to pride himself on that moderate, that lukewarm, course which he described to us. I have been for a long time indebted to the right hon. gentleman for some very good advice which he once gave me, and which sent me to search the Scriptures for a rule of conduct. I took the advice and have tried to live up to it. Will the right hon. gentleman pardon me if I try at this moment to pay my debt by suggesting to him that the next time he goes to search the Scriptures t-o find therein weapons wherewith to confound the Pharisees and smite the Publicans that sit on this side of the House, he push his study as far as the Apocalypse, where he will find some verses

he cannot take offence from them, because they were written to the angel of the church of Laod-icea which read something like this: 'I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot; but because thou aTt lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee forth'. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that the terminating words are somewhat cacophonous ; they may perhaps be hardly parliamentary. But I have only to say that they are not my words, they are the words of the inspired writer; and I may add that I do not wish at all to apply them to the right hon. gentleman, but rather to the lukewarm dish in the way of a policy that he has set before his followers and that they have succeeded in swallowing and so far as 1 know have not yet vomited forth, but which I am very much afraid will prove most nauseous to the people of this country.
From all this, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there can be no doubt as to what vote should be given on this Bill. It *seems clear to me that the measure; if put into execution under existing circumstances and without proper provision for the performance of the duty it carries with it, is destructive of what is most sacred and holy in the autonomy of this country, and, moreover, it seems to me that the measure is clearly useless as a measure for the 1321
defence of the empire. From any point of view I fail to see how any Canadian subject of the King can realize that it is his duty to do otherwise than vote against that measure.
And, now, I propose to say a few words concerning the proposition contained in the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition. As may possibly have been observed, I have not found it necessary, in dealing with the measure, proposed by the government, to deal with the reasons invoked in the amendment. It does not. seem to me necessary to go so far as to inquire whether or not those reasons are well founded. To my mind there stands in the way of the measure of the government an insuperable obstacle, as I have tried to make clear. When I say insuperable, I do not mean insuperable at any time; I mean so long as there is no provision for a proper modification of our relations as regards foreign affairs with the mother country and with the other nations of the empire. Taking that position, one is naturally led to the consideration of the proposition made by the hon. leader of the opposition. With regard to the 'suggestion contained in that proposition, that there should be an appeal to the people, I have very little to say. So far as I am personally concerned, that the measure proposed by the government should be negatived, for the reason I have given, is so perfectly manifest that I would have no need to appeal to the people to ask them whether it ought to be negatived or not.
But as we are told that there are 140 gentlemen who are going to vote for the passing of this Bill, who are determined that we shall enter upon the course laid down in it no matter what may be said against it, then I would say to these gentlemen: If you are not willing to listen to those who have endeavoured to point out why this measure should not be adopted, will you not at least listen to the people who sent you here? But we are told that the people have all along known about it, and that the people sent these 140 gentlemen here expressly to vote for it. We are told that this policy has been under study since 1902; we are told that the representatives of this government gave expression to some most oracular observations in 1902 in the conference in London, and that the Canadian people have been thinking of this policy ever since. We have even been told that since then there have been two elections and that the people, in both those elections, sent hon. gentlemen opposite here with a special mission to build a navy. And that is the reason given us why the people should not be consulted now. Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall not waste time discussing such an absurd proposition. If there be anything of public notoriety it is

that in neither of the two general elections since 1902, a single elector in this country was called upon to give or gave his vote, aye or no. on this question.
My hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet) told us yesterday that this was an ordinary every day question. Well, to describe a question which involves the most fundamental change in our relations with the mother country and the rest of the empire, as an ordinary every day question, is a flight of the imagination which I fail to follow. Why, if a measure involving such consequences from a constitutional point of view, as well as every other, should be propounded in any other country, no one would ever dream of enacting it into law without allowing the people of pass on it. In the neighbouring republic you could not pass such a law, you could not pass such an amendment to the constitution, without submitting it to the people. But in this parliament, we are asked to look upon it as an ordinai'y every day occurrence. We are asked to pass a measure that will make a most material change in the relations we have hitherto had with the mother country, which imperatively calls for some new adjustment of those relations, and we are told that the people do not need to know anything about it, but that we have a mandate to deal in this parliament with this as with any other question. And we are told that in face of the statement made yesterday by the hon. member from Beauce (Mr. Beland) that one province, at all events, would vote practically unanimously against it, but he thinks that province should not be allowed to express its opinion. He is one of its representatives, and he thinks that that province should not be allowed to talk, and the reason he gives is that he knows it would talk differently -from the others. I do not know what are the sources of his knowledge, but the fact, which the hon. gentleman admitted, that there is a marked difference of opinion among our people on this question is a most conclusive reason why the people should be given an opportunity to discuss and pronounce upon it.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) said that the province of Quebec would almost unanimously vote against the measure now before the Chair?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Against this Bill, yes.


Victor Geoffrion: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the hon. member for Beauce said that in the province of Quebec, the unanimous vote would be against this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Almost the unanimous vote, I think I said.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 


Victor Geoffrion: I did not understand the hon. member for Beauce to say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: I did not either.


Charles Joseph Doherty: have so many more, and so on down a series of years. What, then, is the testimony of Dr. Macnamara? It is that England is perfectly safe, provided she build Dreadnoughts enough. Then, there is Mr. Asquith, and there are other gentlemen who say virtually the same thing.
Now, there is the further evidence of what people do. Both parties in Britain have been advocating the imposition of new taxes unheard of up to the present time. Both parties agree that there is call for an immense increase in the revenue; they disagree as to the means by which it is to be got. They agree that the reason why increase in the revenue is necessary is that increased armaments are necessary. Now, it is not habitual for governments, for mere amusement, to impose taxes on the people. Increasing taxation is, as a rule, an unpopular course, and I do not know of any popular government that has found any special amusement in it. I would infer that both parties agree that there is need of increased armaments-they confirm Dr. Macnamara's testimony. Then, theie is the fact that Britain is going ahead with this construction as fast as she can, in fact, the declaration put in the King's mouth by the witnesses on whom this government rely, is that a substantial increase in expenditure is absolutely necessary. There, then, is the testimony as I have heard it.
And I have considered it. Now, I want to be perfectly frank; I do not say that it is possible, weighing one thing with another, to say that there is absolute certainty of the necessity of that contribution. What I say is that the situation, to put it in the plainest kind of language, seems to be purely and simply this: Here is Canada, we will say, a man in business in a comparatively small way. Here is the United Kingdom, which we liken to a man in the same line of business in an exceedingly large way. Our two men are friends. The man in business in a small way is so tied up in his business relations with the maD in business in a large way that if failure comes to the man in business in a large way, our friend in business in a Small way will almost inevitably go to the wall. In that situation, our friend whose business is in a small way and whose success depends largely on the success of his friend in the more extensive business, hears rumours going about that his friend is in straitened circumstances; he hears from one man and another man who are in a position to know, that this friend of his is straining every nerve to meet his obligations. People are talking on the sereet, people are saying, What is going to happen when he goes down? But he says to his creditors:	Oh, I am all right; I will be
able to meet my obligations, I will pull Mr. DOHERTY
through. But, would you conclude, as the government asks us to conclude, that because that gentleman does not proclaim from the house tops to his creditors that he is in a position of stringency and emergency, that because he is trying to put the best face possible upon the situation, there is no cause at all for anxiety? Is that very reasonable? I put it to any business man. Now the gentleman who is in business in a small way has, we will say, $20,000 available, and his friend lacks that $20,000.
Now, Sir, Canada is as fond of money as any other nation; we on this side of the House are as fond for her of it as hon. gentlemen on the other side, we think sometimes that if we had her money at our disposal, there are certain classes of people who would not get at it as easily as they do when it is in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. Of course, we may be mistaken in that suspicion. But, as I was saying, our friend in the small business has $20,000 available. He feels that not only would he be sorry to see his friend go to the wall, but hie would have to suffer himself from the crash, and he thinks the wisest thing he can do is to write to his friend and say: You know your own situation, you know my situation in regard to you; if there is imminent need you may draw on me to the extent of $20,000. That is all our resolution says. That is the purport of our resolution, which hon. gentlemen opposite declaim against as proposing to throw $25,000,000 across the ocean, forcing it upon the people of England, who don't want it, throwing it into the hands of Mr. McKenna and Mr. Asquith against their will. That is all our resolution says. Let hon. gentlemen read it. The proposal is that we should defer any action with regard to a permanent policy until the people have had a chance to make up their minds upon it, I myself would add until the important rights and duties I have referred to are settled and defined. So we say that inasmuch as action on a permanent policy is to be deferred, inasmuch as what we think ought to be done before adopting such permanent policy means delay, and because danger may come within the delay, because there may come an imminent necessity, we are prepared to say to the men who know whether there is imminent necessity or not, men in whom both this government and the opposition have explicit confidence as to their truthfulness and knowledge, we are prepared to say to them: Gentlemen, to meet the imminent needs of the empire, we put at your disposal this sum of money. Mr. Speaker, if that money is drawn under those circumstances, it will be done by men in whom this government has implicit confidence, and upon their testimony that there is imminent need. Will anvbodv

here impute to the government -of Great Britain the flagrant dishonesty of drawing money that is so put at their disposal when there is no imminent need for it, and that they will take it only to put it in Great Britain's pocket!' When lion, gentlemen tell us that we are throwing $25,000,000 across the Atlantic to these people, giving it away as a pure gift, as the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) said-that is an imputation upon British statesmen whose testimony we are willing to accept as the testimony of men who know what the truth is -with regard to the question of urgency. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this money is drawn, I say we have conclusive evidence on the most reliable testimony of the need of that money, if it is drawn we have given it when there was imminent necessity; and even the right hon. gentleman and his government say that in case of imminent necessity, _ of course, we ought to give immediate assistance. If, on the other hand, there be no imminent necessity, we may sit down and rest content with the implicit confidence that the money will not be drawn. So much for this bugaboo of a gift of $25,000,000 of our money thrown at England, money that will never come back again. It was pathetic, as I said, to hear the Minister of Militia and Defence dwell on those words -' that will never come back again.' Why, Mr. Speaker, the offer in this way of this money is a step of the most ordinary prudence on the part of a country whose prosperity, whose autonomy, depends, if not absolutely, at any rate to a very great extent, on the maintenance of Great Britain's naval power. It is the simplest measure of prudence in face of a situation such that no man will accuse me of exaggeration when I say it is at least exceedingly doubtful. If the doubt should turn out to be well founded, we shall have done our little part to avert the catastrophe; and at the same time, if the doubt should prove to be unfounded, why, our $25,000,000 will never come back again, because it has never gone away.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when you get this question down to a plain common sense basis, it must appear clear that before the proposition of the government can be carried into effect, many things will have to be done; many things will have to be done before we can adopt a permanent policy that will meet our duty to our country, to the mother country, and to the other nations of the empire. It is clear also that while we take the time to deal with these important measures, it is wise for us to make provision that the intervening delay shall not entail serious damage to the empire that we are proposing to help at this moment. I shall not only vote with absolute and complete conviction against
the passing of this measure under existing circumstances, but I shall furthermore vote with the absolute confidence that I am acting, as far as the power in my hands enable me, as a prudent administrator on behalf of this country when I vote for the placing to the credit of Great Britain, for the purpose of meeting any imminent necessity, this sum of money. Despairing of this House refraining from taking the unwise and deplorable step of passing this measure, I shall, at least, as a supplication to them to stop in their path, involving most disastrous consequences, vote for an appeal to them to at least appeal to the people. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have done. To sum it all up, I am for Canada doing her duty. I am for her doing just a trifle more than her duty, if there is any doubt where the line of her duty is; but I am for Canada doing all her duty, not half. I recognize, as I have pointed out, that there is a half of her duty inseparable from the half we are called on by this measure to perform that does _ not concern this government in the slightest degree, to which they have not, in all their seven years, given one moment's thought, in so far as their thoughts are evidenced by their actions. Therefore, I shall vote against a proposition that involves the doing of half our duty, or rather, something which in its incompleteness is no part of our duty, but a sacrifice of the most precious right of this country-her autonomy. I do not vote to make the provisions which have been suggested because I can say that it is impossible that I may find myself guilty of voting for Canada's doing a shadow of a shade more than she ought to do, but because, in spite of that, possibility I am, in the first place, anxious that it shall be made quite clear that Canada is not looking for the benefit of the doubt with reference to this question of her duty. In the future that, lies before us, it may turn out that it is impossible for us to so arrange matters between ourselves and the mother country and the other nations of the empire that whilst absolutely preserving our autonomy we may obtain an adequate and effective voice in the foreign affairs. If it should be that our best endeavours in this direction, in co-operation with the statesmen of the other nations prove futile, then I have only to say that we will be face to face with a most serious situation, but I do not anticipate that possibility. I believe that it will turn out to be possible and when that possibility has been discovered, and made evident, when what is so found possible has been carried into effect, and when we have found a method whereby all the nations that go to comprise this great empire may have

handed over to them the control of what is, properly speaking, the foreign policy of this empire-not the foreign policy of England alone-then shall be our time to fully perform our duty, not only of bearing the burden and responsibility of our share of the conduct and control of that immense foreign policy, but also our share and our fair share, in the contribution that may be necessary to give force, to stand at the back of, to maintain and make effective that foreign policy.
In the meantime, because it wjll take time to settle all these things, we will have made provision that it shall lie in. no man's mouth to say that Canada has endeavoured to shirk her obligations, or has invoked those other things that seem to me bound up with those obligations, merely to put them off. We shall provide that in the interval, if need occurs, our full duty shall have been done. As questions of money are so paramount and so much in the eyes of hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, may I point out that all that will have cost us nothing because, assuming that there is imminent need, and our money be drawn, you have only to suppose that it will take you three years to settle all these weighty questions, and mere fact that we have delayed this policy for three years will have delayed for ' that period the time when we shall have to begin paying annually the money for the upkeep and maintenance of thi3 navy. If you look at the figures of Admiral Kingsmill who assures us that $3,680,000 will represent that cost of upkeep and add to that som the interest on the money that these ships are going to co3t and a proper allowance for depreciation of these vessels, you will find that the sum of money involved amounts to between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000 a year. So, if you delay merely for three years the carrying out of this scheme while you are arranging these essential preliminaries, if I may call them so, and if there should arise imminent necessity and your money is drawn you have saved it for the three years you are not maintaining an existing navy. So that even if you get down to that, where is our sacrifice? I wa3 particularly struck with the pathetic tone of the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) when he spoke about that money going. It seemed that in his mind the great thing was not the autonomy of Canada, but the automoney of Canada. Of all the things we must do we must keep that money at home! That was the substance of Canada's obligation. If that was gone responsible government and autonomy were gone. 1 thought that he had better sit down, figure it out and see that even if the money had to go we would save so much of' that money as to make up. In conclusion I desire to say for myself that. T have desired Mr. DOHERTY.
to treat this question as a Canadian, and desired to treat it without introducing any foreign consideration, or any consideration of the personal conduct of any man or the record of any party. I think I have succeeded in doing that. I have criticised such parts of the present Bill as seemed to me most seriously and gravely open to criticism.
I would like to be able to hope that hon. gentlemen on the other side would reconsider this measure, but I suppose that is too much to hope for. At all events, I can feel that I have endeavoured-however imperfect my endeavour-to perform what my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, at an early stage of the discussion of this .question, declared to be the duty of every Canadian, namely, to speak fairly and freely and without fear, his real thought and his real opinion upon this most momentous question. That, I have endeavoured to do so far as my limited powers enable me. I would wish that the views I have suggested might prevail, because I believe that if they did, ultimately the duties of Canada would be more perfectly performed than they have any prospect or chance of being performed under the system that is outlined in this Bill. I believe that were the views I have humbly submitted given effect to, we Canadians could look forward to a glorious future for this our country. I believe, Sir, we could feel that in this momentous crisis, we had taken up a position that would ensure the full, unquestionable, absolutely perfect performance of every duty that any man could possibly suggest as being incumbent upon us, and that at the same time we had preserved for our country-the country that we all love, the country that is the land of the birth of most of us, the country that is to be the country of all our children who come after us-every right to which she is entitled, and above all that sacred right of her autonomous existence to which we attach so much importance. We could, then, I believe, look forward with pride to Canada continuing to hold her position as one of the most important in this gathering of nations that is going to make up the British empire of the future, holding her position with honour and with credit, and standing there without fear and without reproach like the knight of old, the pride of all the nations clustered around the United Kingdom, and bound together by the golden link of the Crown, that outward symbol of our common aspirations for justice, liberty, order, and the perfection of civilization. In that great aggregation of nations Canada should take her high rank, doing her every duty, speaking with that strong voice to which she is entitled in the councils of that aggregation of nations so far as the control of her relations with the outside world is concerned, and speaking

with that voice, as I know it would be spoken, in the interests of peace the world over. I believe, Sir, that if we go about this matter thoughtfully and carefully, trying to foresee the future and not letting ourselves drift into the unknown, a result approaching to if not identical with that which I have tried to forecast will follow upon our efforts.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester).: No member of this House, Mr. Speaker, has risen to speak on this important subject who has realized more deeply than I do the gravity of the question with which we are called upon to deal. If I do rise at this advanced stage of the discussion to address this House, I do not do it with the expectation of conveying to the parliament or the people oi Canada any very valuable new information. But my electors have never known me to shirk -a duty, and I consider that 1 would be failing in respect for their confidence if I neglected to express my views on a subject so grave as the one now before this House. Therefore, I desire, in the few utterances which I shall address to this parliament, more particularly in order that my vote on this question may not be a silent vote, to give my explicit assent to the Bill which the Tight hon. the First Minister presented to this House on the 12th of January last. I do not hesitate to say that that Bill meets my hearty approval; and I say so, ' in the keeping of my own conscience,' to use the noble expression of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), who has preceded me this evening. The hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is not in his seat, but I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to convey to him the expression of my deep appreciation of the intelligent patriotism which he manifested at the conference in London last summer, where, in obedience to the mandate of this parliament, he arranged for the construction of a Canadian navy for the protection of Canada and the support of the British empire, and was enabled to bring to this country a measure best suited to the future combined interests of Great Britain and Canada. I beg also that you will con-, vey to him my appreciation of the noble speech he delivered in this House a few days ago. I should have imagined that the information he then gave might have been sufficient to satisfy this parliament, so that this country might have gone on immediately and prepare for the construction of a navy which would be the pride of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I regret that our hon. friend the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries (Hon. L. P. Brodeur) has not been within our hearing during this debate. He shares our confidence and our admiration equally with the Minister of Militia and Defence. We regret that his illness detains him from this House at this time. He has endeared himself to every one who has come in contact with him. Endowed with the virtues and qualifies that make a good citizen, he has brought to the public life of Canada a high culture as the guide of his activities, which we deeply Tegret are not at this juncture available to the country; but we hope that his speedy restoration to health may soon enable him to return to the station for which he is so well fitted.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot undertake to follow my hon. predecessor, the member for St. Anne, in his arraignment of the government on this question, although I shall probably deal with some of hisj arguments in the course of my remarks. I may take this opportunity, however, to express to my hon. friend from Ste. Anne my sincere thanks and appreciation for the noble manner in which last night, within the walls of this parliament, he nobly performed the noble duty of correcting a misconception of the sentiments of the French Canadian people on the part of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), due perhaps to a lack of knowledge of the things of which that hon. gentleman was speaking.
Mr. Speaker, a few of the people of Canada are against any kind of assistance to the British empire, whether by naval contribution or otherwise, on the mere ground that the causes of war have been left behind this century, and they assert that this policy is barbarous and reactionary. It is precisely owing to my appreciation of the sincerity of these noble people in expressing such sentiments that I wish to pay them the respect of my attention. When they tell us that war on land and on sea is abominable and abhorent, and that all nations should pray Heaven that it may never occur again, i am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that their feelings are my feelings, and I stand with them against all efforts to stampede public opinion in behalf of warlike behaviour. But again when they tell us that in the conditions in which we live and under the circumstances surrounding the great empire of which we are a sister nation, the strongest and wealthiest of the family of sister nations in its realm, we should remain indifferent to the fate of that empire and neglect to assume our responsibilities as a part of it, a responsibility created by protection and privileges received, a protection and privileges which will last as long as Britain lasts and will cease the day Britain falls, I must say that their judgment cannot meet my judgment. We are called upon, Mr. COMMONS
Speaker, to deal, not with a theory, but with conditions. We must take the world as it is before us. We are living in a turbulent world, in which ambitions rise at every moment at one point or another. In days gone by many a great war has been declared to be the last which would take place, owing to its awful consequences. Yet other wars have been waged, and always in the name of justice. Entreaties for peace have taken different forms in different centuries, until to-day they have taken the form of a peace tribunal, a. referendum to arbitration with a view to the limitation of armaments. Great Britain, in its wisdom and generosity was the first to propose a reference of the question of the limitation of armaments to international agreement.
Great Britain proposed a limitation of armament by international agreement, but Germany vetoed the proposition, and her veto was closely followed by the announcement of a programme of naval development coupled, of course, with the declaration that all those preparations for war were made necessary by the rapid expansion of her commerce throughout the world and the dignity and greatness of Germany demanded a navy proportionate to the great rise of that empire as a world power. England's language was the language of peace, coupled with an offer of peace, whereas Germany's was the language of peace, coupled with preparations for the future. Germany went on building ships and making guns and still crying out for peace. The old doctrine of the Roman, Si vis pacem para bellum, is still in existence.
Nineteen centuries of an advancing, progressive, Christian civilization have failed to bring the human race within the reach of universal peace; and although at times I cherish the hope of our reaching that desired goal, I am afraid that this 20th century may yet close without giving ua the realization of that ideal status. With the advancing centuries, civilized nations have increased in population, wealth and ambition. The national, commercial and industrial expansion has forced on them the necessity of providing means for the maintenance of their increasing populations; and when one continent no longer offers such necessities, nations looked across other seas for other lands for their evergrowing land and population. Under that impetus, five nations to-day-have acquired the position of world powers. An American authority defines world powers as those which are directly interested in all parts of the world and whose voices must be listened to everywhere Of these world powers, the British empire is the oldest and most deserving, and the youngest, and not in the least in merit, is the United States. Of these world powers some, either for war or for peace, Mr. TURGEON.
either for aggressiveness or the protection of their commerce, keep increasing their armaments, and their subjects in ail parts of the world, are crying out in unison for further protection of their commerce. Among those powers the British empire holds the supremacy which she swerves over the world in the best interests of humanity and civilization, and it behooves every British subject in every part of the world, according to his means, to work in the defence of the British empire, in defence of the British flag which so gloriously protects the true ideas of civil, political and religious liberty. It is to that power that Canada owes her autonomy, and it is that power which granted the province of New Brunswick the same privileges after many years of manly effort. Ever since the day when England proclaimed Catholic emancipation, she has opened her harbours, her hospitals, her domestic and national sanctuaries to the Catholic priests of France and Spain and the rest of the world; and in this 20th century we find these religious bodies, driven, under the plundering whip of the officials of the government at Paris, from their own homes and possessions in foreign countries, looking to the British empire for a safe retreat and a home where they are to-day giving that country, which they have adopted as their own, the benefit of their labours and their experience.
And, Mr. Speaker, as this great empire, so beneficial to the world at- large, cannot get along without ships or guns, it is our duty to share in the expenditure on these things in return for the protection we have received and not depend entirely upon the mother country. We must relieve the empire of a part of the burden in a way satisfactoy to both the empire and Canada. So long as other nations are bending their energies in the direction of providing armaments for themselves, so long must we keep in line and help the motherland. We are looking for peace, and I say that there is no power whose stability today makes for peace more than the British empire. Every one knows that England's supremacy does not mean an expansion of territory. She has all the colonies she can attend to and all the subjects she can look after. Moreover, her strong sea power is not complemented by vast land armies as is the case in other countries, particularly Germany. Therefore, her position to-day is a declaration and a promise of peace and protection of commerce. The world is looking for peace, and British supremacy means universal peace. Permanent British supremacy means permanent peace the world over. The crippling of Britain would mean the destruction of the balance of power in Europe, and this would be a matter of momentous consideration for the

United States as well as Canada and Europe.
Our neighbours to the south, to-day, are, no doubt, watching the course of events in Europe as intently as we are. The voice of the world-power of the western hemisphere must be listened to everywhere, and I have no doubt that, to-day, the United States, with deeply solicitous consideration of events, is earnestly watching the movements of Canada toward the future. Other pressure besides the menace of war may be brought to bear upon a nation. Trade restrictions, wise but firm counsel, diplomacy in many directions, exchange of views -^all these appealing and potent factors are in the possession of the United States of America. It may be that the world-power of the western hemisphere will be called upon to speak, and, as I say, there is no doubt that the United States to-day is carefully considering the initial steps that Canada' is about to take for the building of a navy of her own with a view to protecting her own trade and sea-coast, and for cooperation with the British empire in time of emergency. The sooner we protect our coasts, and the better protection we give the sooneT will the voice of America, in the direction of peace, be heard with attention and authority, with force and magnetism by other powers. The Americans are a nation of great activity and enterprise. They have had regard for their own future. They built a navy, modest in its beginnings, but which has grown rapidly with the growth of the country. It may be said that we might remain without a navy and, for the future, depend upon the protection of the British empire in time of need, or we might look to receive from the United States some protection. It is true, the United States might give that protection as to a neighbour. But would pur acceptance of such a position be in keeping with our growth and our increasing importance in the world? Besides, if this protection were given, some day we should have to pay for it, directly or indirectly. Why not, then, pay for it" ourselves and protect ourselves, and not depend upon others? How can we do otherwise and entertain aspirations to be one of the great nations of the future?
I stated at the beginning of my remarks that I gave my hearty approval to the Bill. I should have given it just as hearty approval had it been brought in five or seven years ago, for, in my humble opinion, we should have begun years ago what we are beginning to-day. I am not a militarist 1 could not shoot a gun even if called upon to do so, though I should be glad to do whatever lies in my power should an emergency arise

but I say that, with the advancement Canada has made, with her immense coasts on the Pacific and the Atlantic, and with a harmonious neighbour to the south, one with whom there is neither
expectation dr possibility of misunderstanding, I would sooner, for my part, have taken half the money we have spent on our miltia and devoted it to the .making of a navy. Had this been done, I believe we should be in a better position to-day. We should have to sacrifice something. That is always necessary. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) spoke about the sacrifices that Britain had to make, at our expense, to conciliate the United States. Whatever we have lost by the diplomacy of England, we have taken our medicine like men and looked to other activities^ to make up our loss. Our action in building a navy, instead of being distasteful to the United States, will be helpful to them and will be appreciated. We should build a navy which will render further secure all possible interests on our vast sea-coasts. We will build a navy which will, therefore, help to combine the interests of Canada and the British empire, and will help, at the same time, the interest of the United States, for these two countries are bound in harmony for all time to come. American sympathy will .always be extended to us as friendly neighbours, as Canadians, as Britishers. The United States would rather have Canada, as a neighbour, a part of the British empire than have it a part of the German or any other empire. The United States is a friendly nation with the British empire, a kindred nation, remindful, boastful of its ancestry. Consider the incident related in the despatches concerning Commander Peary a few nights ago. At a great meeting in New York, he was presented with a cheque for $10,000 in honour of his achievements as an Arctic explorer. In receiving the cheque, he expressed himself as follows:
This cheque will be deposited to-morrow as a joint contribution of the members of this audience, by the officers and committee of the civic forum and myself towards an American Antartic expedition for the purpose of exploration and scientific investigation, and to enter the Stars and Stripes in a splendid, manly race for the south pole with our British cousins, than whom there are no finer foe-men in the world.
* British cousins,' he calls them, and he says, ' there are no finer foemen in the world.' My hone for universal peace is chiefly grounded, in my estimation, on the future combined greatness of Canada and the United States. These countries have common aspirations for all that is good and true, in peaceful service of all human activities, agriculture, commerce, industry, which are bound to create comfort, prosperity and happiness, and have a tendency to the intellectual development towards literature, arts and sciences, the successful achievements of which can only be reached by an independent mind free from worry.

moral or material, in the case of a nation as of an individual.
It had been hoped that the United States, in the nineteenth century, would have taken warning from the ruinous policy of European countries in piling up armaments, and would have followed a more peaceful policy. She has not done so, consequently we enter the twentieth century with more or less apprehension. The twentieth century is Canada's century, that is the utterance of our great premier himself, spoken before an American audience. Time has already proved utterances of our noble leader, as having been made under prophetic inspiration; just as was the utterance of Joseph Howe who, 75 years ago, described the Canada of his day and the country lying west of the great lakes, as constituting the foundation of another and greater British empire in North America. And so, Sir, we see it to-day. And I have no doubt that these words of Joseph Howe will also come true, and prove him likewise to have spoken through prophetic inspiration. Now, Sir, when we consider the combined possibilities of these two great North American nations, Canada -and the United States, when we see that one country is the complement of the other in a great many of the raw materials and natural resources which are necessary to happy human existence, able to live side by . side in harmony and prosperity for centuries to come, in perfect isolation from the rest of the world This, Sir, is a position which no other country in the world can boast of, and certainly not Germany. By the middle of this century Canada will have a population of 40 or 50 million people, inhabiting a country enormously wealthy in agricultural products, minerals, coal, iron, lumber, water-powers and everything else necessary to maintain a nation in perpetuity, with unbounded 'quantities of capital from Great Britain, from the United States, and from our own people, with a shipping extending to all parts of the world; and when we take such a country and such a people in agreement with 125 million people in the United States, who will say that these combined interests will not be sufficient to impose peace on the whole world, and will not be a stronger factor for civilization than any other possible device of human genius? We would then see fulfilled the aspirations of Joseph Howe, 75 years ago, a great Dominion of Canada in full possession of all the privileges, wealth and happiness she could desire, and forming an integral part of that great British empire which would make for universal peace. I say all the aspirations of Canadians lie in the direction oi building up on this continent a great nation as part of the British empire; and


Onésiphore Turgeon: if there is one element of our people more than another, if there is one province more than another deeply, personally, I might say, specially interested, in keeping up this British connection, in keeping the British flag floating over Canada, it is the French element and the province of Quebec. So long as the British flag floats over Canada, so long will the spirit of liberty protect the minority, the weaker against the stronger. Sir, we need not recount the ambitions of the forefathers of the French people in the province of Quebec. It is not necessary for me to describe the feelings of the French Canadian people towards the British empire. We have heard them expressed in our mother's prayers, we have heard our mothers' prayers rising to heaven for the security of the great British empire, and that the British flag might continue to float over Canada. Those prayers which have risen from Canadian altars towards heaven for the maintenance of British supremacy over Canada were not intended for to-day, or for to-morrow, -but were intended for all future time. We hear it said sometimes that our noble leader is not faithful to the British flag. Sir, those who say that have never reflected perhaps on the fact that his own mother has uttered prayers for the maintenance of the British flag over this Canada of ours. When we remember what occurred on three or four occasions when our Prime Minister visited England, when we think of the cordial reception given him by all classes, from Queen Victoria, the greatest woman sovereign that ever lived, from members of the government, from corporations of cities, and from the leaders of the British people, when. I remember that our great King Edward VII, on a recent occasion sent a message of felicitation to our Prime Minister on the occasion of his last birthday, I say that in his estimation the British flag still waves proud when it is inflated with the breath of the millions of French Canadian souls that are happy to live under its protection. I say fur-that should it- be necessary for my voice to be heard in some hamlet of Ontario or in any portion of the western country, I shall not delay, as a French Canadian to advocate the continued supremacy of Great Britain over Canada, and the perpetuity of the glory of the British flag.
Now, Sir, there is another point to which I wish to give some consideration. Some of our friends on the other side of the House and on the other side of politics in this country, separate themselves from the rest of us when they declare that we can do nothing on behalf of the great empire unless we at once contribute a large amount of money for her assistance. In this connection let me explain my own

understanding of the situation between Germany and the British empire, or between Germany and the rest of the world. When I have made plain my position on that question, I shall be in a position to explain why I think the building of a navy is a better means than a direct contribution towards strengthening the British empire. Our friends opposite see a constant menace from the German empire. As they have stated she has been preparing armaments. If so, it was her right to do so. She was not bound to accede to the view of the Hague conference. She may have had different views from those held 'by other countries, but, for my part I see no danger of German supremacy over British supremacy. The utterances of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House would lead us to suppose that they anticipate a crisis in a year or two. In this connection I . will quote the words of the hon. leader of the opposition who, speaking in this House on January 12, and referring to some expressions of my hon. friend the leader of the government, said:
Yet the right lion, gentleman may say: Since then it has passed away and there is no need to take further care. These statements pointed to a crisis and an emergency and a peril which might face the British empire within two or three years at the outside. Has that peril passed? No, Sir, we are nearer to it by nearly a year.
Mr. Speaker, the peril that existed last year has not passed, perhaps, because, to my mind, it did not exist and it does not exist to-day any more than it existed at that time. We have heard on many occasions hon. members on the other side of the House asking for an immediate contribution, before they have had time to go to the people for their verdict upon the proposition, of $25,000,000 to England. England to-day can borrow money at a cheaper rate than we can, at a cheaper rate than Germany can, because she has not been under the necessity of bleeding her subjects for the maintenance of her army as Germany has been. Some hon. members on the other side of the House seem to hold in their hands an emergency which they are afraid they are going to let fall upon us at any moment. I believe that..we should take a more sedate view of things and that we should be satisfied with the expressions that are given by these nations themselves. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) gave to the House in his speech some time ago valuable information from German sources. Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote the words of the German ambassador at Washington (Count Von Bernsteroff), who, speaking in November, 1909, at the very moment when we were leaving our homes to come within the precincts of this parliament, before the American Academy of Political and Social Science, then meeting in Philadelphia, said:
The world policy of the German empire is purely commercial and without any territorial ambitions or deep-seated designs against other states and the existing balance of power in the world. We do not strive to acquire further colonies by a redistribution of the empire and are quite content to develop the resources of those colonies we have. It is therefore no part of my purpose to speak this evening of oxir colonial policy. What we however do seek for, is foreign trade and for this reason we are staunch supporters of the theory of the ' open door,' which is also firmly upheld by the United States.
The German ambassador goes on to explain the enormous increase in the industrial production of Germany, the rapid increase in the population and the necessity of procuring bread to feed such a great number of people. He goes on to explain the means to which Germany must resort to keep together the bodies and souls of her sixty million people, increasing at the annual rate of one million. He points out the necessity that the German people are under of looking abroad for raw materials and multiply their value to the people by manufacturing. Then he continues:
We are now obliged to have a navy in proportion to our foreign trade and protecting these important departments of our national enterprise, but we do not desire to ' rule the waves/ and the development of our navy need, therefore, not be regarded with suspicion by anybody.
I imagine that these words are very plain. They are uttered by the German ambassador to one of the greatest world powers of to-day. The same ambassador also referred to the cause of these disquieting rumours coming from Germany. He alluded to the agitation of the Pan-Germanists which form the basis of the policy pursued by newspaper editors of the class of the jingo press of the United States, England and Canada, and he declared that these Pan-Germanists have no influence in Germany, that they have scarcely a representative in the Reichstag, and that they do not represent the sentiments of the great bulk of the people or of the German government. Yet, they give the jingo papers of Great Britain, the United States and Canada occasion to unduly foment suspicion against Germany. Then the German ambassador goes on: ' We are now obliged to have a navy in proportion to our foreign trade and protecting these important departments of our national enterprise, but we do not desire to ' rule the waves/ and the development of our navy need therefore not be regarded with suspicion by any body.' Why should we not believe in the sincerity of these expressions by the ambassador of

the German empire? Are we justified in concluding that these men, representing the power of the German empire, would undertake to deceive the world at large by such expressions? If perchance Germany has the intention, which I deny, of deceiving the English people, can we believe that the ambassador would undertake to deceive the people of the United States to whom he was speaking? Therefore, we should restrain our desire to cry out to the world that there is danger to the British empire from Germany. There would be danger to the British empire if Great Britain remained inactive. But, she is not remaining inactive. She maintains her position of superiority. Her position to-day is as strong, comparatively, against any one power in the world, as it was ten or fifteen years ago.
It has not decreased. The only change there is in the world is that Germany has started the construction of great vessels of war, and England is meeting her efforts in that direction. And, inasmuch as the British empire will keep up the construction of warships pari passu with Germany, the British empire five years hence or ten years hence, will have the same supremacy over the German empire that she has at the present day. One would imagine that almost every available quotation had been cited to the House during the course of this debate, but, I would like to refer to the statement of Dr. Macnamara, parliamentary secertary, to the admiralty who said:
Dr. Macnamara, parliamentary secretary to the admiralty, dealt with the ' emergency ' argument very recently in a speech at Hastings. The London ' Times'' report of a part of his remarks follows:
In Dreadnoughts we have at present seven, against Germany's two, and, in addition, three more were rapidly approaching completion. In April, 1912, the'so-called point of danger, we should have twenty Dreadnoughts to Germany's thirteen.
At the same date we should have forty preDreadnought battleships, under twenty years of age, with an aggregate displacement of 585,000 tons, mounting 656 guns from 6-inch, to 12-inch., including 152 12-inch. guns. At the same date Germany would have twenty pre-Dreadnoughts under twenty years of age, with an aggregate displacement of 241,000 tons, and mounting 384 guns from 5-inch, to 11-inch.
In the matter of cruisers, and leaving out the Invincibles, which I have counted with the Dreadnoughts, we should have in Anril, 1912, thirty-five cruisers of an aggregate displacement of 416,000 tons, and mounting 470 guns of from 6-incli. to 9-2-inch., while Germany would have eight cruisers, with an aggregate displacement of 78,542 tons, and 112 guns of 5 -9-inch, to 9 -4 inch.
Of docks big enough to take Dreadnoughts we have to-day cwelve in home waters, against Germany's six.
To this should be added the statement made Mr. TURGEON.
in the r Navy League Annual (1909-10) giving the personnel of the navy at 128,000 of all ranks. This number does -not include the reserves. The same publication gives the German navy's personnel as 53,769.
_ I call attention of hon. members to the fact that Dr. Macnamara here points out that England has to-day double the power of construction that Germany has. Hon. gentleman on the other side from whom we ought to expect better things, tell us that if we do not have Dreadnoughts built at once the' German Dreadnoughts are going to take possession of our coasts. Let me point out to these hon. gentlemen that the German Dreadnoughts are all of small coal capacity, that they can only take enough coal on board to last them four or five days and that consequently they are not intended to travel' on distant Iseas, their mission being to protect German interests in the North sea. Canada need never fear a German Dreadnought coming to her shores, and if such a thing should ever happen that German Dreadnoughts would be sent forward, they would never be able to get back again. Germany will be engaged for the next twenty years in building all the Dreadnoughts she can for the protection of her own commerce as against possible aggression from Russia, in the Baltic sea, or France, if Germany should provoke hostilities with France, or possibly with Italy, because we all know that Italy would side with England rather than with Germany, the triple alliance notwithstanding. The Germans know that they will not have too many Dreadnoughts for the protection of their own commerce in the waters surrounding their own territory. Does it remain for me, a modest member from a modest constituency in New Brunswick to tell the hon. gentlemen opposite that Germany is not prepared to-day to declare war against Great Britain, and will not be prepared for many years to come. My own authority would not have any effect on these hon. gentlemen, but I shall quote to them an article which appeared in October last, in the New York ' Journal of Commerce,' and which was written by one of the editors who had paid a visit to Germany for the special purpose of ascertaining the situation and giving his views. This is what the ' Journal of Commerce ' says:
Suppose the German fleet is to be as powerful as the British by 1912, the possibility of a successful German descent on the coast of England would he as distant as ever. As against Germany, the strategical position of England is regarded by most naval experts as sufficiently strong to make it impossible for Germany to send any naval force, large or small, into the English channel by the Straits of Dover, or into the Atlantic by the north of Scotland. The task to which Germany appears to have set herself involves

more than tlie building of Dreadnoughts. The Kiel canal lias to he deepened at a eosr of $55,000,000, and this is a work which will not be finished before 1915. So with the deepening of the approaches to the German naval harbours and the construction of new basins and new docks. All of these are rendered necessary by the new type of warship, and without them the offensive capacity of the German navy must remain negligible.
Such is the position of the German navy to-day, and we know that the German ambassador has stated that Germany has no other ambition than that of protecting her own commerce. Whether it may or may not be that Germany has designs on the British empire the fact remains that Germany is a negligible quantity in navy encounters for many years and must remain so. If hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with the authority I have quoted, I shall cite to them the statement of the Berlin correspondent of the Montreal ' Star,' who, on the 9th of February last, confirmed the opinion of the New York ' Journal of Commerce,' in the following despatch:
Germany's Great Naval Base-When completed will be Finest on North Sea, with
Special Harbours.
(Special to the Montreal ' Star ').
Berlin, February 9.-Plans for the new great naval base of the German empire at the western end of the Kaiser Wilhelm canal at Bruensbuttel have been finished, and the work will be begun immediately. The total cost will be in the neighbourhood of $7,500,000.
When the work is finally completed, which will require many years, it will be the greatest naval base on the North Sea. It will rank with Kiel. The harbour will extend from Bruensbuttel, northeastward, to a small lake which connects with the canal. It will be divided into harbours for the largest warships and for merchant vessels. Great floating docks and boat hai'bours will also be constructed.
So. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the reasons which actuate our friends on the other side in apprehending an immediate German peril, and, therefore, insisting upon an immediate contribution to England. But they say, should the peril come, what will you do? And then they quote the words of our noble leader, but not in the way of appreciation, when he said that when that time comes a wave of enthusiasm will traverse this country. Yes, Mr. Speaker, when that time comes. I pray that it may never come; but should it come un-pectedly, in five years, in ten years or next year, that wave of entnusiasm will certainly spread over the whole country, ippeal to the heart of every Canadian, and cause thousands of our young men to go to the assistance of Great Britain. It will rise, Mr. Speaker, to the door of the Canadian treasury, and our patriotic Finance Minister, who thirteen years ago unreservedly gave to the British empire the preferential tariff, will again unreservedly open the doors of the treasury to the British empire according to its need, even if he has in the course of time to convert his surpluses of many millions into as many deficits. But, Mr. Speaker, in time of emergency contributions will be given by whatever governfnent may be in power, though by the expression of hon. gentlemen opposite we would imagine that the present government were to be in power in perpetuity; and it may be that if they are not in power in perpetuity, they may be for a long time. But should the time come when a Conservative government would be in power. I believe a wave of enthusiasm of the Canadian people would then also rise to the doors of the treasury. A contribution, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of a moment. If I understood correctly my hon. friend from St. Anne, he said that contribution does not mean tribute. A contribution for an emergency no doubt does not mean tribute; but if you undertake to-day to help England or the British empire by a contribution, you make it a contribution in the future. It is not a contribution given in a moment of generosity, under special conditions; but when you come to parliament year after year, whether there are good reports or bad reports financially from the country, to have the money voted it certainly becomes a tribute; and under certain conditions, in some particular year, the people of Canada or the members of this parliament might not see the necessity of that tribute, and a difficulty might arise which would not be to the advantage of Canada.
But we are told that a contribution from Canada to-day would give prestige to the British empire. Mr. Speaker, if prestige is required for the British empire, what would give it a greater prestige-a contribution of $25,000,000, of which she has no need, or a contribution of a navy for the protection of trade in this portion of the empire, thus relieving her of the obligation of protecting that trade. We are told that our navy would be of no consideration. It will be of this consideration, Mr. Speaker, that it will have as many ships as England will not require to build for our protection. If every sister nation of the empire can within a few years have a navy sufficient for the protection of its coasts and its trade, England would not be under the necessity of providing for the protection of the commercee of the different nations in her family, and, therefore, would be, like Germany, restricted to the necessity of simnly protecting her harbours and commerce in the North Sea and around the British isles. The interests of Canada and those of the British empire are to-day so closely interwoven that we cannot separate

them. Whatever we do for the development of Canadian resources is for the benefit of England as well as this country; and whatever we do to increase the prestige and the commerce of Great Britain and the maintenance of her supremacy is in the interest of Canada as well as of the other nations of the empire. We cannot separate our interests, and, therefore, we should take no step which might divert the exercise of our energies from the development of our own resourcese of land, forest and sea. WTe should do nothing that would tend to cause a lull in our activity or reduce the revenues of the country, not only in consideration of the material interests of the country, but in consideration of the fact that this development tends to attach more firmly to the country the people of the eastern provinces, and thereby enables us to send more people to develop the provinces of western Canada, where a large proportion of the food of the British empire will be produced in the future. We must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of a few years-and time travels fast in this twentieth century- Canada may be the only country from which the British isles may obtain foodstuffs, that in the course of perhaps another decade the United States will have no wheat, or a verv small quantity, to export, that in a short time that country will have a population of a hundred million people, and may have to resort to new activities in industry and commerce, and find an outlet for its surplus population. It is already asserted that before the middle of this century, owing to the great activities in the iron industry, the iron deposits of Great Britain may be exhausted, and Canada will then be looked to, to provide the iron and steel for the construction of Dreadnoughts or whatever engines of war will then be required.
One of the greatest duties incumbent on this government is to do all that is possible to promote the development of the iron industry and the iron deposits in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Time we know travels faster now than it ever did. It has travelled faster in the last twenty years than in any previous era, and the day may come shortly when we may be called on to produce and furnish that precious metal for English ships, both in her merchant and naval marine.
I thought last year when this House unanimously passed the resolution regarding naval defence, and gave a mandate to our ministers who went to the British conference, that the Conservative party would have remained faithful to their vote, just as the party on this side has done. Last winter I listened with great pleasure to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. the leader of the opposi-Mr. TURGEON.
tion, as they declared themselves in favour of a Canadian navy and opposed to a contribution. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) then said:
Then, again, I think this method ignores the necessity and the aspirations and the prospects of a great people such as the Canadian people are destined to become.
Hon. gentlemen opposite talk of our projected navy. They say it will be too small. But I can quote against them perhaps the greatest parliamentarian on the other side, the member for Toronto again, who said:
We must have beginnings, this must at first be small, but sometime or other our country will have its naval force for the defence of this country, if for nothing else.
These were the words of the hon. member for North Toronto in March last, when we adopted the resolution drawn by himself and somewhat modified by the right hon. the leader of this House and by the leader of the opposition. On that same day my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, said, see page 3517 of 'Hansard':
In so far as my hon. friend, the Prime Minister, to-day outlines the lines of naval defence, I am entirely at one with him. I am entirely of the opinion, in the first place, that the proper line on which we should proceed in that regard is the line of having a Canadian naval force of our own. I entirely believe in that. The other experiment has been tried as between Australia and the mother country, and it has not worked satisfactorily in any respect.
These were the words of the hon. leader of the opposition at that time. We were then all in perfect harmony. Our delegates to the British conference left this country under the authority of the mandate, so strongly and eloquently expressed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). It was equally the duty of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) to be faithful to that mandate as it was the duty of the Prime Minister. Our delegates came back with a plan of a navy for the protection of Canada and the protection of the British empire, which was approved by that conference. While they were at that conference in London, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was in London also, and on the 1st of July, at the Canadian banquet in that city, he spoke as follows:
The resolution in the form in which it was passed, while its terms might not upon the surface seem as significant at this 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.
Here is the declaration of my esteemed friend, and in saying this I speak sincerely for there is none for whom I have a greater respect personally than the leader of the opposition. He then said we had laid the foundation for a permanent assistance to the British empire which would serve a more practical purpose than any offer of Dreadnoughts. He expressed those views on the 1st of July last, when the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), were in London striving to reach a conclusion at the conference which would carry out the mandate given them. Later on, the leader of the opposition visited his constituency of Halifax. On the 14th of October he addressed his electorate there in these words:
One governing principle at least should control, namely, that out of our material, by our own labour and by the instructed skill of our own people, any necessary provision for our naval defence should be made so far as may be reasonably possible.
He also said on that same occasion:
The House of Commons last session laid down a policy touching naval defence in which both parties united. It may not have satisfied the aspirations of all Conservatives, but it seemed our bounden duty to place, if possible, above the limits of partisan strife a question so vital and so far-reaching.
These were as eloquent words as I could wish to hear from a Canadian. They were words to which perhaps no other occasion could give rise, and I believe that the sentiment expressed in them was felt by my hon. friend at that time. But if I understood well the argument of my hon. friend, who preceded me, (Mr. Doherty) and for whom I also have the greatest respect, he thinks we should do nothing until the people have given us a mandate. But, Sir, we have had that mandate ever since confederation. The Canadian government had a mandate to begin the construction of a Canadian navy when it organized our militia, and I do not consider that my hon.
[DOT] friend reached the height of his dignity when he endeavoured to turn into ridicule the navy which the Prime Minister is pro. posing now to construct. He said it would be a navy of the Governor General in Council. Well, the militia of Canada, is the militia of the Governor General in Council. The leader of the opposition, as I have said, has not followed the noble expressions he used in London and to his electors in Halifax. What power has caused the hon. leader to change his tone it is not for me to consider or to learn. I can only say that I deeply regret the change he has made. It seems to me there is no ground for his pre-133
sent amendment in so far as it differs from the resolution to which he gave his approval on the 29th of March last. In considering briefly this contrast let me take up his present amendment, dealing with the lust paragraph first.
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 purposes 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.
Contrast this with the utterances of the hon. gentleman in Halifax six months before or in London last July. He declared that the policy laid down was better than a contribution of Dreadnoughts, but to-day he wants to give $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 to contribute two Dreadnoughts to the British navy, and in the expenditure of that money we should have nothing to say.
Another paragraph of the resolution says:
That no permanent policy should be entered upon involving large future expenditures of this character until it has been submitted to the people and has received their approval.
Last March, the hon. leader of the opposition, as well as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did not think of appealing to the people on the question of building the new navy. We could not commence it soon enough to suit them. The hon. leader of the opposition added the words ' speedy action ' in order that no time be lost. He went to his own constituency in October last, a few days before the opening of parliament, and told the people there that we would build a Canadian navy, but this might not meet the aspirations of every Conservative, but we must raise this question above the level of party politics. And his electors applauded his words; evidently they did not feel that it was necessary to appeal to the people on this matter, but encouraged him to go on as speedily as the government and parliament of Canada could go. Another paragraph says:
The proposals of the government do not follow the suggestions and recommendations of the admiralty and in so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the empire in time of war are ill-advised and dangerous.
This proposal I cannot interpret as anything but an attack upon the autonomy of this nation in the disposal of its own money. Sir, the late Joseph Howe, in his

417!)

day, persistently maintained our Tight of autonomy. He maintained that principle for his own province of Nova Scotia in all matters of importance. He wanted autonomy for the people of Nova Scotia in every thing possible. For my part, were I the leader of the opposition, a professed follower and disciple of Joseph Howe, 1 would hardly venture to express such sentiments as those expressed in this resolution, even if I entertained them; I should be afraid that the shade of Joseph Howe would rise in ire against me. I am sure that as time goes on and history takes a more just view of the course of events in Canada and in Nova Scotia, the figure and the work of Howe will occupy a larger place in our records; he will receive from posterity justice that was denied him by his contemporaries. I say that the language of this resolution I have quoted is most surprising when uttered by one who comes from Nova Scotia.
But we are told, we cannot build a navy. Certainly, we never can build a navy if we never commence to build it. What greater prestige can we give to England to-day than to show the world the spectacle of docks and shipyards-whether at Halifax or St. John or Quebec, it matters little to me-but the world will know that Canada has entered actively on a policy of providing for the future and of being able to render the greatest assistance to Britain should it be required. They tell us that we have not the skill to manage these ships. We will import the skill from England for a while, if 'necessary. That will not be detrimental to England. We will teach our men, who have the instinct of the sea, how to manage these craft that are new to us. We have a population on our sea-board who have inherited a knowledge of the sea, so that the boys at fourteen years of age are perfect sailors. We have them among the Englishmen and the Scotchmen of the maritime provinces, we have them among the Acadians also-fishermen, seamen, who are already appealing to me_ for positions in the fleet that is to be built. We have such men on the Bav des Chaleurs, on the shores of the St. Lawrence on both sides. I am sure that my hon._ friend the Postmaster Genera] (Mr. Lemieux) and you also. Mr. Speaker (Mr. Marcil), the _ representative of one of the greatest maritime counties, know of many men who are but waiting the opportunity to board a Canadian ship to be trained under a British commander.
Mr. Speaker, our Acadian people have been as useful to Canada, and contributed as much to its greatness, as any other race or portion of a race in this country. We have contributed to the improvement of the maritime provinces.- We have kept our children at home; and I may be per-Mr. TTJRGEON.
mitted to 3ay to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have rendered great service to the whole nation by contributing so largely to the increase of population in the maritime provinces, particularly in New Brunswick. Every Acadian mother, as she breathes on the face of her child sends up to Heaven a truly Canadian aspiration for Canada and the empire. As I say, there is no aspiration purely Canadian that is not also British, I say that the children of those mothers are to-day waiting for an opportunity to go to the defence of Canada and the British empire.
Now, Sir, we are told that this Naval Bill proposed by the government is not in conformity with the requirments of the British admiralty. Well, supposing I admitted the contention of our hon. friends opposite that this Navy Bill was not in accordance with the wishes or desires of the British authority, is it by offering an amendment to submit the question to the people that we will make it more conformable to the desires of the British authorities? Is it by asking seven or eight million people to express their opinion upon it that we will make it more in conformity with the aspirations, the requirements and the desires of the British authorities? If that is the view of our hon. friends opposite why did they not bring in an amendment proposing, in place of the thirteen ships that the government are to build the fleet unit that was at first suggested by the admiralty at the conference? Then we might say that our hon. friends opposite had some desire to meet the requirements of the admiralty. But instead of offering such an amendment to the Bill, they ask us to make a direct contribution. Now, Sir, I wish to say. that in my estimation our representatives at the British conference acted wisely, not only according to the mandate given them by the resolution of the 29th of March last, out in harmony with the opinions of the admiralty themselves. It was first suggested that Canada should provide a fleet unit for the Pacific coast only, and Mr. McKenna admitted that the conditions of Canada were such, that our coast was so extensive, that it was not possible to provide a fleet unit for both the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts. Does not the leader of the opposition think that the coast of the maritime provinces needs protection, inasmuch as it is through the ports of that coast, St. John and Halifax, that the bread stuffs for the English people must pass on their way across the ocean? I believe that our representatives not only acted wisely, but I give them credit for having been able to bring about harmony in that conference in the interest both of Canada, and of the empire. I am sure there is scarcely a Canadian who will say, after looking at the question in all its phases, that this
418!

government has not adopted the wisest policy, not only for Canada, but for the empire, by providing for the protection of trade on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast. Canada being a maritime country cannot avoid the necessity of protecting her coasts. Whether we form part of the British empire or join the United States, Canada will always have to protect her coasts, both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. Those great harbours of St. John and Halifax, as Joseph Howe said, have not been placed there merely for the use of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; they have been placed there by Providence for the use of the northern half of this continent, as gateways through which the foodstuffs of Canada may pass on their way to Great Britain. They have been placed there by Providence for the advantage of the British empire, and as we are a part of the British empire for all time to come, it is our duty to refuse no sacrifice, to shirk no effort, in order to protect those coasts. Even if we were not a part of the empire, we would have to protect them for our own exclusive advantage. Hitherto we have not expended anything for their protection, because, forming a part of the empire, the empire has protected them for us. Therefore, our gratitude to the empire, as well as our own national pride, should now lead us to begin the work of self-protection. No nation can aspire to greatness that has not maritime interests.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to be proud of our position, proud and thankful to Providence for giving us such advantages as we have. It is our earnest prayer that we may be able to use them in the interest of Canada and of that great empire which maintains supremacy amongst the nations of the world, to the benefit of civilization, and whose flag protects us as no other flag could protect us. I say that the sooner this parliament passes this Bill, and the sooner we put Canada in a position to commence the building of her docks, her shipyards and her navy, the greater wdll be the service we will render to this country and the empire. For my part, I express again with all my heart my greatest admiration for the Bill which has been provided by the Prime Minister. It is not in my power to pass upon our esteemed leader the splendid eulogy that has been pronounced by other hon. members who have preceded me, from the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), who spoke yesterday. Upon them has been bestowed the Providential gift of language adequate to their feelings, their sentiments and their love for their leader, as well as for the British flag. Upon me, however, has been bestowed the privilege and the right to nurture in all modesty the same 133J
feelings for my leader and for the British empire.


Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.).: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to find myself upon common ground with the last speaker (Mr. Turgeon) in this debate, but contrary to my expectations, I find that there is one point on which we can agree. He told us that he was unable to make any answer to the speech of the hon. member from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) who preceded him, and I confess that I am unable to follow the hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Turgeon) in the ramifications in which he has indulged. I may say, in passing, in reference to the speech of the hon. member for St. Anne, that I very much doubt whether any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will undertake to analyse that speech and fairly and squarely meet the contentions which were made by the hon. member fox St. Anne, for the simple reason that I believe that his arguments were so closely reasoned out and were so convincing that' no hon. member on the other side of the >
House will accept the challenge thrown down by that hon. gentleman to endeavour to give a fair and square answer to them.
In regard to the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, there is one thing that he referred to which gives me some consolation to-night in case I should be tempted in any way to transgress the rules of the House to the extent of possibly going a little bit outside of the question before the House. When I observed that you allowed the hon. gentleman to discuss, without any rebuke on your part, the question of Commander Peary devoting the $10,000 that some society gave to him for discovering the North Pole, I came to the conclusion that pretty nearly anything that one might venture to say between the poles would be relevant to this discussion.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House at any great length to-night, and I will promise you this consideration for your own feelings and for the feelings of everybody else that I will not quote the language of Dr. MacNamara where he promises that England shall have ten Dreadnoughts at the same time that Germany has five, and so forth and so on. I will try and keep a little more from repetition than that. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) is not in his seat to-night, because, unfortunately, I feel that, owing to the line he took in addressing this House on this question the other day, I really must call attention to some matters which were contained in his speech and which should be answered. The hon. gentleman was very free in his accusations against members on this side of the House of inconsistency. He waxed eloquent upon the subject of the

instability of the line of action of members on this side of the House. Why, he grew so indignant at times that I almost felt that his vocabulary was hardly sufficient to find words in which he could express his disdain of anybody who had changed his opinion upon this subject. After rating hon. members on this side of the House for some time, the hon. gentleman stood forth as an apostle of consistency, and, clothed in the robes of his own righteousness, he proceeded to denounce hon. members on this side of the House for the stand they had taken on this subject. Well, let us examine records and see whether he practises what he preaches. My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) put a very simple and a very courteous question to him, a question which has been put to many hon. members on the other side of the House during this debate. He was asked by that hon. gentleman if he considered that there was an emergency or a crisis at the present time, and whether he thought the policy of the government was one which would answer to that crisis. He said, somewhat grandiloquently, with a wave of his hand, that he did not like to have the logical sequence of his speech disturbed, and he went on to make a remark about the speech which my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo delivered, which, I think, was absolutely undeserved, for, 1 venture to say that any impartial listener would concede that my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo is quite as able to make a speech in this House as the hon. member for Nanaimo, or, for that matter, as any other hon. gentleman in this House. He was asked if he thought there was a crisis. What did he say? Crisis? Why, perish the thought. Here are the remarks he made:
Now I submit that the question as to whether a crisis exists is to be determined by some reasonable process.
I would like, in passing, to say that I have noticed since I have been in this House that the hon. member for Nanaimo is very fond of using the words ' reasonable process,' ' logical sequence,' and words of that kind. He proceeded:
The leader of the opposition said we must determine whether there is a crisis in Britain by the statements of responsible men in England. In that I agree with my hon. friend. But can my hon. friend, or any -other man of this House, conclude that there . is a crisis or a serious danger, from the statements of responsible men in England? I may be told, how is it that the Liberal government in England, for the last two years, and especially the last year, have been increasing -the power of the British navy; and according to the despatches received in this country yesterday, the speech from the Throne, at the meeting of the British parliament, asks for a further increase in the provision for Mr. BARNARD.
strengthening the navy. Well, Sir, I look upon all that as an evidence, not of a crisis, not of danger, but of a determination to secure absolute security.
Not- satisfied with establishing, quite to his own satisfaction, like every hon. gentleman who has spoken on the other side of the House, that there is no crisis, he proceeds to tell why there is no crisis. To do that, he quotes certain language published in a certain English newspaper, the name of which he does not give, but which makes certain reference to Lord North-cliffe, and he says:
What is the 'emergency'? It is nothnig more than the superheated sixpence a word rant of a Socialist agitator, backed by the prestige of the greatest living journalistic acrobatic and mountebank-chief press agent of the Unionist party-Lord Northclifte.
These two dangerous demagogues have played the strings of the war harp so clamorously and persistently, they have for political purposes so basely misrepresented the naval strength of England and exaggerated that of Germany, thac half the nation believes Britain is in danger, and excitable Canadians have already begun to shout for a life line. This is to take the form of an ' emergency contribution.'
Well, Sir, judging from the language of the hon. gentleman and from the fact that he quoted that clipping from an English newspaper with reference to Lord North-cliffe, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman had a very poor opinion of Lord North-cliffe, who is evidently not the kind of man upon whose view he would base a conclusion as to whether there was or wa3 not a crisis. At the opening of this debate the Prime Minister remarked that a number of tongues had wagged during the recess. Possibly they did, but although the right hon. gentleman may not have known it, some Liberal tongues also wagged, and amongst those wagging tongues was the tongue of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith). In the city of Victoria, which I may say is very much interested both for patriotic and commercial reasons' in this Bill, a telegram was received during the recess from London which gave rise to the apprehension that possibly the naval station and dry dock might be removed from Esquimalt to some other point in British Columbia. A meeting of the Board of Trade was held to consider the matter, and there were present at that meeting my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) who was brought from Nanaimo especially for the purpose, and my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue, and being present myself I happened to hear what the member for Nanaimo said, and I have before me quotations from the local 'papers giving his remarks. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) said at that meeting:

Last session at Ottawa he had occasion to refer to military expenditures. He did not complain of their size, but he did complain that the people were not getting all they should from the expenditure. There was not a fair distribution. British Columbia was not getting as fair a distribution as many provinces. He had never been carried away with jingoism.
There again I think the members of this House will recognize the member from Nanaimo.
He had often wondered whether all the fuss that had been made had any foundation. He had met military men, statesmen and others, many experts, and had discussed the situation with them. As a 'democrat' in the old country he had always been against jingoism. His father had told him the Tory party was ever ready with a war scare while the Liberal party was working for the peaceful development of the country. He stated this in explanation. He had, however, listened to the speeches.
And to whose speeches do you think the hon. gentleman had listened?
He had, however, listened to the speeches of Lord Northcliffe, he had read the speeches of Sir Edward Grey, and others,,moderate in tone the most of them, but convincing.
A Crisis at Hand.
After serious consideration he had arrived at the conclusion that there is a crisis in England, and it is necessary for the colonies to interest themeslves in the defence of the empire, it is necessary for them to make their position and interest in the empire felt. He believed that not only was there a crisis but that there was danger, and the time had undoubtedly come when the colonies of the empire should arise and make known their real position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have read that quotation from the ' Colonist,' which is a Conservative paper in Victoria, but I am glad to be able to say that a representative of the Liberal paper in that city was also present at that meeting. The Minister of Inland Revenue spoke at that meeting also, and as the Minister of Inland Revenue controls the destinies of the Liberal newspaper, the ' Victoria Times, the hon. member for Nanaimo naturally could not expect to have the same amount of space devoted to his speech as the Minister of Inland Revenue had to his, and consequently the *report of the member for Nanaimo's speech in the ' Times ' is not given so fully. However, it was fairly well reported, and from the Victoria ' Times ' of September 25, I quote:
Ralph Smith being called upon, said that he had been commanded by the president of the board of trade to appear. He felt that all the people of British Columbia were in favour of Esquimalt. as a naval base. The imperial authorities had chosen it, and arguments in its favour were superfluous. Every condition
of nature had seemed to have selected it as a suitable place, therefore there is nothing to discuss. The object in asking them to attend the meeting was doubtless that they might give an expression of opinion. Being the member for Esquimalt, from which district he drew so much of his support, it was natural that he would do so. Taking the natural advantages of the place into consideration, and as the member for the district, he would be glad to lend it any support. It was satisfactory to think that Canada had by unanimous resolution of the House of Commons committed themselves to the policy of aiding the defence of the empire. He was glad that they had taken the stand that it was not wise to make a direct contribution, but to build ships of their own.
At the last session of the House he had made a few adverse remarks on the administration of that department, but in discussing the question with men of all lines of thought from the old country he had come to the conclusion that there had arisen a crisis in England, a lid that it was necessary for the colonial interests to make themselves felt.
Here again you recognize the same old story:
His natural tendency was opposed to militarism, but now he believes there was a crisis. Men like Sir Edward Grey and others of the Liberal party who could not he easily led astray by a scare had expressed themselves on this subject, and he was now ready to support any plan for naval defence.
Now, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) is the gentleman who came into this House two days ago and accused the members on this side of - the House with having changed their views on this question of naval protection. I am sorry the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith') is not present as I would like to have asked him what is responsible for the change in his views. No change in the meantime has taken place in the conditions to account for his sudden reversion of opinion. We know that, on the authority of the hon. gentleman himself because speaking of the leader of the opposition he said:
There can be no change in any conditions or any circumstances which would correspond to the enormous change in his opinions.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was nothing to change the opinion of the leader of the opposition which was expressed twelve months ago, what has happened in the last four months to so diametrically change the opinions of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith). Can it be possible that the hon. gentleman has one opinion on this question for the benefit of his constituents and the people on the Pacific coast, and that he holds another view for the benefit of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Liberal party? I hesitate to think that can be the reason. Is it that he did not fully consider the matter? It cannot be that, because he

told us at the meeting to which I refer that he had come to the conclusion he did come to after serious consideration; and I give the hon. gentleman the credit of giving at least as serious consideration to his remarks in the House as he gave to his remarks made before the public outside of the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, is it the party lash, is it the thumb-screw, to which he has referred? The hon. gentleman, in spite of the fact of his English birth-I think he has enlarged on that once or twice in this House, and 1 am sure that he has done so once at least during this debate-in spite of the fact of His devotion for what he is pleased to call the motherland, and in spite of the. pious affirmation,' an expression which I think has been used before in this debate, he stands in this position, that four months ago he was convinced after serious consideration that there was a crisis in the affairs of the empire, and he is now willing, in obedience to the party lash and the crack of the party whip, to vote for a policy which provides for no immediate aid in that crisis, which in fact negatives immediate aid and provides that there shall be no aid for something like six years. The hon. gentleman said that the party thumb-screw had been applied to me and that I had been compelled to change some of my opinions. Well, I am thankful to say that- if I have experienced the party thumb-screw, although I do not know of it as yet, I certainly have never been placed in as pitiful and humiliating a position as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) is in to-day.
I would like to refer to one or two little samples of the Consistency and logic of the hon. member, as evidenced by this one speech. I do not propose to go outside of that, because I think it is enough. He scores the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for what he said concerning British diplomacy. Why, Mr. Sneaker, the feelings of the hon. member for Nanaimo were absolutely hurt. What does he say? He says: 'I myself am a little jealous of Britain and British diplomacy'; and on the strength of that he proceeds to read a lecture to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. He reads that lecture because that hon. gentleman made some reflections on British diplomacy; but the same hon. member for Nanaimo is prepared to fall in adoration at the feet of the Prime Minister, who said in this House that he hailed with delight the day when Canada would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy. He was quite right to say that he was only a ' little jealous. ' because under the circumstances he can't really be very jealous. Again the hon. gentleman has been one of the strongest advocates of the present policy of the government. In fact, he advocated it so strong-Mr. BARNARD.
ly that he became almost belligerent. He looked and talked like a regular old war-horse. One would imagine he was almost dying to get this navy so that he could go
to war with somebody. What a change has come over the hon. gentleman, if you compare his remarks the other day with those he made when speaking on the budget- last session. These will be found at column 4732 of ' Hansard ' of 1909. Speaking of the expenditures on the militia he said:
I say there is no justification for spending $7,000,000 on the frills and fripperies of militarism. 1 am speaking frankly to the House. I will tell you what I would do with the $7,000,000 that is now expended on the militia. I do not know what it is for. I can quite understand the necessity of defence if you know that there is an existing enemy, but 1 am not aware of any. Where is the possible approaching enemy of Canada ? Where does he live? Do you say in the United States? There never was a time in the history of this country when the feeling between this country and the United States was as friendly as it is at the present time. Where is the eneipy to come from? What are you spending the money for? Is it fashionable to have a militia?
Compare that- language with the language of the hon. gentleman in the House the other day, when he was advocating a naval militia. Is that the language of a man whose heart is sincere for the defence of the country? He went on further to say:
I know it is proper to have a reasonable measure of protection and have it better distributed in Esquimalt as well as Halifax and other points.
What he meant by this is shown by the following remark which he made a little later:
I believe that our coasts should be protected by fishery cruisers and that there should be efficient police supervision and protection along the boundary line. But what I did say and what I repeat is, that a time when you have to restrict the ordinary expenditures of this country in its present state of progress and development, is not the time to expend $7,000,000 of the people's money for military purposes, and that whatever is spent ought to he better distributed to the advantage of the Pacific coast.
This is the last example of the consistency of the hon. gentleman which I pro-' pose to quote. In dealing with his consistency, of which he is so proud, we have found, first, that his opinion of Lord Northcliffe has, for the purposes of this debate, undergone a most radical change; we have found that his careful and seriously considered opinion as to there being a crisis -last September has changed. He was satisfied then that there was a crisis; he is satisfied to-day that there is no crisis. His condemnation of the hon. member for

Jacques Cartier does not, as we say in the west, 'gee' very well with his adoration of the right hon. the Prime Minister. His attitude of militarism last session is very different from is attitude this session. Truly, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman spoke with very special knowledge and with great authority when he told this House ' that it was easy to turn around, that it was easy to say one thing to-day and the opposite thing to-morrow.' He made that remark, I think, in a burst of candour, and possibly may be sorry that he said it. He also proceeded to say that it was easy for him to understand the Prime Minister when he said that ' when Britain was at war Canada was at war, and if Britain were at war Canada need not be at war. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman would have the slightest difficulty in understanding that statement. No gentleman who could so radically change his opinions in so .short a time would have the slightest difficulty in understanding anything his leader might say. If the right hon. gentleman should casually say to him that the moon was made of green cheese, we w'ould have the hon. gentleman standing up in this House prepared to defend the statement at all costs. Now I want to say a word or two in reference to his remarks on a quotation from the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He proceeded, by one of his peculiar processes of logic to try and prove out of the mouth of the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that it was quite wrong for Canada to make a contribution of Dreadnoughts at this time. He said:
If I want to find an argument against making a contribution to Great Britain for Dreadnoughts or anything else, I must go to the arguments of these gentlemen a year ago. I take first the argument of the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as hon. members listened to his words, I ask them to keep in mind the policy of the leader of the opposition, and keep in mind also -
This coming from the hon. member for Nanaimo is rather good.
-and keep in mind also the somersault of the hon. member for North Toronto a few days ago in the debate of this Bill-a political somersault that I sumbit, was cleverly executed; no member of the party could execute such an ' about face' as did my hon. friend.
Well, Sir, I venture to say there is a gentleman who comes not very far from Nanaimo who can beat the hon. member for North Toronto as a political acrobat every day in the week. Then he proceeded to say, speaking of the hon. member for North Toronto:
Sneaking of the thing to be considered, he said:
The first is the policy of a fixed annual contribution in money to the British government or the British admiralty. Now, that divides itself, apparently, into two branches, but it is really the same thing. One man says:	Send one million dollars or- two million dollars a year; another man says: Send a Dreadnought or two Dreadnoughts, and so far as Canada is concerned, these two are absolutely one.
Then he continued:
The present policy of the leader of the opposition is to send. Dreadnoughts, but the members for North Toronto demonstrated that, so far as the principle of the thing is concerned, there is absolutely no difference to Canada.
Quoting again from Mr. Foster:
When we translate one contribution into Dreadnoughts it comes down in the end to money which would be sufficient to build and equip a Dreadnought. And, therefore, I say, they are both parts of the one piutusition

The comment of the hon. member for Naniamo on this was:
Now, I would like the hon. member, and especially the hon. gentleman who is to follow me in this debate to remember this.
Again citing from the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto:
-An annual fixed contribution of money to the British government for the purpose of national and imperial defence.
As to this my hon. friend (Mr. Ralph Smith) said:
If that statement he correct, then this House has to consider not only the proposition of the leader of the opposition for two Dreadnoughts at the present time, but the more serious contingency of a repeated contribution to the British empire which is involved in the principle necessarily and according to the hon. member for North Toronto himself.
Now, I wish merely to say this. I am not foolish enough to endeavour to make any defence of the hon. member for North Toronto, for he is quite able to take care of himself; but I do not think it right that he should be misquoted or that his language should go to the public in such a way as to have it misinterpreted. The remarks which my hon. friend from Nanaimo quoted were made, it is true, by the hon. member for North Toronto, taut they were preceded and followed by other statements which gave them a wholly different construction. Before making these remarks quoted by the hon. member for Nanaimo, the hon. member for North Toronto said:
Recollect that my motion deals simply with a stated, regular uniform, normal lines of proceeding and pplicv. Let us argue that out first. It seems to me that when you boil down all the propositions that are made you get down to two propositions, one or the

other of which must in the end he adopted, and I desire for a very few moments to canvass these two propositions, not as an advocate who has dogmatically made up his mind and who admits of no reason on the part of one who takes the opposition thought and might wish the opposition course. But let us, as far as we can, think around them and see what the two mean.
Then came the remarks quoted by my hon. friend. But at the end of his speech the hon. member for North Toronto went on to say:
Outside of any settled action, outside of the normal condition of things in society, in the world, in nationhood, occurences arise, special emergencies, that are unexpected, suddenly loom in view, a great crisis, a great danger. That is absolutely outside of the normal policy to be carried on year after year with settled purposes and upon a settled plan. Every one of the emergencies must be met as it comes and met according to the gravity and importance of the occurence.
Then, winding up bis speech he said:
Let me say to my right hon. friend, that if, after careful consideration, he proposes to this parliament a means for meeting tint emergency adequately by the gift of Dreadnoughts or the gift of money, this side of the House will 6tand beside him in thus vindicating Canada's honour and strengthening the empire's defence.
I do not think that the treatment by my hon. friend from Nanaimo of the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was fair, nor do I think it was worthy the parliamentary record of my hon. friend. He proceeded after that to run through the statements of a number of the other members of this House, and finally he got down to my humble self and seemed to come to the conclusion that I had said some things on the debate last session which I would now find it necessary to take - back. Well, I have gone over my few remarks on that occasion, and I am happy to be able to tell the hon. gentleman that there is nothing I said on that occasion which I have the slightest desire to withdraw. I began by saying that this government had put the country in a humiliating position. That is a state-' ment which I certainly have no desire to take back. To my mind the result, and the only result of the conference of 1909 was to put Canada still further in a position of humiliation. The only thing shown by that conference was the determination of the government to do just as little as they possibly could. The ministers who went oyer to that conference, showed their determination to shave the proposals of the imperial government just as closely as they could, and at the same time try and preserve some semblance of their own self respect. What has been the course of the government in this whole matter? At the Mr. BARNARD.
1907 conference, we had the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr, Brodeur) taking the glorious position that Canada did not need to do anything for the defence of the empire, because she was protecting her fisheries and had taken over some dockyards. Was not that a glorious position? I am sure that Canada must be proud in having a Minister of Marine and Fisheries who found it necessary to proclaim that we had received from the British admiralty a couple of places in which to store his goods and that he was giving up, one or two cruisers which, so far as our Pacific coast is concerned, were absolutely incapable of doing their work and that he was going to keep up a couple of steamers which were barely sufficient to keep off a few marauding fish thieves. Then we had the Prime Minister's curt refusal to consider, much less discuss, the resolution of Dr. Smartt, of Cape Colony. When we come to the conference of 1909, what do we find? We find that the imperial authorities ask the Canadian representatives for a fleet unit. What was their reply? Well, I fancy that before they gave a reply they put a question, and that question no doubt was, how much will it cost, and I think the answer was not satisfactory. Then the conversation probably went on these lines. They said : * Oh, that is going to cost too much; you have got us over here and now you must help us out; tell us what is the most we can do for the least amount of money, for we have got to go back and bluff these good people of Canada into thinking we are doing something.'
During the recent local by-election in the city of Ottawa, the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) made use of an expression which is possibly more forcible than elegant but which correctly, to my mind very correctly, expresses the situation. He said:
If we act as belly crawlers in the empire we will he treated as belly crawlers and right!v so. If we maintain, our own defences we will he respected by England for it.
It has occurred to me that possibly the Minister of Labour might be in want of an illustration of this particular phrase which he used on that occasion. If he does, I can only point him to the conduct of the representatives of Canada at the imperial defence conference of- 1909.
Now, the proposition of the admiralty was a fleet unit-which meant, of course, as has been pointed out so many times during this debate, a Dreadnought-which should be stationed on the Pacific coast. Well, of course, that would not suit the government. The Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) at this same meeting at which the Minister of Labour distinguished himself, also made a few remarks.

All this talk about not following the admiralty advice is rubbish. When they talk about the admiralty suggesting a fleet unit they leave out ' on the Pacific.' When the fact that we have two sea-boards to protect- Atlantic as well as Pacific to protect, was pointed out, the suggestion of our ministers was concurred in.
Well, I am satisfied that the admiralty, in making that proposal, were quite well aware that Canada had an Atlantic seaboard as well as a Pacific sea-board. And I think that, in all probability, they were under the impression that the fleet they had on the other side of the Atlantic was quite sufficient for the protection of the Atlantic coast of Canada. At any rate, I am quite sure that they probably remembered-possibly more vividly than did the Secretarv of State-that they had withdrawn forces both from the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts. I think that when it was pointed out to them that Canada's navy must be smaller than originally asked for and then be divided and part placed on the Atlantic and part on the Pacific, it is more likely that thev assented to the division in disgust or in contemptuous indifference. I believe they would have assented equally readily if the representatives of Canada had proposed to put part of the fleet on the coast of Patagonia and part on the Newmarket canal. It certainly is a peculiar argument that because we have a double sea-board, we should reduce the force. We are told that when it was pointed out to the admiralty that, we had two coasts to protect, then it was decided that we would not put the fleet unit on the Pacific coast. So by wav of assisting the empire, our Canadian representatives decided that we would reduce the force and put a little on one coast and a little on the other. Those of us who feel at all keenly on this subject may congratulate ourselves that our representatives forgot that Canada also borders on the Arctic ocean, because, if they had called that to mind, the fleet would have been still further reduced. And if, by any chance, you could twist Hudson bay into a fourth coast, in all probability the Canadian navy would reach the vanishing point altogether. Taking all these matters into consideration. I do not think I want to take back the statement I made last year, that the government had placed Canada in a most humiliating position on this question.
Now it is easy to criticise, but what should these representatives have done? Well, I think that the proper course for them to have adopted was to have placed that fleet unit upon the Pacific coast. That was what the admiralty, who were the best judges of the situation, asked for. Then, if the government had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to defend the Atlantic coast with another fleet unit,
I would have been very glad to support them. If, either because they had plenty of money to spend, or even if they had come to the conclusion that because there happened to be more votes along the Atlantic than along the Pacific coast, they thought the Atlantic coast was the one to be defended, and, if. in taking care of these votes and these voters, they had decided to put a fleet there, as long as they had first put a fleet upon the Pacific coast, I do not think I would have found fault with them, provided always they had made provision for present aid to the empire and for a navy of some efficiency. The Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) in speaking on this question took some pains-speaking mainly, I think, to his friends in the province of Quebec-to let them know about the different countries smaller in population than Canada that have navies (he called them 'colonies'; whether that was a 'slip or not 1 do not know). But, in making that reference, he mentioned such countries as Argentine, Brazil and Chili, countries which we have not been accustomed to think very much superior to our own, and he told his friends how these different countries had navies, but neglected to tell them that any one of these navies built or projected could knock his navy into a cocked hat in five minutes. He was, as I understood him, talking to his friends in the province of Quebec, to make them think that it was their duty, as loyal British subjects, to go in for this little tin-pot navy of his. I do not pretend to know the feeling of the people of the province of Quebec on this subject, but from what I do know of that people, I am satisfied that, if they are prepared to go in for a navy at all, they have enough national pride not to want to build a navy that will be afraid to show itself on a rainy day. The Postmaster General also made a few references to Esquimalt. Without taking up the time of the House too long, -I would like to say a word or two on that subject. The hon. gentleman referred to the taking over of the dockyards at Esquimalt as one more reason why we should have a navy. I do not see the force of what he said about Esquimalt. The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) also told us, in the course of his illuminating address, that the reason the cost of the militia had jumped from one and a half millions to seven millions per annum was that he had taken over Esquimalt and Halifax.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when the imperial troops left Esquimalt three years ago they were some 500 strong; to-day the Minister of Militia has the 'magnificent force at Esquimalt of 80 men. The imperial people when in charge of Esquimalt were erecting a new fort; they had spent on what was to be known as the Signal Hill battery, a


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member (Mr. Barnard) who has iust taken his seat will pardon me if I do not follow him in the exact line which he has taken this evening, because his speech seems to be made up more of an attack upon the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) than a discussion of the Bill which is now engaging the attention of this House. As I have no quarrel with the hon. member who has taken his seat, I do not require to take up the cudgels with him. I wish to approach the discussion of the subject before the House with one view and only one view, that which always has been taken by the Liberal party throughout the history of this country-the welfare of our own country and the cultivation of a truly national spirit. I .hope, sir, that no words of mine shall offend even the most sensitive, because I respect the opinions of every hon. member of this House no matter what his politics are, and upon the matter of the merit of the naval Bill I readily understand how different our views may be. It is deplorable to see how members of this House, in the discussion of an important measure such as the one we are now dealing with, should go out of their way to make attacks upon a class of members who may not share their views. I congratulate the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) upon his manly action in repudiating the words which were uttered in this House yesterday. I feel that I must join with him in repudiating the speech, or part of the speech, which was delivered yesterday by one of the hon. members. I have absolutely no mandate to speak for the French Canadians of the province of Quebec, I have not, Sir, a drop of French blood in my veins, but I have no hesitation in saying that if I had I would feel very proud of it, because I know of no class of men in this country who should command the respect of this House more than our French Canadian friends. They have been classed by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)-and I want to be perfectly fair with him-as a disloyal body.


Mr. EDWARDS.: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will quote any words which I have uttered from which he could draw that conclusion.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Oh, yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Well do so.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I did not mean to quote the hon. gentleman's speech, but since he has invited me to do so I feel that I will be forced, in answer to his question, to go into th emerits as well as the speech which he has made. When I was a student at college, and it is now a good many years ago


William Cameron Edwards: I think I have the hon. gentleman's permission to ask him


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Certainly.
Mr. EDWARDS, -if he can state any words I used charging the people of Quebec with being disloyal. I said that I did not use any such words nor any language which could be so construed. My reference was to the leaders of the Liberal party and not to the mass of the people of the province of Quebec, whom I never charged with being disloyal.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was proceeding, in answer to the question of the hon. gentleman, to say, that when, many years ago, I was a boy at college, I heard an expression used which runs like this:	' Timeo
hominem unius libri ' and I felt, as I listened to the hon. member representing the county of Frontenac, that he was one to whom that expression might be very aptly applied. It was not my intention to go into the merits of his speech, but he invites discussion of it, and I am quite prepared to take up his challenge and discuss it. Let me tell him that he has taken quotations from newspapers in this country that may be adverse to the French Canadian race, he has taken translations which it was proved by the hon. member for St. Anne were not exact, were distorted, he has taken words uttered by one of the greatest French Canadians who ever lived in the province of Quebec, by one whose memory is sacred to the people of that province, a man to whom the province is going to erect a monument, the late Hon. Honore Mercier, he has taken page after page of the same book, and he has argued from these-what? Let me ask him, was he arguing that the French Canadians of the province of Quebec were a loyal people?


William Cameron Edwards: I will answer the hon. gentleman since he asks me t)ie question. I was arguing to prove the existence in Quebec, the extent of which I do not know, of an anti-imperial sentiment, due to the teachings of the leaders of the hon. gentleman's own party. As regards the

quotations in the book I am willing to submit that book to which I referred to any gentleman he may name, and I will verify what I said.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am sorry the hon. gentleman should have invited discussion because I think for his own sake he would have done far better had he allowed his remarks of yesterday to go without having had them put anew upon ' Hansard '. But I will try-and I do it directly against my will in a way-to make it clear to the House that the whole tenor of his speech, or the greater portion of his speech, was designed to show that not only were the French Canadians disloyal, but that hon. members representing constituencies in the province of Quebec were teaching disloyalty to the people of that province. Will the hon. gentleman contradict that?


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman is charging me with saying that the people of the province of Quebec are disloyal. I ask him to either quote those words which he says I used or to withdraw that statement. I did not use any such words, and I ask him either to make good his statement or withdraw his accusation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I have asked the hon. gentleman a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I will read the rule which is as follows:
Whatever a member says in explanation- whether relating to the words or the meaning of his speech-is to be taken as true and not afterwards called into question. The words, which he states liimeslf to have used, are to be considered as the words actually spoken; and the sense in which he says they were uttered, as the sense in which they are to be taken in the debate. If the member disavows the use of words attributed to him, and objected to, the matter must end.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the Chair and I am most ready to obey your ruling. I am also willing to accept the construction which the hon. member has put upon his words, but which I am inclined to think the actual words do not bear out. Now, Sir, I shall proceed to quote from the speech of the hon. member and I only do so in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) has invited me.


Mr. PAQUET.: Will you allow me a question? Do you think that all French Canadians to-day are not loyal to the British Crown.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I stated some time ago very clearly and distinctly-


Eugène Paquet: Please answer.


William Cameron Edwards: Just sit down.


William Cameron Edwards: Continue to read.


William Cameron Edwards: 


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I shall do so. You shall get just as much of your speech to-night as you want if you continue interrupting me.


William Cameron Edwards: All right.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I continue to quote


William Cameron Edwards: Just sit down. I stated very clearly and distinctly that I accepted the position taken last night by the member for Hocbelaga (Mr. Rivet) when he said that the people of the province of Quebec were not disloyal.
The hon. gentleman did not know it untii Mr. Rivet told him so:	.
I have not said one word to charge the mass of the people of the province of Quebec with disloyalty.


William Cameron Edwards: Hear, hear.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Oh, that speech is not finished yet.
I have not said anything that could be construed into such a charge. On the contrary, T have said that the people of the province of Quebec have shown a more than ordinary intelligence in resisting the political leaders who for political purposes essayed to lead them from their allegiance, and I do not propose to allow any hon. gentleman from the province of Quebec or from any other province sitting on that side of the House or this to prevert ray language.


William Cameron Edwards: Hear, hear.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What did the hon. gentleman mean? He meant that the leaders of political thought in the province of Quebec, irrespective of party, taught disloyalty to the people of the province of Quebec, and these are the words which I object to.


William Cameron Edwards: I named the men


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They are not all named.


William Cameron Edwards: I may have left some of them out. I thought I named enough to satisfy you when I named your leader for one.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Who?


William Cameron Edwards: Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Mr. FIELDING.: You did not name the Conservative premier of 1896 who circulated the book.


William Cameron Edwards: I don't think the past record of the Finance Minister will bear close examination in that respect.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The hon. gentleman for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is going to get into deep water if he begins to name the men whom he charges with disloyalty in the province of Quebec. To-night he mentioned one; he mentioned the name of a statesman who commands the respect of all races and of all creeds throughout this continent when he mentioned the name oi
42P1

the Prime Minister. Sir, what is the atti- 1 tude taken by the Conservatives in my native province? Some of the political friends of the hon. member for Frontenac charge the Prime Minister with disloyalty to his race because forsooth according to their statement he is too loyal, and to-night we have the Conservative member for Frontenac charging the venerable leader of this House with disloyalty to the British Crown. Has the hon. gentleman any other leader of the French Canadians to mention? The hon. gentleman does not reply.
I am glad he is not willing to continue the discussion, because the less he says about the disloyalty of the people of the province of Quebec the better for himself. Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to an incident or two in the history of our country, and before doing so, I may state that while 1 have no mandate to speak for the people of Quebec, I have the honour to represent 30,000 of that race, and I want to protest in the name of my constituents, as well as in the name of French Canadians oi Quebec generally, against any charge of disloyalty whether against their leaders- as the hon. member for Frontenac says, irrespective of party-or against the people themselves. I have not allowed political bias to carry me away to such a degree that I would charge any hon. member who does not share my views with disloyalty, but I will say to the hon. member for Frontenac here and now, that the leaders Of political thought in the province of Quebec, from Sir Geogre Etienne Cartiei down to Sir Wilfrid Laurier have been amongst the most loyal men that Canada has ever known. I remind the hon. member for Frontenac that in 1862, Sir John Macdonald having failed to get a Militia Bill through the legislature, it was the French Canadian leader, Sir George Etienne Cartier, who succeeded in that task, thanks to the support he received from his native province, in passing that Militia Bill. This incident is known to every student of history, but I cite it for the instruction of the hon. member (Mr. Edwards), who for the first time learned last night from the hon. member from Hoche-laga that the people of the province of Quebec are a loyal people. Let me say that when Sir George E. Cartier succeeded in carrying that measure, the ' Journal de Quebec,' which was never well disposed towards Cartier praised him for his success in these words:
The Minister of Militia has succeeded where many expected to see him fall. He has nobly retrieved his fortune and has his revenge for his defeat of 1862.
Another French Canadian paper ' La Minerve,' added:
All those present at the sittings of the House during which Mr. Cartier expounded
his militia scheme are unanimous in saying that no other speech of his ever carried more weight or authority, but nothing else could have been expected from the minister who is considered as master of the situation. This is due to the influence derived from his popularity in Lower Canada and to the confidence which his integrity and honesty as a statesman give him in the other provinces.
Let me say further to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) that if the French Canadian people or at least a large portion of them, are ready to support the government of to-day on a naval policy, it is due to the teaching of the erstwhile leader of the Conservative party, Sir George E. Cartier, and to the teaching of the present leader of the government, another distinguished French Canadian. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Air. Speaker, let me point out that the French Canadian people do not claim anything out of the ordinary. They have secured certain rights by the treaty of 1763, they have secured certain rights by the Quebec Act of 1774, and they have certain rights which were granted to them by the British North America Act of 1867, upon which our constitution is based. I have yet to hear in the province of Quebec that the French Canadian race are claiming any further rights than those that were given to them by the authority of the British Crown, and those that are given to them by the constitution of their country. Has the hon. member for Frontenac ever inquired whether there might not have been disloyal people from other sources? Does the hon. gentleman remember a speech that was delivered by Sir John Young on his arrival in Canada? Let me quote a passage of it to him. On July 15, 1869, Sir John Young said:
At the present moment Canada is in reality independent. It has its own destinies in its ow-n hands, and its statesmen and people are recognized as competent to judge of then-interests as to what course to pursue to conciliate those interests, England looks to them for her guidance, and whatever then-decision may he, either to continue the present connection or in due time and the maturity of their growth to exchange it for some other form of alliance.
This would be fearfully disloyal language if it were used now by me; but I hope no hon. member of this House will charge me with disloyalty because I repeat the words of Sir John Young. As my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton is giving considerable attention to this question of loyalty, I would like for his benefit to read a passage from the ' Times ' of London, which i3 not a French Canadian paper, but the great organ of public, opinion in England.
Mr, HUGHES. Is it an editorial or a report?


Mr. HUGHES.: ad a would be ready to make to the imperial navy. Canada answered, as Canada has always answered, that she would be prepared to defend the shores of this country. That seems to me to have been a reasonable sequence of the discussions which have taken place in this House from time to time on this question. What did the iwi- member for North Toronto propose in this House? The wording of his resolution is this:
That in the opinion of this House, in view "f her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self-help and self-respect which alone befits a strong and growing pen-pie, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
That was apparently the accepted policy of the Conservative party, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier did not propose any amendment or offei any objection to such an attitude being taken by this House. Now, Sir, what interpretation could be given to these words which I have just read? Simply the same theory as has been proclaimed from ocean to ocean by His Excellency Earl Grey, the Governor General of Canada. At the risk of being charged with disloyalty, as a member coming from the province of Quebec, I would like to call the attention of the House to some remarks which were made upon this very subject by His Excellency in the city of Quebec on August 22, 1906.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that to quote or to refer to the Sovereign or his representative with the view of influencing the minds of members is not in order. I will read to the hon. gentlemen the passage:
The use of the name of the Sovereign, or his representative, in debate, so as to interfere with the freedom of disoussion or for the purpose of influencing the determination of the House or the votes of members in respect to any matter pending in parliament, is out of order.
It may be that the hon. gentleman would not seriously think that, but I would prefer that he did not quote His Excellency in this debate.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was not quoting the Governor General, but Earl Grey in the speeches delivered throughout the length and breadth of this land on this subject.
I could undertsand that the King must not be brought into the discussion of political issues, but if His Excellency, the Governor General, delivers throughout Canada a series of lectures upon imperial questions, I take it for granted that, in so doing, he' is

not speaking as the Governor General of Canada, but simply as Earl Grey, and it was simply the words of Earl Grey, that I meant to quote. But of course, Sir, if you rule that I am not to quote any language uttered by Earl Grey


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think it would be better that the hon. gentleman should not. I cannot discriminate between Earl Grey and the Governor General at the present time. The rule is explicit enough.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I had no desire to be discourteous to the Governor General, and shall, in obedience to your ruling, pass over what His Excellency has said.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think the hon. gentleman has been understood as being in any sense discourteous, but simply as not being in accord with the rule of the House, which forbids any expressions of opinion by the Governor General to be used in debate.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is not a question of discourtesy at all. The rule is that no reference may be made to the representative of the Sovereign for the purpose of influencing the votes or opinions of members in this House.


Mr. SPROULE.: I must say that even the statement made by the hon. gentleman
implying that the Governor General sent him this pamphlet would m itself naturally provoke discussion if went on with, and would lead to irregularity in the debate whijh it is very desirable to avoid.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I submit, Mr. Speaker, to your ruling.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I may say that His Excellency drew a distinction in the speeches delivered in the Northwest, in which he said he spoke as Earl Grey, but not as the Governor General.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know what the article is, but I presume it is complimentary to His Excellency, but is it not better to keep all this thing out of debate and observe the rule?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) says, it may be just as well to keep His Excellency out of the debate; but as most of the eminent men of the United Kingdom have been quoted, I thought it would not be derogatory to the dignity of His Excellency to give his opinion also.
After the hon. member lor North Toronto (Mr. Foster) offered his resolution, the government proposed another resolution which was in the nature of the policy this government intended to adopt. That resolution read as follows:
The House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury.
I would like to call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to those words:
For naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) did not at that moment offer any objection or give notice of any amendment, and the resolution was adopted unanimously and declared to be the policy of this country, and that resolution is in conformity with the Bill we are now considering. I submit that, no matter what may have been the differences of opinion as to the advisability of the introduction of such a resolution, once it had been passed, and passed unanimously, there was no alternative for the government, but to bring down the Bill they did. Let me say that the building of a navy for Canada, as one of the great nations within the British empire, imposes itself as a necessity upon the Canadian people. Our population is increasing, our resources are being developed, Canada is gradually growing into nationhood, our exports are increasing beyond the dreams of the Canada of a few years ago. We have been invited, time and again, to do our share towards upholding the strength of the British empire. We have been invited to contribute towards the British navy. We have been invited to build our own ships. And, in the consideration of the different proposals which were before this country, Canada adopted the course which, to my mind, was the wisest, that of building a navy of her own.
Let me say a word about the criticism that is offered to that navy as a navy. The hon. member for St. Anne, Montreal (Mr. Doherty)-and I will not criticise his speech at all-spoke of a navy as a means of attack, and not as a means of defence. Well, Sir, that is a pretty fine distinction to draw. A navy may be a means of attack if attack is necessary, but always a means of defence. Now, not only that but he and other hon. gentlemen opposite have criticised the advisability of bpilding what they have termed ' this small flotilla '. I am unfortunately, not a naval expert, and I have been forced to go to authorities for information upon navy matters. In the course of reading the expressions at the several conferences, I came upon this word, uttered by Lord Tweedmouth, the First Lord of the Admiralty:
There is, I think, a further advantage in these small flotillas, that they will be an admirable means of coast defence.
Sir, I take_ the opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty as against the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite. And if the First Lord of the Admiralty tells the representatives of our country in London, and tells this parliament, through the conference, that what this government proposes to build in the way of a navy, this ' flotilla ' that the government proptoses to build, would be a sure means of defence of our shores, then, Sir, I think we have lived up to that portion of the resolution Mr. DEVLIN.
which was introduced in this House by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) :
To tlie suitable protection of our exposed coast line and our great sea ports.
-and to the resolution of the government when we say that-
-we are prepared to defend our coast and our shores. [DOT]
If the opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty is not proper information in matters naval, I must candidly confess, Sir, that I do not know where to seek for better. During the course of the debate, when hon. gentlemen opposite were forced to change front upon this subject, I was reminded very much of the words uttered by an eminent author: ' The human race is divided into classes, those who go ahead and do something, and those who sit back and ask why it is not done the other way.' It seems to me that is about the position: They sit back and say of every proposition in the matter of the construction of a navy, ' Why wasn't it done the other way? ' Let me quote to the House the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).
Mr. Speaker, I find that it may be some considerable time before I get through the remarks which I propose to make, as I have not entered upon the merits of the Bill, and I propose to discuss the merits. If the House would prefer it, I will move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The House will go into Committee of Supply, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will take up his estimates again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.35 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, February 25, 1910.