1910-02-22

[Stage Direction]
House ol (Commons debates

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 22, 1910.

Mr. A. H.: CLARKE, in the absence of the chairman, Mr. Geoffrion, presented the second report of the special committee on the Lnmsden charges, as follows:	[DOT]
The Special Committee appointed to investigate charges and allegations- made by Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden regarding a portion of tile engineering staff of the Transcontinental railway beg leave to present the following as their second report: Your committee recommend that the proceedings and evidence taken by the committee be printed from day to day for the use of the committee, and that rule 72 be suspended in reference thereto.


Thomas Hay: CLARKE moved that the report be concurred in.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I notice that the report recommends the printing of the evidence for the use of the committee. The members of the House are all deeply interested in this, and I think a sufficient number of copies should be printed to give every member a fair supply.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is it understood that a larger number will be printed, because 1 think it would be very desirable? Every member should be given an opportunity of examining the evidence before the committee has made its report to the House, so that he will be in a better position to deal with it when it reaches the House. 1 would move that the motion be amended to that effect.


Mr. FIELDING.: Although the motion reads that the report be printed for the use of the committee, it invariably happens that there is a somewhat larger number available, and I have no doubt that if any hon. member desires the report he will be able to obtain it. Of course, it does not come to the House until the committee has reported, but I think there will be no difficulty in any hon. gentleman obtaining a 127
sufficient number of copies through the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. GERMAN.: I have a notice on the order paper which is No. 15. among the notices of motion. It would necessarily have to come up on private member's day, but as there will be no more private mem bers' days, I beg leave to withdraw the motion as I wish to bring it up in another form. *
Motion withdrawn.



COMMANDER WAKEHAM'S REPORT ON LOBSTER INDUSTRY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR moved that the fifth report of the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries be now concurred in.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What is the report?


Mr. SINCLAIR.: During the recess Commander Wakeham, an officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, was appointed to take evidence with reference to the lobster industry. He completed his work and brought in his report recommending certain changes in the fishery law. These recommendations have been referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries. The committee recommend that a thousand copies of Commander Wakeham's report be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
INQUIRIES FOR PAPERS, &c.
On the orders of the -day being called:
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I wish to answer a question which was asked yesterday by the hon. member for-Welland (Mr. German). He made an inquiry as to a return which was moved for at the last session of parliament with regard to the dredges which are owned by the government and their operation for the last four years. The return has been prepared and has left my department, in the ordinary course to go to the Department of the Secretary of State, and I presume that 'within a day or two it will be ready for submission to the House.



The hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) asked a question regarding the Sault Ste. Marie dry dock, a question which I am bound to say was unusual, I would not like to say offensive, because if it is offensive, it probably was unconsciously so on my hon. friend's part. He asked if a statement I made with rgard to the action of the government in reference to the Sault Ste. Marie dry dock was true, and he referred to some statement contained in a newspaper that an order in council had been passed deciding to grant assistance to the dry dock. I may say to imy hon. friend that I have nothing to add to or take from what I said previously. The formal application has not yet come before the government; it will not come before council until the report of the engineer is ready and no order has been passed and no action taken with regard to the subsidy to this dock.


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the Minister of Finance whether or not there are to be any supplementary estimates, and, if so, when it is likely they will be brought down.


William Stevens Fielding: The supplementary estimates for the current year are being prepared at this moment. As to the sup-plementaries for the coming year, I am not in a position at the present to answer my hon. friend's question. Ufc would be some little time before they could be brought down if there are to be any. The supplementaries for the current year will be brought down at an early day.



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. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour last evening of occupying the time of Ithe House for a few minutes with the discussion of this question, and I think I can promise the House that I shall not occupy very much (time this afternoon. But, coming from a maritime district, as I do, in fact, coming from the farthest western constituency in Canada, I think it is incumbent on me as a member for that particular district, to have a view on this question and to be prepared to put that view before this House. Last night I made some reference to the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), who preceded me, and I wish to make further reference to one or two things to which that gentleman attached great importance in connection wilth the policy of the government, which is now before the


William Pugsley: House. I wish to make a very important and very necessary correction to one argument advanced by my hon. friend last evening. He stated that perhaps the mos*t mischievous and most insidious feature of the government Bill was an attempt, a veiled and unpatriotic attempt, (to change the relations of Canada to the motherland. By section 15 of the British North America Act the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces in Canada is declared !to continue to be vested in the Crown, and my hon. friend went on to explain that in his opinion the constitution of this country, section 15 of the British Nodth America Act, was very seriously interfered with, and that the policy of the government presented to the House and to the country made no provision for regaining the authority of the Crown with regard to the operation of the naval or land forces of the empire or of Canada. My hon. friend, by this argument, simply announced to the House that he had not read the Bill before 'the House, for section 4 of the Bill provides exactly according to the terms and the very words of section 15 of the British North America Act. I shall read the two sections, as I did last evening, in my hon. friend's absence, because he attached such supreme importance <to the position that he was taking. As a matter of fact, it appeared to those of us who listened to my , hon. friend as if he had made a very important discovery. This matter had not been mentioned by any of the leading members of <the opposition, and it did really appear from the attitude of my hon. friend that he had a very important discovery, and that the government, in providing for this policy, was actually destroying the constitution of Canada, and forever interfering with the harmony that ought to exist, between Canada and the motherland.
The section in the British North America Act to which he referrred, reads:
Tbe command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King.
Or in the Crown, if you like. I shall now read the section in the Bill before the House:
The command in chief of the naval forces is vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty, or by the Governor General as His representative.
He concluded that this unconstitutional act was an evidence of the disposition of the government to bring about the breaking off of the alliance, that proper and reasonable, and staunch alliance between this country and the empire, and to lead this country out into the development of absolute independence and perhaps in the future absolute separation from the em-

pire. That is the attitude assumed by my hon. friend, and the strongest evidence which he produced that the policy before the House showed such a disposition on the part of this government was the fact that in this Bill they had failed to provide for the carrying out of the British North America Act in regard to the authority of the Crown, in the control of the naval and military forces of Britain and of this country. Thus, it is of tremendous importance that this matter should be brought to the attention of this House, and that the correction should be made.
The next point, and abuut the only point of attack that my hon. friend made upon the policy of the government was in relation to the fact that in time of war it was necessary for the Governor in Council of this country to give instructions as to whether or not the naval or military forces should be sent to the protection of the British empire. My hon. friend thought that was a very serious omission. I do not know exactly where he meant to place the responsibility, you have to have responsibility somewhere. But my hon. friend's argument went to show the House and the country that the leading ministers of the Liberal party were not true to the traditions of the British empire, were trying to develop an absolutely independent nationality, and his reasoning led him to the necessity of objecting to that provision in the Act, whereby it is necessary for the Governor in Council to provide that the military or naval forces of this country should'be sent to the aid of the empire in case of war. I submit that the conclusion of my hon. friend was purely a political conclusion.


Mr. COWAN.: Does the hon. gentleinan propose to read section 4, without reading section 18, or does he read section 18 into section 4, and if the Governor can act what is the necessity of an order in council under section 18?


Ralph Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am following my hon. friend's own argument. He complained last night that there was very serious danger in this country having to submit to the authority of the Governor in Council in case of hostilities occurring between Great Britain and any other nation, and he led up to that position by the announcement that he had no confidence in the leaders of this government, as he believed they tended to independence and separation. According to the conclusions of my hon. friend, he was deciding this question entirely on political grounds; because he had no confidence in the leaders of this government, he was afraid to depend upon them in such possible contingencies. I suppose my hon. friend would have no alarms at ail if a Conservative 1274
government were in power. That is the answer to the whole position taken by my hon. friend. If his friends were in power, the Governor in Council would be all right and the empire would be perfectly safe. The thought struck me at the moment that even in that case my hon. friend could not be very confident, in view of the attitude of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), a very important person in the political party of my hon. friend, whom every one might reasonably expect would be a prominent member of a Conservative ministry. Therefore it struck me that my hon. friend could not entirely depend on the security of the empire even if his own friends were in power. If there is any tendency to independence on the part of any minister of the Liberal government, it has been annulled by the denunciation of British diplomacy by the leader of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec; and under these circumstances it would be unreasonable for my hon. friend from Vancouver to expect to make the empire secure by having as one of the principal ministers in a Conservative government the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


George Henry Cowan: May I ask the hon. member for Nanaimo, before he leaves the merits of the question, to answer the questions I put to him, and further to tell me what would be the result if no order in council were passed under section 18?


Ralph Smith: My answer to my hon. friend is simple. As I said, he controverted two things in the policy of the government last night. He said that the government were destroying the constitution of this country-that the authority over the forces of this country was provided in the British North America Act to be vested in the King, whereas there was no provision in the Bill of the government for such a condition? I have demonstrated to the House that in that my hon. friend is mistaken. The other position taken by my hon. friend was that if hostilities broke out between Britain and another country, it would be a serious thing to depend on the authority of the Governor in Council in this country, especially as it is constituted at the present time. Now, I am not contending against any legal interpretation that my hon. friend may put upon the Bill, now that he is in cold blood and sober senses; but I am replying to statements made by my hon. friend when he was a little excited; and if his statements cannot bear cold criticism, that is not my fault. What I am doing is criticising what my hon. friend has said, and I am doing it without prejudice and without feeling, as I have nothing but the best feeling for my hon. friend; but on an important question like this, the decision of members of this

House ought to be based on argument, not on excitement or emotion.
My bon. friend made a great deal of a statement of the premier in his address, which he repeated to the. very great amusement of hon. gentlemen opposite. That was why I put myself out of order by making the remark I did. My hon. friend sought to contribute to the amusement of his friends in the House by trying to show how ridiculous was the simple statement of the premier that when Britain was at war, Canada was at wax, and if Britain was at war Canada might not be at war. Now, Sir, the amusing thing to me was that a man would demonstrate the simplicity, and, if my hon. friend will excuse me, the vanity, of thinking that he could amuse or please his friends by a simple repetition of phrases. My hon. friend never attempted to analyse the statement of the premier. It never occurred to him that after all there might be something in that statement. When the premier made that statement, as a plain man, deducing plain facts from simple arguments, it was very easy for me at least to see that Britain might be at war without any necessity for Canada being at war. It does not follow that Britain may not in very many instances be engaged in hostilities at different parts of the empire, none of which would be suffic-ently important to necessitate calling in the aid of this country; and if I can understand the deductions of common sense, that is exactly what the premier meant by the statement he made.
Now, I want to ask the House to bear with me for a few minutes while I discuss the three principles which are before the House. We are called upon as members of this House to vote for one of three things; first, the policy of the government; second, the policy of the -leader of the opposition; third the policy of the member for Jacues Cartier. What were the circumstances that gave rise to the consideration of this question? How is it that suddenly, within a year, we are called upon to consider and determine the question of providing in this country for naval protection involving millions of dollars of expenditure? The condition arose from the fact that a year ago some strange emotion and excitement took possession of certain gentlemen in the old country and spread to kindred political spirits in this country, and that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), becoming suddenly alarmed for the safety and security of the empire, brought up a motion in this House for the discussion of this auestion. As the result of that discussion, the right hon. the Prime Minister proposed to amend the motion of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition made an arrange-


Ralph Smith: rnent, with the consent of his friends, whereby whatever resolution might be adopted at that particular time, should express the unanimous feeling of both sides of the House. That, in my opinion, was an ideal condition for the consideration of a question of this importance affecting this country and the empire at large. The proposal suggested by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) was amended by tire right hon. the leader of the government and again amended by a change suggested by the hon. the leader of the opposition, and the proposition in its final shape was unanimously agreed to. Where was the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) at that particular moment? In view of the position he has since taken, in the discussion on this Bill, what excuse has he to offer for his inertness and inaction on that occasion? He had nothing to say a year ago when this resolution was unanimously adopted, but no sooner did this government commit itself to a proposal to do something to strengthen the naval forces of the empire than the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) declares that he never believed there was anything in this excitement regarding the naval forces of Great Britain, that it was purely fictitious and had spread from the -old country to Canada. But if that were his conviction, when was the proper time for him to have expressed it? I submit that it was when the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) submitted his resolution when that resolution was being discussed in this House; but the hon. gentleman, instead of doing this, left his seat and went out of the House and abandoned his duty, and he did this, although he was at the time convinced that an exciting condition had arisen in this country which was not based on facts. Then was the proper time for the hon. gentleman to have made the criticism which he made a year later, rftrd in neglecting to do so, I charge him with having failed in his duty. But a year later, when this tremendous excitement was cooling off, and things were coming to a normal condition, was 'the time he chose to show his temper and his teeth to his own friends and dispute the methods taken by his own political colleagues, and to show his anxiety to protect the empire by an amendment asking that the whole question be submitted to the votes and opinion of the people. I could not help being reminded of the old lines:
When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;
When the devil got well, the devil a monk was he.
The time for my hon. friend to have asserted his convictions and used his influence was at the beginning of the excitement but he shirked his duty. The

occasion for him to have corrected the wrong impression was just the one when he failed to do his duty.
Just a word more about my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). It is amusing to consider the position of my hon. friend in contrast with the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan). That hon. gentleman spoke for two hours last night, and during nine-tenths of that time he was facing the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. One could not help feeling that really his arguments, his influence and his declamation, were directed almost solely for the benefit of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. He kept steadilv looking that hon. gentleman in the face, although using words that might, by a wave of the hand, be sent across to the government benches, still it seemed to me that the hon. gentleman was really saying: Those fellows are bad enough, but you are a long ways worse, and I consider you are really a more dangerous factor as opposed to the empire than even are hon. members opposite.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) expressed great dissatisfaction with British diplcmacy. He went on to remind the House of a statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister that if the supremacy of Britain on the sea should be weakened, the strength and integrity of Canada would he jeopardized, and expressed his dissent from that proposition. Then he proceeded to depreciate British diplomacy and the effects in Canada of that diplomacy. Well,. I myself, am a little jealous in favour of Britain and British diplomacy. I am myself an Englishman, just a few years in this country, but while I do not questirn the loyalty of Canadians to Britain, what I do say is this, that no man is in a position to doubt the wisdom of British diplomacy who refuses to spend a dollar for the protection of his own country. Britain has undoubtedly, in her diplomatic negotiations, to make compromises, but it must be remembered that she has to protect every country within the empire, and all her diplomatic resources had to be exercised in favour of the empire; and in my opinion any hon. member who-as my hon. friend did in a very bitter speech- opposes the idea of Canada making .any contribution or any effort in her own defence or that of the empire is hardly in a position to question the effectiveness of British diplomacy. Great Britain has had to make the best settlements she could. She has had to give as well as take. If her diplomatists insisted on taking every time, they would have had to fight every time. They had to consider grievances; they had to give as well as take. If they took every time, they would have to fight every time. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier demands of the British diplomats only consideration of the interests of the empire on every occasion, and yet he insists that not a man and not a dollar should be contributed by Canada in tne defence of this country either by land or by sea. I submit that no a. gument has been presented by any member of this House so politically cowardly that of the hon membei (Mr. Monk). If he was right in remembering the faults of British diplomacy he should have considered also the difficulties under which British diplomacy operated.
I do not say that every negotiation in the pa^t has been carried on to the best interests of the empire, but I do say that the men who had the responsibility of carrying, on these negotiations did the best they could in the interests of the empire. And, if there is to be a reflection on British diplomacy, it ought to come from men who are willing to'back up their opinions with their own serength and their own money, and not from men such as a prominent leader of a great political party who reflects upon the diplomacy, of the British authorities and yet refuses to spend a dollar to protect his own rights.
Now, I dispose of the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier as being outside the practical politics of the empire. For mv hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has placed himself outside the empire in his discussion of this question. I come now to the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition 'Mr. R. L. Borden). That amendment contains two principles; First, that we should make a voluntary gift of a sufficient sum to build two Dreadnoughts, and do it immediately on the assumption that there is an immediate emergency; second, that the question of naval defence in Canada should be submitted to the consideration of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the strongest speech that could be made against the amendment of the leader of the opposition to-day would be an accumulation of the expressions of the leader of the opposition and his friends just a year ago. Within the last few days, I have spent several hours reading these speeches, reading them in the light of the amendment which the leader of the opposition has now placed before you, and I propose to give some passages that have not been recited from the speeches of such hon. members as the member toe N< rth Toronto (Mr. Foster), the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and my good friend from the city of Victoria (Mr. Barnard)- interested as he is;-and I want to select a few very short passages (for I do not like to read extracts) to show that the arguments of these gentlemen a year ago are the strongest answers that could

be offered to the present policy of the leader of the opposition in this House. If I want to find an argument in favour of a Canadian navy, I must go to the speeches of these hon. gentlemen a year ago,- 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'hon. member for North Toronto. 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 the somersault performed by the hon. member from North Toronto a few days ago in the debate on this Bill-a political somersault that, I admit, was cleverly executed; no member of the party could execute such a ' 'bout-face ' as did my hon. friend. His contention eleven months ago was in favour of a contribution. Speaking 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 Badtish 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 tar as Canada is concerned, these two are absolutely one.
The present policy of the leader of the opposition is to send Dreadnoughts, but the member for North Toronto demonstrated that, so far as the principle of the thing is concerned, there is absolutely no difference to Canada.
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 proposition

Now, I would like the hon. member, and especially _ the hon. gentleman who is to follow me in this debate to remember this:
-an annual fixed contribution of money te the British government for the purpose of national and imperial defence.
If that statement be 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. Let us get back to the foundation of this proposition. If we are not to have the establishment of a Canadian navy, if we are to remain in the empire, if we are to make the contribution this year because we have not the necessary ships within the country to help the British empire, and if, as hon. gentlemen Mr. RALPH SMITH.
say, we are not to have a Canadian navy, is it not logical to say that for all time to come, every time a little cry is raised, every time a possible contingency threatens in Great Britain, hon. members opposite will stand in favour of making direct contributions in cash from this country to the empire? They cannot escape the necessary conclusion. That, Sir, in my opinion, is the very weakness of their position. If the hon. gentleman had said: We. will build a Canadian navy and we will make a contribution, that would have been a different proposition. But the hon. gentleman takes the position: We will not build a navy, but we will send a contribution. Sir, if you never begin to build a navy, you will never have one, and if you never have one, and remain within the empire, then you will for all time have to resort to a direct subscription of money by the people of this country.
The next proposal of the leader of the opposition is to submit the question of the establishment of a Canadian navy to the people. Well, I do not know what I would do under exactly similar circumstances as the hon. gentleman, but in contending for a principle I always try to put myself in the other fellow's place. But so far as I can see, if I had been the leader of the opposition, I would have reversed that proposition, I would have asked the people of Canada if they are willing to send a contribution of 20 or 25 millions to the empire, hut I would assume that I had a mandate from the people to take proper measures to defend their trade and their coasts. As I say, my hon. friend reversed that proposition, and says:	We will send away the
money of this country, over which we will have no control, and we will not ask the people for permission to do so.


Mr. BURRELL.: I would like to ask the hon. member if he considers there is an emergency, and if so, what does he propose to do?


Mr. R. SMITH.: 
Mr. HUGHES.: You could not get anything betfter.	J


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) has stated the literal truth tor once, in favour of a Canadian navy we could not get anything better. What was the position Itaken by the leader of the opposition ten months ago? We know his position now, what was it ten months ago? Let me remind the Minister of Militia that

the leader of Ithe opposition less than twelve months ago conceived the importance of a Canadian navy to be so great that he undervalued the land defences of this country, and then said we should spend half the money we are now spending for militia to formulate a Canadian navy. He laid stress on tbf importance of Canada's oversea trade in comparison with its overland trade, and contended that the argument was preponderatingly in favour of a naval policy as against a land mili'tia. Said the leader of the opposition: Ninety-two per cen>t of the trade of this country passes over the sea, whilst the remaining eight per cent passes over the land. For this land business we subscribe an average of $6,000,000 a year. What would be wrong in taking three or four million dollars from the land defence and subscribing for a strong, magnificent protection of this country? I supported that principle because just a few weeks before I had made some little complaint in this House against the extreme expenditure on the militia from the standpoint that the ministers were contracting the appropriations for public works in the country generally on account of the financial conditions, and that when we were reducing the expenditure for productive public works, we might have seen our way at that particular time for that particular reason to decrease the large expenditure made on the militia for that particular year. When the leader of Jthe opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) put up his argument I agreed with him entirely. I shall read one sentence from the hon. gentleman's speech. He said:	_
I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, that the expenditure in defence of our seaports, in defence of our coasts, in defence of the waters of the ocean which are immediately adjacent to our coasts is of immensely greater advantage and of immensely greater importance, than the expenditure which, year after year, we are disbursing in connection with the military forces of this country. ... I am entirely of opinion, in the first place, that the proper line upon which we should proceed in that regard is the line of having a Canadian naval force of our own.
I submit that it is a marvellous exhibition to have these words froha "responsible leaders of great national parties. There can be no change in any conditions or circumstances which would correspond to the enormous changes in these opinions. What has happened in ten months tha't Canada should have a navy ten months ago and should not have a navy to-day? Perhaps the scare has been scattered. Perhaps hon. gentlemen think that there is no such thing as an emergency. If a Canadian navy today is not necessary because hon. gentlemen think there is not an emergency, by what line of reasoning can they suppose that there ought to be two Dreadnoughts?
If it is not necessary to build up the protection of this country for the defence of Canada, for the trade of Canada, what particular reason is there that we should send $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 out of this country over which we would have no control?
I submit that there is no reason or logic in the position hon. gentlemen have taken.
Another hon. gentleman, the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) made a very magnificent speech last year and of course he switched around just as quickly as did all the rest of the hon. gentlemen. I wish to read a few words of my hon. friend's speech of a vear ago. I read it just three hours before he delivered his speech this year, and as he addressed the House I was able to compare his speech of this year with his speech of last year, and to observe the wonderfully quick change that he had made. Let me read a few sentences:
We are here to-day to protect the Dominion of Canada, a country that has a population of 7,000,000, a country that is thirty-three times as large as Italy, eighteen times as large as Germany, eighteen times as large as France, nearly as large as the whole of Europe, and slightly larger than the United States. We are here to protect the commerce and the productiveness of the Dominion of Canada. We are here to protect seven thousand miles of coast line on the Pacific coast.
Now I expect the support of my hon. friend in connection with the handsome Bristols that are to be built for Esquimalt in my district.
We are here to protect 7,000 miles of coast line on the Pacific coast.
If that was his position ten months ago, what has happened? May I not confidently expect that he will vote to protect the 7,000 miles of sea coast on the Pacific, and support the government policy when he has an opportunity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would be very glad still to support it if the scheme which the government mapped out were in my judgment suitable to do that, but I do not think it is.


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman who commits himself to a proposition of doing nothing ought not to be a competent judge of the qualities of what ought to be done. My hon. friend has committed himself to a proposition of doing absolutely nothing. If he had said:	If you
will build so many Dreadnoughts, if you will build a navy of a certain capacity, if the government will decide to do just what ought to be done in the construction of this navy, I will support them-he might speak, but my hon. friend is not in that position; my hon. friend is in a position of opposing every thing so far as a Cana-

dian navy is concerned, and his explanation now to the House, that he would be glad to support a policy if it came up to his ideas of what ought to be done is not consistent with his expressed intention of voting for something that is absolutely nothing. I do not quite understand why my'hon. friend objects.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I ask my hon. friend if he does not exercise the same right himself with regard to questions coming before this House. If they do not meet with his approval he does not support them?


Ralph Smith: Of course I do, but I am trying to point out that an hon. gentleman who says that he does not want a thing is not quite the man to reason as to what the thing ought to be; he is committing himself to contradictory positions. The hon. gentleman has announced that he intends to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition. If he intends to support a policy with regard to what a navy ought to te, why does he tell the country that he does not want a navy at all?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is doing an injustice, because if he read or listened to my speech carefully, he would see that I said that provided a policy was evolved by the government and submitted to the people for their approval, and they approved of it, I would certainly fall in with it.


Ralph Smith: The strange thing about my hon. friend's conclusion is that he wants to submit a Canadian proposition to the people for their approval, but he is willing to tax them and send away their money without asking their opinion; yet he says to the House: I am quite willing to support a navy if you are willing to submit the question to the people. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the policy of establishing a Canadian navy is part and parcel of the great work of development in this country. If it is a reasonable thing for Canada to build railways from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and to transport the products of this country to foreign lands, but principally to Great Britain, is it not equally reasonable that these products should be protected on the high seas? If it is reasonable to open mines, to build factories and railways, to bring population into the country, to develop the country to such an enormous extent as we are doing, does my hon. friend consider it unreasonable- that we should commence, perhaps in a small way, but as soon as possible to provide ourselves with the means of protecting in some measure the trade of this country and of supplementing the navy of the empire at some future day when a more


Ralph Smith: serious emergency arises than any that exists to-day?
I do not intend to read any more of the speech of my hen. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro). But he spoke of the magnificent productions of British Columbia, and Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and Ontario, and Quebec, and* New Brunswick, and that important province down by the sea, the province of Nova Scotia, and asked if hon. gentlemen did not consider that these were the things we ought to protect, and if this was not a reason why we ought to commence as soon as possible to provide for a Canadian navy.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I beg to differ with the hon. gentleman in his interpretation of mv speech. I have the speech before me, I have read it over and I entirely agree with everything in that speech. I will just read an extract from it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Sora Middlebro: With the permission of the hon. gentleman. If he does not want it, of course, I will not do it. I am making a personal explanation. The hon. gentleman has said that my speech of last year indicated that I was in favour of a Canadian navv. I will read an extract from my speech to show my position.


Ralph Smith: I do not think my hon. friend is entitled to get up and read from his speech; I can read it for myself.


William Sora Middlebro: I ask the hon.
gentleman this question: Does he now say that my speech of last year indicated that I was in favour of a Canadian navy; and if he does, will he allow me to quote my own speech to show that that is not true?


Ralph Smith: If I made the statement that my hon. friend said so then, I ought to be allowed, as having the floor, to prove my statement. I do not see why my hon. friend should be so extremely anxious to read his own speech.
I wanted to save the House trouble and save myself annoyance. What I do say is that my reading of the speech led to the conclusion that the protection of the great resources of this country, which were being developed from the Pacific to the Atlantic, was the great question to be considered.


William Sora Middlebro: Now, will the hon. gentleman just allow me to read? I think that is only fair.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Of course, the hon. member for Nanaimo has the floor, and cannot be interrupted.


Ralph Smith: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take up so much time,

but now I am driven to read my hon. friend's remarks. I made the statement that my hon. friend said that the great business of this country was to protect the industries of this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic.


William Sora Middlebro: By means of the British navy.


Ralph Smith: I will read my hon. friend's remarks:
We are here to protect the great industries of British Columbia with her total yearly production of $88,000,000 worth, her fisheries worth between sfx and seven millions, her mineral production amounting to twenty-three million dollars, her 13,000 men engaged in the fishing industry, and her 9,000 men engaged on the shore fisheries of that province. Then I pass over the Rocky mountains and come to the province of Alberta. We are here to protect the nineteen million bushels of grain that are raised i* that province, valued at ten and a half million dollars, and her $3,000,000 worth of cattle exported from that province last year. Then I pass on into the province of Saskatchewan. We are here to protect the 105 million bushels of grain raised in that province during the last year, and valued at sixty million dollars I pass onward into the province of Manitoba, and we are here to protect the 113 million bushels of grain raised there, of a value of something like $50,000,000. I come down into the old province of Ontario with its many agricultural products. We are here to protect the 185 million bushels of field crops grown in that province, to protect its butter, its cheese, its fruit, its cattle that are being exported to Great Britain. Then I come on to the province of Quebec, and we are here to protect its eighty-five million bushels of field crops, to protect its large exports of butter and cheese, to protect its 260 million dollars worth of foreign trade. I pass on to the maritime provinces, and we are here to protect the products of their farms, of their mines and of their fisheries. I pass on to the coast of Nova Scotia, with her unprotected sea coast of 5,600 miles, extending from the Bay of Fundy to the straits of Belle Isle. It is said that the farmers of this country will not sanction any contribution towards the maintenance of a naval force.
What kind of naval force did my hon. friend mean?	.


William Sora Middlebro: Will my hon. friend allow me to explain what kind of naval force? Let me read this:
Every Dreadnought of the British navy is a movable fortification. Every Dreadnought can transfer its power from one portion of the British empire to another. Every war vessel is nothing more or less than a species of fortification that can be transferred to any part of the empire in which it is required. That is the strongest kind of portable fortification that any country can have It therefore behooves us to strengthen the hands of the British government and to give
our contribution towards upholding the British navy.


Ralph Smith: Mr. Speaker, experience last night proved that hon. gentlemen opposite are very easily excited. Experience this afternoon proves that hon. gentlemen always act before they think.
I was not contending-


Samuel Hughes: Oh, oh.


Ralph Smith: Hon. gentlemen opposite always pass judgment before the truth is told, because they do not like it, especially my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton. I was not contending, I could not consistently contend, that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)) was opposed to a contribution to the empire. What I contended was that last year he was in favour of developing a Canadian navy. I was not denying the position that my hon. friend was willing to make a subscription to the British navy. I have asked my hon. friend a question which he has not answered. I could not say that he had an objection to building up the British navy when he is supporting the policy of the leader of the opposition in favour of a contribution of 20 or 25 million dollars. What the hon. gentleman said was this:
It is said that the farmers of Canada might not sanction any contribution towards the maintenance of a naval force.
What naval force?


William Sora Middlebro: The naval force I referred to is the naval force, a part of the British navy, as recommended by the admiralty.


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend has made a very satisfactory, explanation, and I am quite right in contending that he was advocating a Canadian naval force, but he says it is the kind of force which the British admiralty recommended. I was not questioning whether he wanted a little or a big one. I was simply declaring that a year ago the hon. gentleman advocated the establishment of a Canadian navy. In a little temper, my hon. friend protested against that statement and his friends around him applauded, but he finally admitted that he did want the establishment of a Canadian navy on the condition that that navy represented the recommendation of the British admiralty. Well, even that is a Canadian navy, and that is what I am talking about.
Now, I wish to say a word about my hon. friend the member for Victoria.


Samuel Hughes: What Victoria?


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) wants me to attach too much importance

to him. I was speaking of the hon. member from Victoria, British Columbia, (Mr. Cowan).


Samuel Hughes: I was going to remark that in case the hon, gentleman was making reference to me, I would listen, but not otherwise.


Ralph Smith: That is just about as unfair as I consider my hon. friend to be. I was speaking of my hon. friend from the city of Victoria (Mr. Cowani). He made a speech last night, in which he deplored the fact that the imperial navy had been withdrawn from Esquimalt and the rest of Canada. But what did he say in that connection? He said it would be a fortunate thing if, out of a regrettable incident of that kind, there should arise a better result and that it should lead to the establishment of a Canadian navy. That is w'hat he said, and what I contend is that the tenor of his speech was in favour of a Canadian navy, although I suspect that he will cast his vote for a subscription to Great Britain and against a Canadian navy. The thumb screw has evidently been operating on the other side as well as this. That is a kind of thing v'hich works both Liberal government have a patent on
*Taysi. Tlle hon- member thinks that the thumb screws, but the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and his followers, could not twist the hon. gentleman around as they do, unless there was a thumb screw on the other side.


An hon. MEMBER.: You mean the colonv here.
_ Mr. RALPH SMITH. I mean the prominent men on the opposition benches. I appeal to my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) as one of the old members of this House, one of its most respected, intelligent and experienced members, what can the people of this country expect from a party which could initiate a policy in this House on one of the most important questions that ever came before the country and support that policy, and then within ten months set themselves on record as positively hostile to that same policy. Why, hon. gentlemen opposite have not begun to reflect on the weight of their opinion in the national life of this country. It is an easy thing to turn around, it is easy to say one thing to-day and the opposite to-morrow, but the intelligent electorate of this country want at their head a combination of men to do the business of this country, especially in questions of national defence, on stable foundations-men, who know their own minds to-day and to-morrow-and hon. gentlemen opposite can make up their minds that so long as they exhibit their present weathercock tendencies, they will continue for very many


Ralph Smith: years in the happy seats they now occupy. I must apologize to the House for detaining it so long.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Ralph Smith: But I should like to discuss for a moment what is the disposition of Great Britain herself regarding the question as to whether or not her selfgoverning Dominions should subscribe in times of emergency to the establishment of naval forces of their own. Is it not important to know just how the British government itself, just how the British admiralty, looks on the question as to the responsibility of each self-governing country in the empire in this matter. Is it in favour of each portion of the empire handing in a servile subscription and waiting for a crisis to arise before doing it? Sir, for fifty years the policy of Britain has been to encourage her self-governing Dominions to establish their own self defence. That the mother country has always regarded as the greatest guarantee of tihe integrity of the empire. And I appeal to sensible men, what would be the position taken by ordinary business men in their own domestic affairs. My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) and my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) referred to the statements of the Prime Minister that the colonies would drop from the mother country as ripe fruit from the parent tree.
Can there be any objection to that principle? Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the analogy that is commonly used between the responsibilities of a family in domestic life and the relations and responsibilities of an empire, is a very striking one. The member for Yale-Cariboo says,
I prefer the analogy of the family, the mother and her child. Sir, Canada is not in the position of a [DOT] child towards its mother; Canada is in the position of a child that has set up housekeeping for himself, of a son who has taken on the obligations of an independent life. Will my hon. friend from Vancouver say that the son who leaves the old homestead and goes away 20 or 100 miles, and makes a home for himself, looks after his wife and family, maintains the integrity of that home, is he any less the guardian of the old homestead because he is maintaining himself and is no longer receiving pauper assistance from the old man? The analogy of hon. gentlemen only proves that they have never studied the question. The young man who stands up bravely, at a reasonable age, and says to his father, I am going to start life for myself-is there any objection to that? But in national affairs we are told that would mean disloyalty and separation. Is there any objection to the members of a family all leav-

ing the old homestead in due time? What pleases the old man's heart better than to get the glad news that every member of his family, perhaps a hundred miles away, is building a home for himself, is prosperous and happy? What is it that contributes to the happiness and security, of the old homestead under those circumstances? It is the prosperity and security of the sons that have gone away from home. That, Sir, is the prosperity and security of the British empire to-day. I know how the imperialists would maintain it; I understand something of the tactics of the ultra-imperialists in England, and I believe they have very close relations in this country. The attitude and the doctrine of the imperialist is to interest himself in the affairs of people far away from home; he takes credit to himself for looking after the interests of other people. But the policy of the great democratic party in England, and the policy of democracy in any country, is first to set your own house in order. The empire is being maintained to-day under the policy of giving self-government to every colony in the empire, and encouraging it to depend upon its own resources. My hon. friends cannot have read the correspondence of the imperial conferences that have been held since 1897, they cannot have traced the political evolution in the relation of the independent colonies to the empire, as seen in the proceedings of those imperial conferences. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence will bear me out in saying that at that time Canada was the only colony represented in that conference to suggest that the proper thing to do was to look after Canada, and by so doing they would be looking after the empire. Every other colony represented in those conferences right down to the last one, was in favour of giving Dreadnoughts, of making contributions. But a change has come over their minds, and to-day what is the declaration? I have the record, and one of the most respectable reviews in Australia, one of the strongest men in Australia, says that public sentiment in Australia today is entirely opposed to the policy of a contribution, and that they have started out to defend themselves. They believe that the creation of an Australian naval defence within a few years will be a handsome contribution to the integrity of the British empire. That is all in keeping with the policy of Great Britain herself. Now, I wni read a resolution which was passed in the imperial parliament in 1862, and that policy has been maintained up to the present time:
That this House (while fully recognizing the claims of all portions of the British empire to imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of imperial policy)

The British House of Commons had no idea of the colonies subscribing money for the support of the British empire, but they were making provision in that resolution for the imperial government subscribing to assist the colonies under the disadvantages that accrued to them from the operation of the imperial policy:
-is of opinion that the colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence.
That resolution was passed unanimously in 1862, by the British parliament. In 1865, the Colonial Naval Defence Act was passed. Its object was to enable the colonies to provide for naval defence, and the Act empowers colonial governments to provide men and vessels of war, and also to raise volunteer forces to form part of the royal navy reserve established under the Act of parliament of 1859. This is what the Act says:
The members of such reserves will be available for general service in the Royal navy in time of emergency, when an offer is made by the government of a colony to place them at the disposal of the imperial government.
Sir, when hon. gentlemen come to this House and propose that this country make a subscription to the empire in opposition to the policy of the establishment of a Canadian navy, I say they place themselves in direct contradiction to the policy of Great Britain for the last fifty years. Great Britain has always recognized that the security of the empire depended upon the strength and force of every part of that empire. Canada is the most difficult country within the empire to govern, Canada with its mixed nationality-and this is no reflection upon any people in this House or out of it. The very basis of this country is a constitution for mixed nationalities. In the nature of things, in the peculiar position of this country-enormous country as it is-every nationality in the world is being brought to Canada. The great problem for this country to consider is how these aliens and divergent peoples are to be blended into one. That is the commanding business of the statesman of the future. How is he to accomplish it? By raising sectional cries? By questioning the loyalty of a French Canadian Prime Minister? By telling every Greek, every Galician, every Doukhobor, every alien who may have made his home in this country that he is in a foreign land? Is that the policy which is to shape into unity the development of Canada? That is the policy of more than one hon. gentleman in this debate who has uttered insinuations or made direct assaults against important sections and influences in Canada.
Sir, what is the great characteristic of

British institutions? Does the true Briton upbraid the foreigner? Does he chide the alien? Does he slaughter the captured? The strength of the British empire and its institutions is that the Briton makes the foreigner feel that, under the British flag, he is better off than he was at home. Britain has always welcomed men from every country on the face of the earth. And how are British institutions to be maintained? They can never be maintained by fictitious resolutions. The sympathy of Canada with the spirit of the British empire can never be maintained by statute, by resolution, by edict, by force of any kind. What is it that attracts foreigners to this country? What makes them feel that in a British land they have the sympathy, support, the opportunity that it is not possible for them to have at home? The secret is that British institutions involve no tyranny upon any class. The one thing to be kept in mind in the development of Canada is to make every man feel, who was once an alien in this country and is evolving into a British subject, that we are not in a hurry to force him to declare that he is a loyal subject, or that he shares completely our enthusiasm for the gfandeur of the British empire. If hon. gentlemen opposite had their waj', if they could send money contributions from this country without the voice of the people, and if they could continue to tax the people to send money to be controlled and spent in Great Britain, it would not be long before we should have another such lesson as was taught when a large paTt of this continent was torn from the British empire. Mr. Speaker, the great secret of the development of British life in Canada lies in giving to every citizen of Canada the chance to work out his own salvation. Therefore, I maintain that no policy has ever come before this House that will do more for the development of our national spirit than the policy now under discussion.
What does this policy mean practically? We are not building navies for the purpose of having shipyards and docks, but we are building docks and shipyards because we are going to build a navy. Hon. members opposite have said that the strongest argument in support of our policy is the argument of the loaves and fishes. These are not the objects of this policy, hut they are the results of this policy if carried out in a reasonable and businesslike way. Am I to assume that these hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to build our own shipyards, to dig our own docks, to develop our own mines, to construct our own ships, to employ our own sailors and fishermen? Am I to understand, as declared by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), that what we want is to go back to the Crown colony stage, and, every time we are in trouble, crawl to the feet of the parent country and importune her to inter-Mr. RALPH SMITH.
vene and help us? I say, Sir, the policy of this government adds to the great name of this country, and gives an opportunity to the increasing intelligence of our citizens to go forward in national development, national manhood, national character, national strength, national defence, which, fifty years hence, will cause every man in Canada to wonder that any party in this country should have the want of foresight or audacity to question the necessity for the establishment of a naval force for our country.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris).: which we are trying to claim is fast becoming a nation, must in this, as in other things, assume the white man's burden.
Any nation that seeks to retain it? foreign trade must be willing to assume the responsibility of protecting its trade routes as well as its coasT line and its fisheries. I do not for one moment underrate the great importance of the time in our history at which we have arrived. It would seem, as has been claimed, that we have reached the parting of The ways. We have been depending on Great Britain, the taxpayer of Great Britain has been assuming all the responsibility for the defence of the empire, and now we come to the crisis, the parting of The ways. As has been said, there are certain courses which we may take. I believe we have come to the linger post, and to me the finger points absolutely without doubt what course we should Take. I do not say that to every citizen of Canada that linger points so absolutely. We may, Mr. Speaker, remain one of co-partnership, of a free self-governing state, acting together for a common purpose and mutual defence. We'may cut ourselves adrift, become a separate nation, have our own policy. We may sink our individuality and become incorporated in the great country to the south of us, or we may remain a part of the empire, while refusing co-operation. I say that the lasT course is beneath the dignity of any self-respecting citizen, and that is why I am taking the stand I propose to take on This great question. As to sinking our individuality and becoming a part of the great country to the south, no man in this House has greater respect for our friends to the south than I, and why should we not have respect for them? To use an expression of the Prime Minister's, very much the same blood courses through !their veins as courses through ours. They are a great people whom we must admire commercially and politically. They have done great things. They are good neighbours, and there is nothing that gives us greater peace of mind and greater happiness Than having good neighbours. We always want to be friendly with our neighbours and I hope we will always be good friends. But I judge and believe, from a sound knowledge of the people of this country, that very few people want to become annexed to this country.
Then comes the third possible course, the independence of this country. I know there are some who look towards independence as the great goal of our ambition, and I shall refer to these later on. The Prime Minister, in view of what he has said in this country and in oTher countries of our position and what we look forward to, cannot say that we have not some reason to ascribe to him some of the independent views which have been ascribed to Mr. SCHAFFNER.
him from this side of the House. But I say That apart from the right hon. gentleman and a few men throughout this country, there are very few who look forward 'to or want to look forward to the independence of Canada. Rather we look forward to the consolidation of this great empire, the empire on which the sun never sets, an empire with one-third of the world's population, one-third of its land. Her flag and her ships and her enterprising sons carry the ideas of justice and fair play across every .sea and into all the world's ports, and we are proud, every one of us, that we belong to that great nation, There are so many reasons why we should be proud to belong to that nation that it would detain the House too long to state them.
Then there remains but this one thing, to remain a part of this empire. I am not with those who say remain with the empire, let them protect you and do all that they can for you, but refuse to do anything in return. There is a class of people in Canada, including many of the clergy, and I regret to say that there are some of that class in this city of Ottawa, who are fond of saying that we want to remain part of the empire but that we refuse co-operation. They say that Canada should not give anything in support of the naval defence of Great Britain. True it is that these gentlemen and other gentlemen often end their pious declarations with the words:	But if the time should ever come
when Canada is in need, then we will spend our last dollar for its defence, we will give our last man. Even Sir Wilfrid Lanrier, in his address, said: If the time ever comes when the supremacy of Great Britain on the high seas is challenged, I will take the stump, I will go through this country, especially will I talk to my compatriots in Quebec, and say that the salvation of Canada depends on the salvation of England. That sounds good, but it is mostly sound. Does this House realize, do the people outside of this House throughout the country realize that over one billion dollars of British capital is invested in this great country of ours? Do they realize that over $200,000,000 of British money is being invested in this country in one way and another every year? Do our people realize that we are the greatest borrowers of all the countries in the world from the motherland? If we do realize that, is it not some reason why we should be willing at least to do something towards the maintenance of this great country and its salvation, because we have to admit that the salvation of Great Britain and all its colonies absolutely depends upon the supremacy of Great Britain upon the high seas.
Let me read the borrowings of different countries from Great Britain. Of eight

countries, the annual borrowings from the British Isles are as follows:
Chili	$ 20,696,000
Japan	 33,361,000
Russia	 47,703,000
Mexico	 64,371,000
United States	 68,000,000
Brazil	 73,000,000
The Argentine	 117,000,000
Canada (nearly)	 200,000,000
Receiving that tremendous amount of money every year from Great Britain surely we should be willing to do something in support of her navy. They say that in the hour of need they would be willing to spend their last dollar, but where would they get their last dollar, all these dollars I have been talking about? Further than that, what would our farmers do? We export to Great Britain about $135,000,000 worth of our products every year. What will we do in the hour of danger if we cannot get the money? I cannot understand the argument of our friends opposite that if the hour of need comes then they will do something. What can we do in the hour of need? If there is any one thing that any one country cannot buy, no matter how rich it is, it is naval strength.
It takes three years in Germany and five years in Great Britain to train soldiers; and if we should have a war with Germany, would it last three years or three months? How long do naval wars last in these days? And, unfortunately, we cannot buy Dreadnoughts at the corner store. It takes considerable time to construct these ships, which experts say are the only, kind that are of any service to-day in naval wars. These patriots talk about duty and about what they will do when the hour of need comes; but they actually refuse to allow us to make preparations so as to be in a position to do our duty when the hour of need does come. They cry peace, peace, when there is no peace. There is no assurance for peace equal to a strong navy. What has done more for universal peace throughout this world than the supremacy of the British navy? No man will dispute the fact that in the past the paramount influence of the British navy has been the great factor in maintaining the peace of the world. But that influence must remain efficient and sufficient, so that England and Canada and all the other colonies together will be able to hold their own against all-comers. I picked up to-day the sayings of some men whose opinions are very much respected- not ancient men, but modern men. Mr. Roosevelt says that 'a first-class fighting navy is the most effective guarantee for peace the United States can have'; and what is true of the United States is true of every other country in the world. President Taft has just expressed the same 128
opinion. Lord Roberts says that 'an effective army is an essential condition of peace and security'. The present German chancellor says that 'the moment Germany decides to reduce her equipment peace would be seriously threatened'. Mr. Deakin, the ex-premier of Australia says that 'they who prepare for war in point of fact do so only to preserve peace*. It is Alfred Austin, the poet laureate, who sings to us from across the seas:
Nor you nor we would others wrong.
We only claim to hold our own;
For this we arm, for this keep strong. Safeguard justice on her throne.
No logical mind can deny the truth of the argument that strength discourages war and helplessness invites attack. The question of the safety of the empire in my opinion must be put beyond any possible doubt. As an empire we do not aim at any aggressive action or any increase of territory. We do not threaten any other country. We want to keep clear of all international disputes. But nevertheless we do wish to consolidate this great empire for the purpose of mutual defence. Hitherto the British navy has solely maintained that supremacy. In my opinion it is high time we were doing something to share that burden. We should be standing shoulder to shoulder as Britains. Union is strength, and closer union means greater strength. No other nation is so dependent upon waterborne food and raw material for its existence. We must keep our trade routes free from attack from other nations. Is there any doubt in the mind of any hon. gentleman that an attack on our trade routes would paralyse the trade of Canada as well as Great Britain? To give this House and this country some idea of the enormous trade of the empire, let me give the relative proportions of the shipping interests, taking the latest figures of tonnage that I can get here:
	Sailing:	Steam
	vessels.	vessels.
	Tons.	Tons.
United Kingdom..	
1,461,376	10,023,726Australia	
126,579	249,832N atal	
856	811New Zealand	
43,967	88,629Canada (including	inland	navigation)	287,867


Newfoundland.   .. .@: 

$361,572,159 2,487,461 REVISED EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
All this tonnage has been hitherto protected. Something like $700,000,000 of our trade travels the high seas absolutely protected bv the Royal navy, towards which Canada contributes nothing. Morsover, Canada does not contribute to the common defence of the empire. When the day comes when through international difficulties the existence of Canada is menaced, can the other parts of the empire he blamed if they decline to help us? What then becomes of Canadian hopes of a Canada one and indivisable? Mr. Speaker, when this government has been driven to act- and I use that word advisedly-I do not know of any one thing they have done in the way of expressions of loyalty or help to the empire that has not been forced upon them by the great Conservative party. When the government are driven to', act, what do they propose to do? Just what any little South American republic would do. But the navy of any of these little republics is not reckoned in the safetv or governance of the civilized world. Why should they do it? Because, sir, the right hon. gentleman who leads this House and the gentlemen who surround him to fail to recognize the position of Canada as an integral portion of the great empire of which we form so important a part. They are following the policy of Venezuela. It does not for the reason I have stated. Sir, in my opinion, it is an endeavour to differentiate between Britishism and Canadianism. I do not stand for a Canadian navy but for an imperial navy which will carry into the worlds' domains that conception of unity and co-ordination which, I believe, notwithstanding what may be said by hon. gentlemen opposite, is fast forming in the minds of our people.
My hon. friends opposite say that if we are to have a navy, we ought to build it at home. There is undoubtedly in that contention something which at first sight sounds very attractive. But even so, it is so contrary to anything these hon. gentlemen have ever advocated, that I cannot understand their bringing it forward as their policy now. Did you ever hear of these people advocating the building up of our home industries or the buying of goods at home if they could get them cheaper abroad? Has it not been the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite always to buy where you can buy the cheapest? In my own county, when talking about agricultural ' implements, my Liberal friends have time and time again put up to me the argument: Suppose you do make your own agricultural implements and increase your own home industries, see how much better implements you can get on the other side of the line. I now turn against them their own argu-Mr. SCHAFFNER.
ment and I say that we are not in a position to-day to build Dreadnoughts that we are absolutely unable to do so. I even go further and say that if this government had any idea that they would ever have to depend on the ships they would build to protect our country, they would never dream of going to such a wholesale experiment. But they know well with whom they are dealing. They know that they are dealing with that old mother who has taken care of us all along the line, and they know that they can always depend on her to give u# the protection of her ships, built out of the taxes of the English people and which have stood the test. It is about time that this government called off the bluff that they are trying to strengthen the empire and help the British navy. If we are going to sing God Save the King, and Rule Britannia, let us do something worth while and not embark on this miserably inadequate naval policy. When I consider the proposal of the right hon. the Prime Minister and his glowing statements about the duty of Canada towards the empire, I begin to have a new conception of the use of eloquence.
The declaration that if Canada should build a navy, that navy shall not be utilized for the empire unless Canada is satisfied that the cause is a just one, is to me offensive. What is the onlv inference which you can draw from such an assertion? It is this, we are willing to go to war with Great Britain so long as the war in which she is engaged is a just one. But is there any man in Canada to-day who believes that England will ever get into any other kind of a war. Does any one believe that that country, which has been the cradle of liberty for ages, which has ever stood for the rights of man, for the liberty of conscience, liberty of speech, justice and fair play-does any one in Canada believe that that country will ever engage in a war of tyranny and oppression? If we do not, then I say that when England turns to new ideas and engages in wars of this description, it will be time enough for Canada to turn to new gods.
I	do not think that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) answered very well the question put to him by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan). In the British North America Act there is a clause, section 15, which provides:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
That section is embodied in the Bill in section 4, but there is in the Bill another clause, clause 18 which provides:
In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal

navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving; in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
The point to which I wish to call attention is this. How can you reconcile these two sections? In the one, the command in chief of Canada's naval forces is vested in the King; and in the other, the Governor in Council may place that force at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in case of an emergency.
Mr. LANCASTER.: It is an attempt to take away a power that belongs exclusively to the imperial government.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He says there is peace.
-and yet, at the same time, combined with this total absence of all question of friction, there never was, in the history of the world, so threatening and overpowering a preparation for war. That is the sign which I regard as most ominous. ... I admit there are features of this general preparation for wer which must cause special anxiety to the friends of Great Britain and of the British empire.
Certainly, Lord Rosebery remains under a feeling of anxiety. It is true the leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E.	M. Macdonald) and others of hon. gentlemen opposite do not feel anxious. But I have no right to regard these gentlemen as of the same authority in this matter as Lord Roseibery and others whom I have named. These hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that there is no danger, but the great men in England tell .us that there is danger.
When I see one country alone asking for 25 millions of extra taxation for warlike preparations ; when I see the unprecedented sacrifices which are asked from us on the same grounds, I do begin to feel uneasy as to the outcome of it all, and to wonder where it will stop. . . . Gentlemen, we can and we

will build ' Dreadnoughts' or whatever the newest t.vne of ship may be as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them. All that we can and will do, but I am not sure that even that will be enough, and I think it may be your duty to take back to your young dominions across the seas this message and this impression: that some personal duty and responsibility for national defence rests on every man and citizen of the empire.
Is 'this the doctrine that our friends are trying to impress upon the people of this country? I think not. I say, and without the slightest desire to give offence, that the gentlemen on the other side, from the Prime Minister down, are trying to misrepresent the facts to the people of this country; and I believe that before I get through with my address I can prove beyond 'the shadow of a doubt that the Liberal press or at least some part of it, as well as many members of this House, are trying to misrepresent the facts in this matter.
Yes, gentlemen, take that message back with you. Tell your peoples-if they can believe it-the deplorable way in which Europe is relapsing into militarism and the pressure that is put upon this little England, to defend itself, its liberties-and yours! But take this message also back with you-that the old country is right at heart; that there is no failing or weakness in her; and that she rejoices in renewing her youth in her giant dominions beyond the seas. For her own salvation, she must look to herself, and that failing her she must look to you.
And Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, speaking after Lord Rosebery a't this conference, said:
I endorse every word he said. We are in comparatively calm weather, not in stormy weather, in foreign politics at the present moment, but the excessive expenditure on armaments makes the weather sultry. And the seriousness of that expenditure cannot be over-rated; but you should know to-day how conscious we are at home that we have far too much at stake to allow our naval expenditure to fall behind, however great the burden, and you from beyond che seas have made it clear to us how great the resources of the empire are. In upholding the empire surely we are going more and more towards the ideal to which Mr. Kirwan referred in his speech yesterday-of a union of allies- of self-governing dominions.
The right hon. Mr. McKenna said:
W e look to the future and we see growing difficulties surrounding our empire. We foresee possibilities in which we should be called upon to unite our whole strength in a common defence.
I believe in a common defence. Yet, in the face of this utterance of Mr. McKenna, hon. gentlemen opposite try to ^convince the country that there is no danger, no Mr. SCHAPFNER.
emergency. Hence, they ask what is the use of giving Dreadnoughts? Why not be content with a tin pot navy? ' It is true,' they say, ' the Conservative party have forced us to do something, but we will do as little as we can. Then we shall be able to go to Quebec and o'ther parts of this country and tell the people that we were forced to do something, but that we did as little as possible, and' we can assure you that when ift comes to real war our little tin pot navy will not be in sight.'
The right hon. Alfred Lyttelton said:
Well, my belief is, the actual position the actual situation of affairs at this moment is different from that which it has been since the battle of Trafalgar. We are in the presence for the first time of powers equal to ourselves in wealth, . . . and I was delighted to hear Sir Edward Grey on this occasion endorse what he said-that this country may always be relied upon to spend her last shilling if it is necessary for her own defence and for the defence of the empire, but that a time might come when it would be necessary for her own safety and for their own safety that the dominions over the seas should assist her in a tremendous struggle. I firmly believe myself that the ultimate destiny and fate of this empire will depend-must depend-upon the achievement of a really closer and more consolidated unity and a more perfect organization of defence.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a fair-minded man which, of the two policies before this House leads to closer consolidation-the little home navy without one of the warships of any great importance, or the policy of this side of the House, declaring that there is an emergency, and that in that emergency we should send two Dreadnoughts at least, the only ships that will be able to line up at the front in time of war? Certainly the latter, without any doubt. What does Mr. Balfour say:
The fate of Australia, the fate of New Zealand, of Canada, South Africa, India-that is not going to be decided in the Pacific; it is not going to be decided in the Indian ocean; it is going to be decided here, and everybody who attempts to read the signs of the times will, I think, agree with the weighty words which fell from Lord Rosebery.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, the great battle that is going to decide the fate of the British empire will be fought in the North sea. Germany to-day, from her geographical position, needs and possesses the strongest army in the world; she is able, if necessary, to put 4,000,000 armed men in the field. Great Britain, from her geographical position, must have the strongest navy in the world, and that navy alone will be the only thing to protect us whenever that crucial moment arrives.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



DOMINION MILLERS' ASSOCIATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for private Bills:
Mr. HARRIS.: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Air. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Air. Speaker, when you left the chair at six o'clock, I was dealing with the question as to whether there existed an emergency, and as to whether this country, if it believed that there was an emergency, should do something practical to meet it. In support of that proposition I was quoting authorities from both sides of politics in the old country, words that were spoken, not at a time of political contest, but at a time when the country could give a fair and just expression of opinion. I gave all the authorities to which I wished to refer except Lord Roberts. He said:
Recent events, however, prove conclusively that a new era has commenced, and that our whole empire may again have to fight for its own, as the people of these islands have many times had to do in the past. The question is: Are we prepared to do this? Fleets and effective armies cannot be improvised to meet the rapid movements of modern times. Nothing but forethought and preparation, extending over years, can give us a naval or military strength which may be relied on in any great emergency, and which is in itself the greatest guarantee of that peace which we desire and
need more than any other nation. I think I know what your main difficulty will be. It is not easy to convince the mass of the people In this country of the existence of real danger.
That is what Lord Roberts said, and I commend these words to my hon. friends on the other side of the House:
It may be even iess easy to convince the populace of colonies that have enjoyed for a century protection, which has given them security from attack, that real dangers threaten them also. . . The growth of the colonies in wealth makes them more and more objects of envy to nations which do not possess such valuable areas of the world. So, if we are to he secure, we must stand side by side in common effort and common sacrifice.
Air. Asquith said:
After very anxious careful examination of the conditions of ship-building in foreign countries, the government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all necessary steps to ensure that the second four ships referred to in the programme shall be completed by March, 1912.
I will not refer to any more of these authorities. I think this House and the country will agree with me that the authorities to which I have referred should go farther and mean more than the authority of the Postmaster General, the First Minister or any of the friends who support them.
Now, a word or two about loyalty. That is one of the subjects which our friends on the other side of the House would rather we should not refer to. It seems to be a tender spot in their make-up, but whose fault is it? It is not our fault. It is not pleasant to see that we are led by an hon. gentleman who has placed himself, by his own words, in a position with which I think, we have just reason to find fault, and in a position which we believe is not in the best interests of this country, which we believe leads to disintegration rather than to what we should all desire-consolidation. Now, I wish to refer to these remarks, because I, personally, am impressed with the sentiment that the Bill which is before the House leads directly to the separation of this country from the great empire. The right hon. _ the First Minister, speaking in Boston, said:
Canada would never consent to imperial federation even on commercial lines alone, because the consequence would be the participation of Canada in British wars,

I shall have something to say about that later on.
-and Canada would never consent to participate in British wars.
I hold out to my fellow countrymen the idea of independence, but, whenever the day comes, it must come by the consent of both countries, and we shall continue to keep the good feeling and the good-will of the mother

sums which this country was willing to spend. Then the experts advised our representatives what they thought were the bes't ships that could be got for that amount of money. In a few words, that is about what occurred, and I do not think our friends opposite can possibly make the people of this country believe that in this Bill they are carrying out what the admiralty asked for.
. Now, I am going to take a little time to prove some of the things I have said in reference to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Here is a communication from the Governor of New Zealand to the Secretary of State on March 22, 1909, very near the time when this House debated the resolution of last year:
Government of New Zealand offer to bear cost of immediate building and arming by the British government of one first-class battleship of the latest type. If subsequent events show it to be necessary, will also bear cost of second warship of the same type.
That is what New Zealand offered, a coun'try with one-fifth the population of Canada, and with less than one-fifth the natural resources of Canada. This is the reply received by New Zealand:
Please hasten to assure your Prime Minister that his message has been received by me with the highest appreciation of the generous and spontaneous offer made on behalf of New Zealand. It will be at once laid before His Majesty's government.
The following is also from the Secretary of State to .the Governor of New Zealand:
I am commanded by the King to inform you that His Majesty is deeply gratified by the patriotic feeling displayed by New Zealand towards mother country in their splendid offer, and to convey at once his gratitude and high appreciation for fine patriotism and generosity shown in the magnificent offer made so promptly and spontaneously.
Again from the Governor General rto the Secretary of State:
Am desired by Prime Minister to convey to His Majesty the King government of New Zealand's deep sense of gratitude for gracious message and for His Majesty's generous recognition of New Zealand offer of battleship to the mother country. People of New Zealand pleased to evince in a tangible way to His Majesty the King and to help to maintain strength of empire.
There was some doubt as to whether the federal government of Australia would offer Dreadnoughts or whether it would be done by the different provinces. The Governor of New South Wales made the following offer to the Secretary of State:
If Commonwealth parliament does not adopt this course, governments of New South Wales and Victoria have agreed immediately to take the necessary steps to obtain the authority of their respective parliaments to share costs of a Dreadnought on a per capita basis.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The Secretary of State to the Governor of New South Wales:
His Majesty's government warmly appreciate desire of New South Wales and Victoria to contribute their share of the cost of a Dreadnought, and would gratefully welcome such an addition to the naval strength of the empire.
We were Told by the Minister of Militia the other day that in time of war the fleet which Australia proposes to build is not to go automatically under the control of the British admiralty. Now, the paragraph which I propose to read, from a communication addressed by the Governor General of Australia to the Secretary of Slate, would set that at rest:
In time of war or emergency, or upon a declaration by the senior naval officer representing the British government, that a condition of emergency exists, all vessels of the naval force of the Commonwealth shall be placed by the Commonwealth government under the orders of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. The method by which the vessels shall come under the orders of the senior naval officer would be by furnishing each commander of an Australian vessel with sealed orders and instructions (to) the effect that upon the declaration to him by the senior naval officer representing British government that a state of war or emergency exists, such sealed orders shall thereupon be opened and, in pursuance of their provisions, he shall thereupon immediately place himself under the orders of the senior naval officer representing British government.
So far as I can see, the fleet will certainly come automatically under The direction of the admiralty in time of war.
Now, a few words in reference to the manner in which Canada received the invitation to come over and consult wi'th the admiralty as to the best means of defence. The following is from the Secretary of State to the Governor General:
His Majesty's government have noted with much satisfaction the resolution passed by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada on March 29 on subject of national defence, recording its approval of the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with, and in close relation to, the imperial navy, and I understand that the Dominion government proposes that its Defence Ministers should come here at an early date to confer with the imperial navy and military authorities upon technical matters arising upon that resolution.
I desire therefore to commend to you the following important suggestion, namely, that a conference of representatives of the selfgoverning Dominions, convened under the terms of resolution (1) of the conference of 1907, which provides for such subsidiary conference, should be held in London early in July next. The object of the conference would be to discuss the question of naval and

military defence of the empire with special reference to the Canadian resolution.
That was on April 30, 1909. What was the answer of Canada to that plain and respectful invitation? The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) answered on February 8:
The ministers wish to point out that the views of the Canadian House of Commons on the question of naval defence have a iready been expressed, and, in pursuance of the resolution of that body two ministers, as already announced, will shortly go to London to discuss with the admiralty the best methods of carrying out that resolution. My ministers have not sufficient information to warrant them advising the necessity of such a formal conference as that suggested, but there will be no objection to postpone visit till July so as to suit convenience of imperial government.
One sees there in a moment the difference in the manner in which this invitation was received and accepted by New Zealand and Australia, and the manner in which it was received by Canada. The New Zealand government declared that, in the opinion of the ministers, a representation of all parts of the empire at the conference was essential, and that the course which the home government was taking was the right one and in the best interests of the empire. The Transvaal gave a similar answer, but every one in this House knows the position in which the Transvaal was at that time. Every one knows that the Transvaal was not in a position to give the same answer as New Zealand or Australia.
According to the admiralty memorandum this is their opinion:
In the opinion of the admiralty the Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, is capable of being used in its component parts in time of war. The operation of destroyers and torpedo boats are necessarily limited to waters near the coast or to a radius of action not far distant from the base, while there are great difficulties in manning such a force and keeping it always thoroughly efficient.
Will any hon. gentleman pretend that the navy contemplated will, in time of war, be of any material benefit? I do not think they would be able to line up to the war line. In any esse, they would be of no benefit in protecting our trade routes. Outside of our sentiment in favour of protecting our empire, and looking at the matter only from the commercial side, I think that what we want is something that will assist in protecting our great trade routes.
I believe that the time has come when we should say v hat we think in these matters. While I have not the slightest desire to give any offence, I must say that I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that this Bill is framed, in the manner in which it is, in order to please our friends from the province of Quebec. For that province and its people I have the greatest respect. It is one of the oldest provinces in this Dominion, and one of which we have a great many reasons to be proud, but I must say that ever since I have been in this House, it seems to me that in all questions of importance everything has had t-o be subsidiary to the interests of Quebec. That is hardly fair. I do not care whether you take the Autonomy Bill or any Bill that has ever come before this House, you will find the facts to bear out what I say. But I am delighted to see a glimmer of light in that province in that one respect. There is lots of light there in many other respects, but I find there to-day what I never saw before, and what I do not think any citizen of Canada ever saw before, I find one of the leading papers in that province. asking, in connection with this question, is it fair or right that one province out of nine should stand up against the other eight. These are the v.urds of one of the leading French papers m the province of Quebec. I say that this is as it should he. We ought not to legislate in this country for any province, but for the Dominion in the very broadest possible way.


Mr. RIVET.: Give us the name of that newspaper to which you refer?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is 'La Patrie.'


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Which number?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I really cannot tell. I had the quotation here, but it was very lately-within the last three or four days.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: We do not object.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not think you do. I believe that every right thinking man, when we sit down and talk these things over, will say that is the right sort of sentiment, end that it is one which every Canadian should be willing to express.


Mr. ERNEST ROY.: That is alright.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I want to say in closing that I am absolutely honest and sincere in supporting the amendment of my leader. If I believed that this Bill brougnt down by the government were of any practical value in the protection of this great empi-'e I would be bound to support it, but I do not see how it can be. I have tried to prove by the very best authorities that to-day there is an emergency. My good friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) said that if we had started twenty years ago we might have had a fleet of some service to-day. There is something in. that statement. But twenty years ago Germany

had a very small fleet and this great arming of the different nations was not going on, whereas to-day we are right up against an emergency.
The leader of this House says that it will be at least five years. Well, I do not think any one doubts that it will be at least ten years before the navy which it is proposed by this Bill to provide, will be in practical service. And I do not think there is a man in this House but believes that that will be too late. Suppose that war should come within the next two or three years, what would be the condition of all these colonies? New Zealand would be able to march up to the firing line with her Dreadnought; Australia the same; and I believe, as soon as affairs are settled _ in South Africa, that part of the empire also will be ready. But where will Canada be? She will not march up to the firing line; she will be standing away off shouting through a megaphone, as I think the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) said: 'Don't come near us; we are good runners, but we are no good for fighting.' That will be absolutely the position of Canada, and the Dreadnoughts of New Zealand and Australia will have to defend our little navy, and what will such an inadequate navy cost. Built in England, $11,000,000. Built in Canada, $15,000,000. By time ships are finished at least $20,000,-
000.	Maintenance at least $5,000,000 per year. Who is to pay for this? Not contractors; not makers of uniform, ammunition and supplies. All these will make rich out of the undertaking. The bulk of the expense will fall upon the farmer and the wage-earner.
There i3 a most interesting article in last night's Montreal ' Star '. I indicated a little while ago how careful we have to be in what we say aDout the fourth estate. But the Montreal ' Star ', a newspaper of great influence all over this Dominion, probably the paper that goes into the homes of more people in Canada-and I am not advertising the ' Star ' now-than any other paper. But I do not think that the ' Star ' last night was fair. After thumping everybody on both sides of the House, the ' Star ' gave us the assurance that it would announce its policy to-night.
I am sure that every man on either side of the House is waiting in great anxiety to learn what this great paper is going to tell us. It will propound a great naval policy-; it will tell Canada what to say and do. I sometimes think-cannot help but think-what a great blessing to this country it would be if some of the preachers and some of the editors were only in this House. We should not then have such difficulty in formulating and carrying out great policies. The press is a great'institution. We have a tremendous lot to thank them for; they are the dissemina-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: tors of all that is good. But somehow they sometimes get into the habit of saying pretty hard things. But we have only to wait until to-night, when the Montreal ' Star ' comes in, we shall have a proper naval policy for this great country.
Mr. Speaker, I had no idea of taking up so much time. I have only now to sum up and present my conclusions:
1.	I believe that the present position of Canada, that of absolute dependence upon Great Britain for our naval protection, is intolerable.
2.	I believe that if the people of this country realized that such a condition existed they would vote almost unanimously to terminate that state of affairs.
3.	As ninety-five per cent of our exports are water-borne, it is of the utmost importance that our trade routes be protected. Hitherto, Great Britain has policed the trade routes, but the time has come when Canada should relieve the British taxpayer of some of his burden in this respect.
4.	We believe that the government's naval policy is miserably inadequate. We believe it to be a foolish, useless, expensive tin pot navy, one that will be of little service in protecting our trade routes or our empire in time of war.
5.	I believe, not in a Canadian navy, but in a great imperial navy, the expense of which is borne by the whole British empire, and not by the taxpayers of Great Britain only. I believe that that navy should be under one directing head. I do not see how it could be effective otherwise. If the navy were made which this government proposes, and if it formed a component part of the great imperial navy, then, in time of war, as I have already said, it might be of some use. It may be my fault, but, for my part, I fail to recognize in this Bill anything that will do what I have asked should be done.
6.	Experts tell us to-day that the effective vessels are Dreadnoughts. Then, we should demand the immediate construction of one or two Dreadnoughts to be built for Canada, and at the expense of Canada. That will help to stand off the German menace, or the menace of any other country, thereby giving our assistance in maintaining-what- I believe to be of world wide importance-the supremacy of Great Britain on the high seas.
7.	Sir, I believe that the great majority of the citizens of Canada realize that the future hope of the country, commercially, politically and sentimentally lies in continuing our close relation to the British empire.
I repeat that I stand for one throne, one flag, one navy.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is a circumstance

403S
of good augury for the measure now before this House that the further we proceed in the discussion of it the more we notice the marked contrast between the abundance of arguments used in its support and the obvious scarcity of reasons to be adduced against it. After having listened with a good deal of attention to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) I hold this opinion more strongly than ever. For, after having seen the hon. gentleman evidently labouring under pains of difficulty, travelling far afield in search of new arguments and finding none, drawing upon the resources of what I believe to be one of the most fertile imaginations combined with a good deal of the spirit of imperialism, the hon. gentleman at last came to discover-or thought he could discover-a new argument, and one which, I am sure, has been to every member of this House quite a surprise, quite a revelation. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman stood in his place and stated that this measure had been introduced in this House for the single purpose of pleasing the province of Quebec, I was staggered, as I believe that to-morrow, when he reads it, my friend Mr. Hum Bourassa, the good ally of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), will be staggered.
I do not propose to follow the line of argument which has been adopted by the hon. member. However, allow me to tell him that in regard to this legislation, which I consider, as every member of this House considers, to be of the greatest national importance, the province of Quebec from which I have the honour to hail has not the slightest intention to take a different position from the other provinces. The motives which influence every Canadian irrespective of race and creed are as powerful in Quebec as elsewhere, and we intend to give an undivided support to this legislation, notwithstanding the attitude of some of the leading members of our race and our province, who to-morrow I hope will return to better councils and will admit that the majority was well inspired and took the proper course. The province of Quebec does not wish to assume in this House or in this country a position of isolation. That has never been the policy of the leaders of the province of Quebec. If at one time, and possibly under different circumstances, there happened to be some members of my race or of my province advocating a different course, thank God, those days are gone bv, and they are to be found to-day in a hopeless minority.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, in the course of my remarks on the budget, I had the honour to inform this House that I purposed supporting the Bill that is now under discussion, and I did so
without advancing any other reason for my intended action than the need of self-protection that should characterize both nations and individuals. I stated that later on I would explain in a fuller and more explicit manner the motives that actuate me in my attitude concerning a matter of such national importance. I am happy to be able to take advantage of the occasion which now presents itself to fulfil that engagement, and, under the sway of a deep-set conviction, a conviction based upon a serious study of all the circumstances that surround the misisterial measure, I rise to reiterate my confidence in the policy of the government.
At the outset let me say that I under stand and appreciate to its fullest, the part that falls to my lot, and the responsibilities I assume at this moment. I do not forget the fact that, if the ministry shoulder all the merit or demerit, as the case may be, attached to the measure that it has originated, it is only a parliamentary majority that can impart to it a legal existence and an executive power, and must especially answer before history for the true or false interpretation that it embodies of the popular will. But I must add that it, is without any apprehension, without any fear of the popular verdict, as has been here and elsewhere often declared, that I place my humble support at the service of the government. I am confident that the public opinion of this country, once enlightened as to the motive and results of the ministerial course, will quickly silence the prejudices and passions awakened by party spirit and will cordially support the government. But should it be otherwise, the prospect of a defeat should not, it seems to me, lessen our attachment to a cause that we in conscience believe to be just and in harmony with the best interests of Canada.
It also behooves us, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion, to divest ourselves of all external influences and, in all conscience and full liberty, to exercise our mandate as representatives of the people. For, if, until the introduction of this Bill, we could have claimed the moral support of public opinion, ready to accept favourably the almost concordant expressions of the authorized leaders of the two great political parties, to-day, the unexpected somersault of the leader of the opposition, followed by the disavowal inflicted on him by his principal lieutenant from my native province, are ill-calculated to direct that public opinion in the direction of a solution of such a vast and yet delicate question. The parliamentary situation, as affected by the amendment and sub-amendment of the left, is more likely to set popular sentiment astray, than to afford it a true solution of the question. What is that situation? By the Bill now introduced the government pro-

vides for the organization of a Canadian naval service. This Bill, with slight variations, is entirely based on our Militia Act, By clause 18 the government may, in case of emergency, place the naval service at the disposal of the British admiralty. On account of the circumstances that gave birth to the project of a Canadian navy, and on account of our particular position as a nation in the British empire, that clause 18 became inevitable and must appear quite a matter of course; but often, the most simple things in appearance, do not seem to be understood in the same way by every one, since our friends of the opposition have seen a world of differences in that clause, according as it has been viewed through the spectacles of Mr. Borden or those of Mr. Monk. And this difference of interpretation has served as basis of the two absolutely opposite systems that summarize the two classes of contradictory attacks made against the Bill.
In the opinion of the leader of the opposition, clause 18 upsets all the economy of a naval project, the principal aim of which should be to strengthen the British fleet. By that clause Canada withdraws with one hand what she gives with the other. In a word, according to Mr. Borden, the radical fault of the Bill is the too absolute control of Canada over the navy, the too rigorous application of the principles of autonomy that govern our national life. According to him, the same idea of autonomy is at the bottom of the policy of constructing vessels of a class only useful to Canada and of no use to the mother country in the hour of danger. The hon. member sees only one way to remedy the evil he seems to dread, and that is the gift of $25,000,000 to England with the subsequent approbation of the people-after the money would be safely landed in the British treasury. This is embodied in his amendment, which is the expression of the policy of . the bulk of the opposition. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier thinks, on the other hand, that the same clause 18 is destructive of our autonomy, the upsetting of responsible government, the reducing of our parliament to simple municipal institutions, the total loss of all the fruits derived from the sacrifices and struggles of our fathers in the cause of liberty. For the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, a Canadian navy, created under clause 18, would only be a squadron of the British fleet, intended principally for the defence of the mother country, and this interpretation leads him to claim, in his amendment, that the government's policy modifies, in a wholesale manner, our relations with the empire-and he, therefore, demands an appeal to the popular vote.
Thus the two Conservative leaders reach the same goal, but by different roads. For both of them, clause 18 contains nothing Mr. RIVET.
worthy of the occasion. For the one, under its mask are all the traits of evil, where the other considers them the traits of good-and vice versa. In other terms, the leader of the opposition sees in that clause the incarnation of nationalism, while the hon. member for Jacques Cartier sees in it the incarnation of imperialism. Could a more flagrant contradiction be imagined? The best way to reconcile their views would be for both these gentlemen to change spectacles. But they will do no such a thing, for none are so blind as those who do not want to see. What is the truth, Mr. Speaker? If our friends on the left desire to sanely intercept clause 18, they will see in it none of the dangers that they apprehend from both sides, but they will find in it the guarantee that all desire -that is to say, our country's autonomy and our effective aid in the maintenance of the supremacy of the British navy. But, as I said a moment ago, this contradictory assault on the ministerial policy, and which, in case of an appeal to the people, is repeated outside, is scarcely likely to enlighten the public mind, nor to inspire a verdict in accord with facts. Hence, the duty of the majority arises from the very circumstances of the case. Invested with popular confidence to solve in this parliament all problems of national interest, we should fulfil our task without undergoing the jostling of divided opinions, nor the onset of passions excited by the prejudiced and unscrupulous. In this question, as in all others, our mandate authorizes us to safe-guard the true interests of the country, and, were we to. be unfaithful to our duty, the people of Canada would be justified, later on, in visiting us with punishment for our lack of initiative and of patriotism. This much being said, Mr. Speaker, I assert that a Canadian navy, in conformity with the dispositions of the present Bill, constitutes one of the essential obligations of our position as a colony, and is one of the consequences of our national evolution.
Before discussing that proposition, I desire, Sir, to lay down some fundamental principles, which, in my humble opinion, underlie the spirit of this Bill.
1.	The organization of a naval defence is not a blessing, but a necessity imposed on us by the present conditions of civilization. This principle has been admitted in all times, even by those whose convictions were opposed to war in every form. John Bright, an English statesman, well known for his pacific leanings, has admitted the necessity of national defence as long as, between nations, war should remain as the final tribunal of arbitration.
2.	Militarism consists in a preponderance of an exaggerated sort given, in a country, to the milita-y element; our defence

organization could only draw us into it in proportion to the degree in which we follow the example of the European nations that bend under the load of their armaments.
3.	Canada is an autonomous colony of the British empire, enjoying practically a quasi-independence, but theoretically and absolutely under the domination of the British Crown. The colonial tie may be almost imperceptible; yet it exists in all its strength, and only a successful revolution, or the consent of Great Britain, could dissolve it. We will see later how the close of England's naval supremacy could effect our actual position.
4.	The breaking of the bond with Great Britain would leave two alternatives for Canada: Independence or annexation with the United States.
5.	The safest foundation of the British emnire lies in the liberty of action and the free autonomous development of its component parts.
All those who have written or spoken against this Bill seem to have forgotten one or two, and, in some cases, all of these principles. It is not wonderful that such forgetfulness should have led them into contradictory conclusions, contrary to facts and to the best interests, both of the Canadian people and the British empire*
I.	therefore, say that it is not possible to discuss in an intelligent manner this problem of naval defence without having present to the mind the fundamental ideas that I have just indicated, because they must necessarily be found at the root of any policy respecting means of mutual protection, as between Great Britain and her self-governing colonies.
As I have already pointed out, the government, in its naval policy, has been from the beginning, confronted by two different and contradictory lines of attack. On the one hand, it has been claimed that the only policy that suggests itself under the circumstances is one of immediate assistance, by way. of a cash contribution to the mother country, this is the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I am satisfied that such a solution of the question has already been proved unacceptable by some of the supporters of the government. It has been conclusively shown, to my mind, that a system of cash and periodical contributions is a temporary and costly expedient, that brings no definite solution of our relations with the mother country, in respect to naval defence, and is a violation of all principles of self-government, could only be excused on the ground of an imminent crisis in the naval history of Great Britain. As this alleged crisis has been found to be a night-mare, got up for political purposes, the position of the ultra-loyalists of the
opposition becomes untenable. I propose then to leave aside that aspect of the political situation created by the Borden amendment, to deal exclusively with the opposition offered to the Bill, in other parts of Canada, namely, in Quebec, on the ground that the only policy to be followed by the government in matters of naval defence should be one of complete inaction. We now knt>w the arguments of the opponents of a Canadian navy in the province of Quebec. Nationalists and Conservatives, the latter having taken the programme of the former, have agreed to try and convince the people of Quebec that military imperialism, according to their view, has brought us this Bill, and that, by the sacrifice of our autonomy, it has Tendered the tie with Great Britain an intolerable yoke. Yet, the greater number of them, and the member for Jacques Cartier is one, have carefully avoided drawing the people's attention to the consequences for our country of a separation from England. While their premises drive them fatally into separation they have not had the honesty to go to the logical end, and to either cry out for independence or for annexation.
I am mistaken; the real exponent of nationalism, Mr. Oliver Asselin, in a pamphlet published under the title,
' Naval Defence and the British Empire ', after having criticised in advance the naval policy of the government as being an attack on our autonomy, and the imposition of an undeserved and unbearable burden, faces the following alternative. Having declared that the government's policy would force us to take part in all wars wherein England's interests would be at stake, and having enumerated all the services we render to England, Mr. Asselin concludes thus:
These services, these sacrifices, England cannot ask if, henceforth, we are to take part in all wars in which the honour or integrity of the empire are at stake. Independence would then be doubly as valuable, and so it seems to me.
Thus the few of our opponents who have the courage and frankness to tell us whither they tend, raise the standard of independence. In the presence of such a declaration, it behooves us to calmly study the obligations that flow from such a new situation in our country. Would independence, from the standpoint of naval defence, impose greater sacrifices on us? It seems incontestable, and I doubt strongly if the partisans of independence are not imbued with the same idea-namely, that independence would entail a much heavier naval outlay than would the policy of the government. I cannot believe in the sincerity of men who place our national security under the wing tf the Monroe doctrine, or under some species of American

equilibrium fashioned after that of Europe. A few days ago the hon. Postmaster General settled fairly that question of the Monroe doctrine. I will add only a few words to his eloquent remarks. In fact the Monroe doctrine is not one that enters into the international code, and, as such, is accepted by all nations. It has no obligatory force, it has no sanction outside that of the authority whence if emanates. Now, that authority is not the United States Congress or Senate, that have exclusive jurisdiction in matters of international treaties, but is the good will of the president of the United States, whose individuality changes every four or eight years. The so-called Monroe doctrine was only an expression of opinion by a president of the United States, given to harmonize with the circumstances of the time, not applying even to Canada, which it expressly excludes, which had been laid aside when the interests or the caprices of the American people required it, as has since been seen, on memorable occasions and which will be laid aside every time that such action is deemed necessary by our powerful neighbours. But even supposing that the Monroe doctrine would respect or protect our independence, is there a serious man in Canada or the.United States who would pretend that such protection would exempt U3 from participate ing in the defence of our coasts and our ports? Is it at the moment when the American people aspire more and more to play a world-wide part, caress visions of imperialism, and accordingly impose fresh sacrifices on themselves and increase their naval budget, that they would consent to assume, without any compensation, the defence of such an extensive territory, as exposed as their own to attack? For all well-thinking people of Canada, as in the United States, the conditions of such a protection would be as humiliating for our national dignity as they would be dangerous to our liberty of action, and even of our independence. We would, in that way, become the vassal of the United States. Is there a Canadian, jealous of his national dignity and conscious of the great future of Canada, who would freely submit to the ignominy of such dependence? The argument of an American equilibrium compared to that of Europe is not serious. It is to insult Canada to believe that her protection may be the result of geographical conditions such as regulate the existence of small countries like Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, or Montenegro. It is clear that the geographical conditions are not the same, and, moreover, there can be no comparison between those smaller countries, that have reached the zenith of their power, and Canada, whose growth has scarcely commenced. Moreover, history shows that the independence Mr. RIVET.
I of those small countries is precarious, and is ever at the mercy of new combinations likely to arise, and that, besides, each of them is provided with a war fleet. Charles Dupuis, professor in the school of political science in France, in his book, ' The Principle of Equilibrium and the European Concert ', writes as follows:
The principle of equilibrium cannot be one of international law, unlike the law, it could sever create a judicial principle, furnish clear, precise and identical solutions: it interdicts but few solutions and dictates none. It could only guarantee the rights of all if it could secure the maintenance of the statu quo or else counterbalance any increase of power amongst the stronger states, by means of a co-relative increase of the power of the feebler states. The maintenance of the statu quo is impossible and the counterbalances have rarely been established save to the benefit of the strong and the injury of the weak.
Thus our independence would not guarantee us against the cost of naval defence nor against equivalent sacrifices. Mr. As-selin, himself, in the pamphlet I have just mentioned, is obliged to agree, at page 40, he says:
If we were independent, nothing would prevent us from creating for ourselves, for ourselves alone, that navy which we are bound to create for others and to make friends at the same time amongst the larger states, England included, with the trade benefits which we now give free to the metropolis.
The opponents of the measure in Quebec are not deceived on this point, and despite their cry about the Munroe doctrine there are but few amongst them who have any belief in any independence in the near future. If there be any who secretly nurse the thought of independence, its realization seems to them very far off, not of our generation, something to be secured only when Canada shall have attained a degree of development and power which would afford the ambition and means of holding that privileged position. I do not pretend that those Canadians who entertain the idea of independence at some future date, should be amenable to the tribunal of jingoism presided over by the hon, member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). It is not treasonable and it is not quite permissible to think and to say that Canada, having reached her full development, like the ripe apple falling from the tree, may eventually, by the force of circumstances, become a sovereign nation. I am not referring to those who may have that idea in mind. But I speak of the men who proclaim themselves partisans of a Canadian republic -at an early date, and in view of escaping the obligations of naval defence, and I say that there is none of them who would not bitterly repent of his declarations and separatist speeches, if, in the near future, some fine morning, England were to aban-

don her finest colony to itself, leaving it all the risks and responsibilities of an independent state.
The hypothesis of an annexation to the United States scarcely need to be mentioned. If such annexation were the political doctrine of a given number of Canadians belonging to either or both of our great political parties, (for in this regard, in looking over their past, neither of these parties can cast a stone at each other), I submit that in our day, amongst the framers of public thought, save and except Goldwin Smith, we can find no one who openly professes that theory in regard to our national future. The same may be said of the mass of the people. In the province of Quebec, especially, despite the large number of its citizens who have emigrated to the United States, and who have kept up cordial and unbroken relations with Canada, annexation is looked upon as a danger for the institutions and! for the language of the French-Canadian minority. This is why our fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec, more so than those of any other province, would prefer either the status quo or independence, to *the risks of a situation so menacing to their race.
But it is quite possible that, between the peril of American assimilation and the terrors of military imperialism, some of our French-Canadian fellow-citizens may incline to the first of these evils as the lesser. In that case, it becomes our duty to undeceive them and to remind them that the dream of American imperialism, expressed in ever-increasing maritime armaments, would load them with a tax in money and men far heavier than could ever their free co-operation with the British admiralty in the defence of Canadian soil; and, on this .subject, I may be permitted to point out, and without any thought of reproach, that the Spanish-American war claimed more victims amongst the soldiers and sailors of [DOT]Canadian extraction, than did the Boer war, in which, indeed, many of our people fell fighting for the British flag. But I am convinced that few Canadians harbour any illusion in this regard, or imagine that annexation would bring them some kind of national sovereignty freed from the corresponding obligations-more burdensome than those of our present state.
The status quo, our position of self-governing colony within the British empire,- such is undoubtedly the desire of the great mass of the Canadian people. .Their adhesion thereto is not baseless; it is reasoned and reasonable, it is founded on special advantages and benefits belonging thereto. .These advantages and benefits have been enumerated. The Postmaster General, in his masterly speech the other day, told us of the liberties and extensive' privileges that we enjoy under the British flag. If
we have not the title of nation, we exercise all the leading prerogatives and (responsibilities of one. The extreme independence in our economic and social life, the safeguards of our trade and industries, the prestige and advantages derived from the capacity of British subjects, and, especially for us French-Canadians, the guarantees that surround our institutions, our religion and our language; these are the principal actuating influences in our fidelity to our British allegiance. And this brings us. ,to the one and only question: Can this status quo be maintained indefinitely without our fulfilling our obligations in regard to naval defence? If the reply be affirmative, the organization of a Canadian naval service, in conformity to the provisions of .this Bill, would be no longer a free question of principle, but only a question of application and terms. I therefore submit, Sir, that in view of the principles that I have just laid down, the organization of our naval defence, in cooperation with the British admiralty, is only a natural result of our national evolution and of our situation as a self-governing colony. I say, further, that the government, in .the application of its naval policy, has selected the time, the form and the means best suited to the interests both of the Canadian people and of the British empire. As I am disposed to repeat arguments used by some of those whQ have already spoken in support of the Bill, I will be as brief as possible in the demonstration of that proposition.
They who, like the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, claim that the government in its naval policy, bring in a dangerous innovation and lay aside the principles that have always governed our national life, have evidently not taken the trouble to carefully examine the declarations and the attitudes of the founders of our Canadian nationhood. All the negotiations that ended in confederation, the memorials and speeches of the statesmen concerned therein, come to show that their intention, apart from doing away with the parliamentary deadlock that had marked the closing years of the union, was mainly, to lay the foundations of a new and great nation, sufficiently strong to look after its own defence and to take part in the maintenance of British power. I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to make a few citations; they may cast some light on the present debate. In a letter sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in October, 1858, by the delegates of the Canadian government, in London, Messrs. Cartier, Ross and Galt, in regard to the project of confederation, I find the following:
But, independent of reasons affecting Canada alone, it is respectfully represented that the interests of the several colonies and of the empire will be greatly promoted by a more

intimate and united government of the entire British North American possessions. The population, trade, and resources of all these colonies have so rapidly increased of late years, and the removal of trade restrictions has made them,, in so great a degree, selfsustaining, that it appears to the government of Canada exceedingly important to bind still more closely the ties of their common allegiance to the British Crown, and to obtain for general purposes such an identity in legislation as may serve to consolidate their growing power, thus raising under the protection of the empire an important confederation on the North American continent. . . . With a population of three and a half millions, with a foreign commerce exceeding twenty-five millions sterling, and a commercial marine inferior in extent only to those of Great Britain and the United States, it is in the power of the imperial government, by sanctioning a confederation of these provinces, to constitute a dependency of the empire, valuable in time of peace and powerful in the event of war, forever removing the fear that these colonies njay ultimately serve to swell the power of another nation.
We all know that these first negotiations Were not successful, and that it was only after the Quebec conference of 1864, and the ratification of its proceedings by parliament in 1865, that the adhesion of the imperial government to the scheme of confederation was again solicited by the Canadian delegates to London, Cartier, Macdonald, Brown and Galt. In a speech delivered in London, at a banquet given in their honour, on the 26th of April, 1865, Sir George Cartier, one of the delegates spoke as follows. I beg the indulgence of the House on account of the length of my citations, but they throw a) vivid light on the present situation:
In consequence we seek a system that will permit us to make still greater progress, we wish to knot more closely the relations with the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We frankly told them that we possess in Canada the necessary elements for the establishment of a strong nationhood, the population and the soil, but that we lack that other element which makes for -England's greatness-the naval element. We told onr friends that they are too restricted in their territory, while we need seaports and that, by uniting together we could become powerful and prosperous. Our government sent a deputation to England to show to the imperial government the absolute necessity of the realization of this confederation scheme. We desire its adoption not only to increase our prosperity and strength but also to be iu a better position to participate in the defence of the British empire.
We fully conceive that in case of invasion we could not resist the enemy without the aid of England's armies, hut with a union of all the provinces, we propose to take part in the defence of our country with all our might.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: When we spoke of a confederation of all the colonies of North America, we did not mean a system of weakening the bonds that unite those colonies to the mother country, hut a system calculated to develop, for the benefit of all, British American trade. Our confederation scheme lias in it nothing to awaken a fear of events such as have been witnessed in the United States. There is no danger of a conflict between the rights of the different states and the privileges of the federal government. We purpose declaring to the imperial government that we are ready to do our duty even alone for the defence of our country, but we represented at the same time that, if this confederation became an accomplished fact, we would be in a better position to help Great Britain in case, which I hope will never come, of a war between Great Britain and the United States. I take occasion now to remark that, in binding ourselves to furnish our share in defence, we assume a considerable expenditure, hut I add that you need not fear the results predicted- an increase of duty on English merchandise imported into Canada. As these predictions might lead to unpleasant impressions, I here declare that they are baseless. It was stated in both Houses of parliament, in certain newspapers of the country, that since Canada was separated, it would he better for England's safety to ieave her free to become independent, or to be annexed to the United States. We in Canada know that we cannot he the cause of war, war can never come save by the will of the imperial authorities. We also know that our country is vulnerable, but we would suffer it to become a battlefield, if required, whereon to avenge the honour of England.
We in no way desire to become independent and still less to be annexed to the United States. We reject with horror the very idea.
Is this clear and explicit enough? It is the express and formal affirmation of Canada's obligation to organize her own defence apd to give the .mother country the benefit of that organization.
The same affirmations are to be found in the words of Sir John Macdonald, George Brown, Tache, and of all the fathers of confederation who spoke on the question. There is nothing surprising therein. To settle their work on solid foundations, the Canadian statesmen of 1867, understood the necessity of laying those principles common to all nations at its base. In order to give her the right to live, they sought to give their country the right of self-defence in defending, at the same time, the British flag, under the folds of which she should expand. The same aim gave rise to the policy of military organization in 1868.
Thus, as has 'been remarked, at the beginning of confederation Sir George Cartier took the portfolio of Militia. In that position it was he who had charge of the Bill that is still the fundamental basis of our military system. I have already quoted some of his remarks on the subject. I will ask leave to add thereto the following:
I do not fear, in introducing this measure, the same check as the Militia Bill of 1862

caused my colleagues and myself to fall. I believe it necessary to complete the great work of confederation. I have already remarked, on other occasions, that three indispensable elements constitute a nation; the population, the territory and the navy. But the indispensable crowning of the edifice is the militia. No people can ever pretend to the title of nation, unless they have with them a military element, a means of self-defence.
Cartier thus recognized that the time had come to endow Canada with an effective military organization and that the country should have the means of providing therefor. The success that crowned his efforts proves that public opinion was with him and acknowledged the responsibility of a nation in what concerns its own protection.
And to those that might pTetend that Cartier's idea, and that of his government, did not go as far as the establishment of a naval service, I would point to the provisions of the Militia Act, which provide formally for the formation of a war fleet. Section 1 of that Act Teads thus:
1. As provided by the fifteenth section of the British North America Act, 1867, the commander in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada, is vested in the Queen and shall be exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally, or by the government as Her representative.
Clause 6 of the Militia Act of 1868 reads, in part, thus:
6. The Militia shall be divided into active and reserve militia. The active militia shall consist of the volunteer militia, the regular militia and the marine militia.
********
The marine militia shall be composed of seamen, sailors and persons whose usual occupation is upon any steam or sailing craft.
. . . the waters of the Dominion.
By clause 61, the Queen had the discretionary powers to mobolize the militia in or out of Canada, in case of war, invasion or insurrection, without the assent of the government or parliament of Canada.
61. Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for actual service, either within or without the Dominion, at any time, whenever it appears advisable so to do by reason of war invasion or insurrection or danger of any of them; and the militiamen, when so called out for actual service, shall continue to serve for at least one year from the date of their being called out for actual service, if required so to do for any longer period which Her Majesty may appoint.
Thus even at that time, the government's policy was not only to create a Canadian navy, but even to place the control of it in the discretionary power of the sovereign, acting on her own authority without the assent of the Canadian authorities.
It may be supposed that the causes for the postponement of Cartier's naval programme were both the absence of an immediate necessity and the meagreness of the public revenue. I might here multiply authorities and examples to maintain that Cartier's conception of 1868 was the true one: that is to say, that the navy is but the necessary complement of the military organization of any people, and that if, at that period, it was indispensable to provide for the country's defence by establishing a strong militia, the naval service was also to be included.
There is one page in the book of Mr. A. D. Decelles, ' Les Etats Unis,' which illustrates vividly the influence of sea power, over the destinies of nations. Although it may stir up painful recollections in the minds of my French Canadian colleagues, I cannot resist the temptation of quoting it. The writer refers to the last episode in that great drama played in America for the conquest of Canada by England. At the time referred to the army of Wolfe was within the walls of Quebec:
The chronicles of the time picture the anxiety of the English and the French in the springtime of 1760, after the second battle of the Plains of Abraham. The two, enemies worn out by a long series of troubles, still saw the ' final issue undecided. They awaited the arrival of the fleet that was to either confirm the success of Wolfe's army, or to repair Montcalm's disaster and revive the hopes of de Levis. As the first white sail appeared on the sky rim around the point of the island of Orleans, feverishly did their hearts beat and for a few moments there existed one of those agonizingly decisive moments in the history of a people. Finally the Union Jack spread its bright colours to the sky. A cheer of joy went up from Quebec, and deep bursts of grief from de L6vis' camp saluted that banner. England's maritime power had gained her the day, as, forty years later, she was to destroy the prospects of Bonaparte in the east, and to carry her might into every port in the world, while remaining herself, undislodgable behind her wooden walls.
In this connection, I wish also to mention that the United States, soon after the final recognition of their independence, adopted an aggressive policy of naval defence, and started to form the nucleus of a war fleet. In 1851, that war fleet was not very formidable, but it was the outcome of a systematic and well-planned policy in the direction of naval organization. In his speech delivered in Washington, on the 4th of July, 1851, on the occasion of the inauguration of an addition to the Capitol, Daniel Webster used the .following language with respect to the navy:
The navy is the active and aggressive element of national defence, and let loose from our own sea coasts, must display its own powers on the seas and channels of the



enemy. To do this, it need not be large and it can never be large enough to defend at home by its presence all our ports and harbours.
But in the absence of the navy, what can the regular army, the volunteer militia, do against the enemy's line of battleships and steamers falling without notice on our coast? What will guard our cities from tribute, our merchant vessels and our navy yards from conflagration? Here again we see a wise forecast in the system of defensive measures which, especially since the close of the war with Great Britain, has been steadily followed by the government.
It is also to be remembered, that after the war of independence, the population of the United States did not exceed three millions. It is exactly this wise forethought expressed by Daniel Webster in the case of the United States that inspired Cartier and his colleagues with a policy of military armament, which, in their minds, equally implied the organization of a naval service. In their eyes, the future of Canada appeared as brilliant as that of the American republic, and it was this clear view of the high destinies of our country that inspired them to give to her economic life and her general development those guarantees of independence and security which had been adopted by the great country to the south of us. It did not flash in their minds, that the protection offered by England could absolve them from participating in the defence of a territory so vast and so exposed to the enemy as in Canada, and, in accord with the public opinion of the day, they considered that the best and most effective way to secure the protection of the mother country was to contribute thereto within the limits of Canada's resources. Under like conditions, and thanks to them since that day, Canada has been able to move along the different stages of development and to reach the degree of progress and power that she now enjoys. If the happy results of Cartier's policy are now felt by us, it is, however, proper for us to inquire if the time has not come for the final execution of that policy. If so, such can be done only by the adoption of a naval programme in accord with the present conditions of the country. Thus I come to that part of my theme wherein I purpose briefly indicating how and why the government's naval programme is but the logical and opportune development of the traditional policy of our early statesmen in regard to matters of national defence.
The partisans of the status quo or of abstention from any naval programme, forget, or seem to forget, that on both sides, in the mother country and in Canada, affairs have spun along at a lively rate since 1868, and that in each country, changes have taken place that Mr. RIVET.
necessitate modifications in our defence policy. In Canada we are far removed from the point we occupied at confederation and at the original organization of our militia system. The great growth in population, the development of our national resources, the wonderful expansion of our trade and industries, the establishment of a comprehensive system of transportation, as well as the importance of our sea-ports, threaten to make Canada a serious rival in the economic field. After a long period of folding herself up,, in order to take a grander bound forward, Canada is now spreading out and seeking other outlets for her trade and productions. The systematic attention of other nations, at the birth of this new competitor has gradually turned into a mistrust that she may soon become a rival.
In this new situation, growing rapidly more pronounced, Canada owes it to herself and to the mother country, which has watched over her progress and development as effectively as situations would permit, to protect not only the vital parts of her economic organization but also her trade and industries. Despite the ridiculous pretention that Canada has no foreign trade to protect, on the pretext that her merchantmen are registered at the British admiralty, those vessels are truly Canadian ships, carrying Canadian merchandise and having a right to our country's protection. Were Canada tp become a sovereign nation, those ships would none the less remain attached to our ports and would continue to carry on every sea the products and wealth of this country. Under these conditions, is it not evident that the exigencies of national defence have considerably augmented, and if we do not, ourselves, subscribe to them, England must be asked or else the United States to do so for us. We have seen that it is impossible to count on American protection for it would be too costly and too inimical to our liberty of action, to the preservation of our territory and even to our independence.
Can the mother country effectively protect our interests?
Have we the right to ask it of her?
In this regard, I may be permitted to recall the fact that while the work of our national expansion has been going on in England, an evolution in the conditions surrounding naval defence has taken place. That evolution was not so much the result of the British will as it was the outcome of the conditions of European equilibrium. Since 1867, an entirely new situation has arisen in Europe. The Franco-Prussian war, the birth of the German empire, the formation of the triple alliance, the aggressive expansion of Germany have obliged the other European nations to modify their alliances and increase their armaments in

an abnormal manner. To maintain her naval supremacy, and to be true to her alliances, England had, herself, to increase her outlay for naval defence. This state of things is certainly deplorable, contrary to the tendency of civilization and none regret and condemn it more than I do. But say or do what we may that situation is unavoidable, and we must submit to^ it with all the inconveniences it carries. There may be reason in the assertion that the defence of Canada has nothing to do with England's projects of armament. I believe, myself, that in her naval policy the mother country only obeys the influences that the present situation in Europe suggests. But we cannot say, in face of history, that the increased burden of defence is the effect of a wrong diplomacy. On the contrary, it is well known that England, spurred by the expansion of Germany's imperialism, has cleverly assured herself of such alliances - and friendships as guarantee the peace of Europe. And for my part, as a French-Canadian, I rejoice in witnessing the realization between the land of my forefathers and England of that 'entente cordiale' which has produced and will produce again most excellent results for both countries and for the peace of the world.
Then, Sir, it so happens that as Canada feels the need of augmenting her means of self-protection, England, through the circumstances I have just related, is unable to offer us any additional guarantees of defence. In these circumstances is there aught more natural than that between the mother country and her first daughter an amicable understanding should take place, whereby the means most effective to secure a satisfactory solution for both countries may be obtained. If this need of understanding means imperialism, I have no hesitation in proclaiming myself an imperialist.
Imperialism, as it exists in this country, proceeds from two different sources. There is one kind of imperialism, which I may call sentimental, which is derived from that deep attachment which binds, heart and soul, all those Canadians who were bom and brought up in England to their mother country. This love of their native land occupies in their sentiments a privileged place paramount to that devoted to Canada, their new country. They are Britishers first, Canadians afterwards. This sentiments leads them at times in all good faith and sincerity to sacrifice the interests of Canada to those of Great Britain. This is the imperialism of some of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have already spoken on this question. I respect their sentiments, but I must say that I cannot share them.
But there is another kind of imperialism based upon a reciprocity of interest as be-1294
tween England and Canada. This is the imperialism of those of our fellow-citizens who having been born and brought up in this country, are attached to their native land through one or more generations of their ancestors, and naturally give to Canada the first place in their hearts, without in any way forgetting their obligations to Great Britain, which has granted them their liberty, their self-government, and. protects their interests and their national life. Such an imperialism is based upon a true conception of our position as a people and the future of our country, as well as upon the idea that the prosperity and greatness of the British empire chiefly depends upon the free development of its colonies and their voluntary co-operation in the work of mutual consolidation of commercial relations and means of defence. This imperialism is the one professed by the majority of the citizens of this country who think it is possible to conciliate their duties as Canadian citizens with their obligations as British subjects without any sacrifice of either. This imperialism is mine, and I ask my opponents to respect my convictions as" well as I do their own. Need I say, Mr. Speaker, that the imperial conference of 1909 has been the outcome of this latter kind of imperialism.
The Conservative-Nationalist party in the province of Quebec imagined that in that conference they could see the fuse of a conspiracy hidden, threatening our political liberties. There are people who, craving the title of saviours of their race and their country, try to find ambushes and dangers everywhere-and in their mad desire, hesitate not to misrepresent facts, falsify language and impute to others the worst and most perfidious intentions. With the best motives in the world, no doubt, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier poses as the leader of the adversaries of a Canadian navy, and assisted by some newspapers in the' province of Quebec, he is trying to divert public attention from the real issues involved in this Bill.


Mr. MONK.: What papers does my hon. friend allude to?
Mr. RIVET, i am alluding to that paper published in Montreal called the 'Devoir,' but which to my mind has not the least notion of the meaning of that word.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If it is to that paper my hon. friend alludes, I may tell him that I cordially subscribe to everything it has said upon this question.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Well, if the views of that paper suit him, he is welcome to them. Now a careful and impartial perusal of the deliberations of that memorable conference of 1909 will suffice to convince us of the futility of the nationalist theory.

A careful and impartial perusal of the deliberations of that memorable conference, should suffice to convince us of the futility of the nationalist theory. For all men of good faith, the report of the conference attests the spirit of conciliation that presided at its deliberations and above all, the solicitude of England to respect the liberty of action of her self-governing colonies. Thus, while the British admiralty insists on the importance, from a strategical point of view, of a single fleet *maintained by the different parts of the empire, she does not scruple to admit that such considerations must give way to the political and geographical conditions that obtain in each colony. This is admitting the priority of colonial defence over imperial defence. It is this principle recognized [DOT]and in practice, at all times, in Canada, that our plenipotentiaries upheld. The principle being once established, the only thing remaining was to come to an understanding as to the modus operandi. This was no easy task. If our representatives in London could, without difficulty, have their policy accepted by the English admiralty, they had but slight illusions as to the reception they would meet with from [DOT]certain elements in Canada. They had good reason to fear that programme of the ' just midway ' would not easily obtain the support ef the extreme groups that represent here the olden bureaucracy traditions, on the one hand, and the olden spirit of distrust in and hostility towards England, on the other. However, they could reasonably expect that the two great political parties swayed by a just conception of the interests and duties of the moment, would unite in common action without any consideration other than the accomplishment of a national enterprise. The occasion was most favourable for proof that the ancient prejudice had no voice in the national assembly, and that a moderate view, that of the vast majority of our citizens would prevail in the House. The Liberal party had to assume the duty , of justifying in all respects the forecasts of its leader, and the unanimous support given from this side of the House is ample evidence of its success. Does this mean, Sir, that the Liberal party had not to undergo the influence of extreme ideas, at an equal distance from both of which the government had set up its naval programme? Not at all, but our party's merit lies in its triumph over such influence, in its courageous undertaking to have the electorate accept its views. After the patriotic declarations of the leader of the opposition at Halifax, on his return from London, the hope was then entertained throughout Canada that the same course might be adopted by the Conservative party. Unfortunately such a hope has been of short duration.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Notwithstanding the open and repeated declarations of its leader, that party soon began to resort to its favourite tactics. After having oscillated between the two poles of nationalism and imperialism, which alternately attracted it, impotent as it was, to overcome either the one or the other of these influences, it has ended by dividing itself in two irreconcilable groups which each in its own way strives to defeat _ the ministerial policy. And that, Sir, instead of adopting a course of moderate and loyal criticism of the details of the Bill, such as might have been expected of an opposition, worthy of its part, hon. gentlemen opposite have started a campaign of denunciation and vituperation, against the most eminent personalities of our party in the House. Even the right hon. Prime Minister, in spite of long and meritorious services in the cause of Canada and the British empire, could not be spared from invective and abuse, from that quarter. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) started the ball rolling, and the man who lives in a glass house, began to throw stones at others, aiming particularly at the right hon. leader of the government, whose unblemished record and political integrity is an unpardonable crime not to be condoned, or overlooked, on any occasion. The rank and file was not slow in following in his foot-steps, and since the unparalleled pronouncement, in point of personal abuse, delivered by the hon. member for North Toronto, we have had other utterances of the same character, the most remarkable of which, havel been probably, the philippics of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan). What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, between those reckless deliverances and the dignified and public attitude followed on this side of the House? While we seek to maintain this debate, within the high sphere of reason and facts, most of the hon. gentlemen on your left, endeavour to obscure issues, by appealing to prejudice, to passion.
As a party man, I would feel rather inclined to rejoice over those tactics, for they prove too clearly the bad faith and administrative incapacity of the Conservative party, not to strengthen the confidence of the people of Canada in the Liberal administration
As a Canadian, anxious for the future of my country, I regret them sincerely. As a French Canadian, priding myself upon belonging to the nationality which clams the leader of the government as one of its own. I wish to enter my protest against the undeserved abuse to which he has been subjected since the opening of this debate. I wish also to state how keenly I resent the words uttered againet the men of my race, who fought and shed their blood in the cause of political liberty, and to whose

sacrifices we owe in a large measure, the blessing of responsible government. I desire also to place on record, that notwithstanding anything which has been said, or hinted at, by some hon. gentlemen opposite, and notwithstanding the ill-advised attitude of some of my compatriots of Quebec, on the naval question, the Canadians of French origin are above those infamous suspicions of disloyalty thrown at them, and I say they are to-day just as loyal as they have been in the past, perhaps more loyal than those same hon. members who are asserting so loudly their attachment to England, but who might be found wanting should the test of loyalty involve any personal sacrifice of their own.
I do not purpose replying to those attacks of the leader of the opposition and the apostles of extreme imperialism. I will merely point them out to my fellow citizens of the province of Quebec as the best answer to the arguments of the Nationalists.	,
. In fact, should the pretensions of the leader of the opposition and of his follow^ ers on this question prove to be well founded, the position taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and his allies, is quite untenable.	,	,	,
The Prime Minister cannot be found guilty of the crime of treason to British interests, and be convicted at the same time on the charge of disloyalty to his [DOT]country. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Prime Minister is guilty of neither of these two accusations, both of which have been inspired by extreme party feeling, or personal jealousy, and which every one by whom they have been proffered knows to be false and unmerited. This cannot be otherwise, when to-day, all over the empire, there is only one voice to proclaim that the noble personality, as well as the whole career of the leader of the House, offer the most striking and conspicuous example of what loyalty, devotion and patriotism combined with eloquence, statesmanship and integrity, have ever done for the building up of Canada and the maintenance of British institutions. Well can we recall, in this connection, the words of the French fable writer, Lafontaine:
Le dieu poursuivant sa earriere,
Repand ses torrents de lumiere Sur ses obscurs blasphdrnateurs.
However, the indictment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is too formal, to be ignored, and while his attack has been eloquently refuted, I feel that I must return to it again.	.
I desire, in the first place, to register here the hon. member's significant admission that the naval defence of Canadian soil is not, in itself, a new policy. I will quote his own words:	__
The Bill in itself, outside of section 18, does
not present to my mind any very striking feature; it is the extension of legislation, if 1 may use such an expression of legislation, which we had in a diminished form upon our statutes ever since the mother	ca|, 1
us to assume our proper share of the burden of defence. Therefore I think that one may say, with the exception I have just pointed out, this legislation is not in any way extraordinary.
While putting on record this statement of the hon. gentleman, I cannot help con" trasting it with the statements which are made to-day in Quebec by the Nationalist allies of the hon. member who says that this naval defence policy, even applied to Canadian territory, is altogether a new one and should never have been originated without consulting the electorate upon this point. I shall not dwell on this difference of opinion between them, because after all it is of no- importance in the settlement of this question.	__


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend approve of the decisions of the Colonial Defence Conference of 1909 to which our delegates adhered? Does he approve of these conclusions?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I approve entirely the position taken by onr Canadian delegates in London.
The hon. member, then, does not fand it strange that one should be busy organizing, from a naval standpoint, the protection of Canadian territory. But he is opposed to our lifting a finger for the defence of the mother country-that step-mother, to whom we owe nothing whom we can do without, who, moreover, sacrificed our interests on all occasions and who persists, despite all that to drag us into the vortex of militarism. Our consent to help Great Britain, despite her unworthiness, seems to be the new policy which that honourable gentleman finds in clause 18, which reads as follows:
In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal -of Bis Majesty, for general service in the Royal Navy, the naval service or any pant thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
It is loudly asserted that this clause is not permissive, hut imperative. I presume, that, when the Bill reaches the committee stage, we shall have ample opportunity to debate that point. Then, I suppose, we shall have the interesting spectacle of learned jurists, on the other side of the House, arguing one way or the other, sonae claiming that, unfortunately for England, that clause is too permissive, and some complaining that, unfortunately for Canada, it is too imperative. But I shall say

to the honourable member for Jacques Cartier, were Great Britain as unworthy as he seems to think her, we should not bargain with her, when called upon to use the discretionary power embodied in clause 18, especially when it is considered that Canadian as well as British interests are at stake.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend think the clause imperative or permissive?


Mr. GRAHAM.: Which wing do you belong to?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: 1 belong to no wing, I be long to the Liberal party which is united *i thinking and stating that the clause is permissive. It is not now a time for recrimination, nor to dig up our history to find causes of complaint against the mother country. ' Let the dead past bury its dead as Longfellow puts it, and let us draw inspiration from the needs of the present and the requirements of the future. It is for us to know if, as long as Canada remains,, is satisfied to remain part of the British empire, we should not feel interest in the maintenance of her power and prestige in the world.
As I said before, Great Britain's foreign policy is entirely pacific. Not only does she not seek quarrel for herself with any other nation, not even Germany, but all her diplomacy tends to preserve the peace of Europe, and it has been for this purpose that she has formed new alliances and friendships. And if I am asked for my reasons in believing in England's peaceful policy, I would say that apart from the anti-militarist ideas of the labouring classes to-day well represented in parliament, England has every interest in maintaining the statu quo, the disturbance of which must be of necessity detrimental to her. It is generally said that in Europe to-day there is only one power interested in a change, and that is Germany, which nation would not be adverse to an increase of her colonial possession and of her means of access to the sea. Hence it is that her ambitious and disturbing diplomacy meddles on all occasions with European affairs as was the case in Morocco and is a veritable menace to the peace of Europe. Great Britain, by her position, is the best qualified of all the powers to play the part of peacemaker, and her intervention in this way constantly expose her to attacks from countries less desirous than she is for peace. For my part, I have no belief in the German scare, at least for a time to come, for Germany, despite her projects for expansion, will never start a struggle until sure of success, as was the case of the Franco-Prussian war. But we may rely that the day of that struggle will be all the further away, according as England takes a more * determined stand


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: and organizes more completely her defence. But Great Britain is not only a country for peace, but she is essentially, as she has always been, the land of liberty and the refuge for the oppressed of all nations. In this regard, I feel indignant that, in Canada, there may be found at present, men who are heartless enough to disparage the flag that protects that justice and that security which were denied them in their own country. I have, therefore, confidence that in the interests of humanity and of civilization, Great Bri-| tain will retain her power and prestige. But if it were otherwise, and war were to come hurridly, just imagine the consequences to Canada of England's loss of maritime power. If the dream of certain nations of locking up John Bull in his island and breaking his colonial empire, were realized, the end of our statu quo in Canada would come, and with it the premature option of selecting between independence and annexation, with all the inconveniences and obligations that either case would impose. Therefore Canada's interest demands that we assist in maintaining British supremacy on the seas, as long as that help would not menace our own liberty of action, or the autonomy of our country.
Our opponents are mistaken if they think this a new policy. I have shown that in 1868 the Canadian government, according to the declarations reiterated by her ministers in England and in Canada, by her Militia Bill, had placed our land and sea militia entirely at the disposal of the Sovereign, independent of the Canadian parliament, to be mobilized in Canada or elsewhere without any restriction as to the extent or duration of the service. V^e can see that there is a distance between this absolute abandonment of our system of defence and a conditional co-operation, subject to the sanction of parliament, as is provided for in clause 19 that reads thus:
Whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any part thereof on active service, as provided in the preceding section, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall issue for a meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
But it is claimed that this guarantee of parliamentary sanction is purely illusory, because in the first place when the repre-. sentatives of the nation are called together, the vessels will be gone and possibly destroyed in some battle.
Firstly, I submit, that in a like case the Governor in Council should only act with a knowledge of the need and under the pres-

sure of public opinion, as was the case in the instance of the Boer war. We cannot conceive any government being sufficiently careless of public interest and of its own existence, to order the sending out of the Canadian fleet in defence of a manifestly unjust cause or one repugnant to the people Thus the sanction of parliament would be quite natural and none could complain about it. But were the order in council to be rejected by the legislators, it would be too late to prevent the irreparable, only in the case of _a naval engagement taking place near our shores, to defend our coasts or seaports. Then it would be unfair to reproach the ministry with having had more foresight than parliament itself, and with having in time placed the safest shield between the enemy and our territory.
It is urged that no dependence can be naval fleet the government is actuated by parliament ruled by an ignorant and servile majority. This pretention is a. miserable calumny that hits not only the members of parliament referred to, but also the electorate of Canada. To judge so harshly of our national representatives one must have a poor idea of the political sense and intelligence of a people incompetent to make better selections; and I am confident that public opinion will reject such a vile accusation. On the other hand if parliamentary sanction be really effective, it Canada is free to dispose of her fleet as she deems proper, how can our country be fatally bound up in the foreign policy of the empire, or engulfed in the vortex of militarism? Logical minds could scarcely
conceive it.	,,	.,
Had I the time, or were it worth the time, I would take up the criticisms of the_ Nationalist faction regarding the type ot vessels to be constructed. In reply to the statement that the sole purpose of the navy is to be used in the wars of empire, I would refer to the opinion of the leader _ol the opposition. He said ' That the ministerial programme extricates itself from the exigencies of the British admiralty, and that the Canadian vessels, will have no utility other than for the protection of our coast's and our fisheries.'
I do not purpose to add any contribution to the controversy which has arisen over the class of vessels which will be constructed under the government policy. It is admitted, on all sides, that the only difference between the programme adopted by the government and the one at first suggested by the admiralty, and insisted upon by some of the hon. gentlemen opposite,_ is the building of a Dreadnought which would, according to their contention, complete the fleet unit, which they consider so desirable. In this connection, I wish simply to Temind this House that the Dreadnought type is one of a transitory nature,
which may be obsolete in a few years from now, when the construction of the other vessels provided for in the ministerial programme will be completed, while the class of ships adopted by the government is one of a permanent character calculated to make our fleet capable to be utilized at any time in the future, both for the defence of our coasts or our seaports, and as a part of the British fleet. The mere fact that our programme of construction has been adhered to by the British admiralty ought to silence the opposition of those of our friends opposite who seem to be anxious to be more loyal than the King himself. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the more I look at the naval policy of the government as a matter of principle, or in its application, I am forced to the conclusion that it is wise in every respect, and ought to commend itself to the Canadian people.
I will, therefore, vote for the Bill for the following reasons:	;
1st. Because it is based on Canada's tra- ' ditional policy of providing for her own de-f 6UC6.
2nd. Because the establishment of a Canadian naval service is 'but the opportune crowning, foreseen by the fathers of confederation, of our system of national defence.
3rd. Because in the establishment of that naval fleet the government is actuated by those principles of autonomy that have ever guided our national life.
4th. Because the autonomy of our country is sufficiently guaranteed by clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill.	,
5th. Because the mobilizing, under sanction of parliament and for the benefit of the empire, of our Canadian navy is not in-cbmpatible with Canada's autonomy, but is merely the execution of a duty of assistance always recognized and fulfilled by our country.
6th. Because the maintaining of Ureat Britain's maritime power is one of the best safe-guards of our development and security.	.	,
7th.. Because Canada's independence, or annexation to the United States, advocated as a possible alternative, to maintain the status quo as regards naval defence, instead of lessening, would considerably increase the obligations and sacrifices, thereby sought to be avoided.
I will vote against the Borden amendment-
1st. Because that amendment is the negation of all the principles of responsible government, especially that which is most dear to the English people, ' No taxation without representation.'
2nd. Because the gift of 25 millions, or the sending of the Dreadnoughts to England. is only a temporary expedient and a costly one that in no way solves definitely


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: Before I take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, might I ask a favour of the hon. Finance Minister who, I presume, is leading the House to-night? During this debate the House has extended to several hon. members the courtesy of adjourning at an early hour, about half past ten, and invariably to members on the Liberal side. Is

the hon. gentleman prepared to grant that courtesy to-night on this side?


William Stevens Fielding: I think several instances have occurred in which the House adjourned at the request of hon. members at an earlier hour than it otherwise would have. There ought not to be any discrimination in that respect in favour of either side, but if we are to get to the end of this debate, within reasonable delay, we should hardly adjourn at so early an hour.
I should prefer that the House should sit a little later, but I quite agree that thebe ought to be no discrimination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) adjourned the debate last night at about twenty minutes to eleven, and some nights previous the Minister of Militia adjourned it at quite an early hour. Once or twice in addition, I think, the request to adjourn came from that side of the House and was acceded to.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no objection that the hon. gentleman should speak for a while and then adjourn the debate.


John Wesley Edwards: I have listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet), and I cannot say that it differed very materially from many we have heard on that side, except possibly that it was a little more academic than some of them. His argument, however, was _ on pretty much the same lines and inspired with very much the same laudation of the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister. I do not propose to take up the different points which the hon. gentleman made in his address ad seriatim, but I shall, in the course of my remarks, Tefer to them from time to time.
I feel that I am under a threefold obligation to take part in this debate, however imperfectly I may discharge that duty. I am under an obligation to the county of Frontenac, which I have the honour to represent, I am under an obligation to the Dominion of Canada, whose destiny is in the hands of this parliament; and also to His Gracious Majesty Edward VII, my King, and the right hon. gentleman's suzerain. This question is, in my opinion, too great a question to be viewed from a party or partisan standpoint alone. It is imperial and international in its scope and bearing, and any attempt to settle it as a purely Canadian business proposition must end in more or less failure. We are dealing with a matter pregnant with responsibility for every member of this House, a matter of the greatest importance to the future. of Canada, England, and the British empire. I regret, and I believe that my regret is shared by every member of this House and by the majority of the people of Canada, that
the Prime Minister should have seen fit to start this debate along partisan lines. And not only that, but it is, in my opinion, more regrettable still that he should have seen fit to entirely ignore the spirit and intention of the resolution which was unanimously passed by this House last March. Sir, I feel that it is my duty to protest, and protest strongly, against the adoption of the policy proposed by the right hon. gentleman to this House, because I feel that if that policy is carried into effect, it will not only retard the development of this young country, but it will shackle the people of Canada like bond-slaves for generations to come. Now, let us start at the beginning of this matter-and I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) last night that the beginning of this matter was really the resolution introduced by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) last March, a resolution which referred solely to Canada's assuming a proper share of the responsibilities and financial burdens incident to the protection of her coast line and seaports. On that occasion, the Prime Minister expressed his surprise that any person in this House should think for a moment that Canada had been remiss in her duty in that regard. And what Teasons did the right hon. gentleman give? He said; Canada has no quarrel with any one; Canada does not desire extension of her territory; Canada occupies an isolated position and has only one neighbour, with whom she has been at peace for nearly a hundred years. These were the reasons advanced by the right hon. Prime Minister last session. I would ask: If these reasons applied then, if Canada had done and was still doing all that she ought to do in regard to the protection of her coast line and seaports, what ha3 happened since to make it necessary to introduce this policy, involving an expenditure of from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 during the next four or five years and untold millions in years to come, without giving the people of Canada an opportunity to express their opinion on the matter? Has Canada any quarrel at the present time, real or apprehended? Has Canada's position changed? Does Canada now desire territorial expension? Are Canada's relations with the United States less cordial than they were? Last March, the hon. member for North Toronto, near the conclusion of his address, told the Prime Minister that, if the government saw fit to meet the emergency by contributing Dreadnoughts, or money, they would receive the support of the opposition. There was no attempt on the part of the hon. member for North Toronto on that occasion, by that suggestion, to create a political issue; but there was a very evident desire on his part to avoid anything like a politi-

cal issue, and to lift this matter above the plane of party polities, and have it considered on broad and statesmanlike lines. However, that did not seem to appeal to the Prime Minister at that time, and he himself introduced a resolution which was very different from the resolution finally adopted unanimously by this House. Let me call your attention to one or two points in that resolution introduced by the Prime Minister. Take the second clause:	It declared against the payment
of any stated contribution. The leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden) criticised it and said:
It tells Great Britain and the world whit we are not prepared to do when it seems to me that this is an occasion when we should declare to all men what we are prepared to do.
He said further:
It seems to me that this is a little inconsistent with the last paragraph of the resolution. The day might come	when the only
thing that we could do in the absence of preparation in this country would be to make some kind of contribution.
Well, Sir, the clause introduced by the Prime Minister wa3 changed to read 'regular and periodical contributions'. Now, I submit to the judgment of this House and to any hon. member who is disposed to look at this matter fairly, that the Prime Minister, when he agreed to that change in that clause, thereby distinctly and explicitly agreed to the principle of making a contribution. And yet, his supporters at the present time denounce the principle of making a contribution as endangering our autonomy. Another paragraph of the resolution introduced by the right hon. gentleman paraded the fact that Canada had relieved the British tax-payer by taking over Halifax and Esquimalt. That clause was struck out also on the suggestion of the leader of the opposition as being trifling and undignified, especially trifling and undignified in view of the magnanimity displayed by the first Lord of the Admiralty, who declared that whether Canada contributed or did not contribute anything to the support of the British navy, England would deem it her duty to spend her last dollar and put forward her last man in defending every portion of the empire including Canada. Well, Sir, that portion of the resolution introduced toy the Prime Minister was struck out, as I have said, on the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. In paragraph 4 of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition asked for the insertion of some word which would indicate our intention to act promptly. He pointed out to the House that the Prime Minister at the imperial conference in 1902, had stated that Canada intended


John Wesley Edwards: to do something along naval lines at an early day, and he called attention to the fact that seven years had passed without any move being made to implement that promise. On _ the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, the word 'speedy' was introduced into that clause, ahead of the word 'organization'. The premier thereby again, I contend, tacitly admitted an emergency by agreeing to the necessity for haste. Well, Sir, the resolution as finally adopted by this House did not contain very much in common with the resolution proposed by the Prime Miniseter so far as vital principles were concerned. But that did not prevent, and has not prevented, the right hon. gentleman from assuming the full credit for having introduced the resolution which was more the resolution of the leader of the opposition than it was that of the leader of the government.
Now, I propose for a few minutes to consider the resolution of last March. The first clause of that resolution reads as follows:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that clause is not con troversial, and I think it may be taken as representing the opinion of the vast majority of the people of Canada. The second clause of the resolution reads:
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 for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
Now, Sir, on this side of the House we arc just as strongly against regular and periodical contributions as we were last March, and for the same reason, I presume, that hon. gentlemen opposite are against regular and periodical contributions. We regard regular and periodical contributions as partaking more of the nature of tribute or taxation than of voluntary gifts, and that is the reason, I believe, that inspired the introduction of those words by the premier and the leader of the opposition. But that clause is not merely a negative clause. That clause states two things: In the first place, that this House was against the principle of regular and periodical contributions, and moreover, and just as positively, that this House was not prepared last March to say that it would not under any circumstances make any contribution to the mother country. I contend that the use of these words ' regular and periodical ' imply clearly that this House was prepared to make a contribu-
406b

tion to the imperial navy in case of necessity. Next, the third clause says:
This 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.
Does that clause say anything about a Canadian navy built in Canadian shipyards? Does it suggest anything about a naval college? I contend that I have just as much right to take the view that a naval service means training ships on which we could train Canadians who would subsequently take their place on battleships, if you like, built in Great Britain, as another lion, gentleman has to take the view that naval service must mean, and can only mean, the building of Canadian war vessels in Canadian shipyards. There is nothing definite about the nature of the naval service. But while that clause is not definite, as to what our naval service shall be, it is very definite in other respects. That clause does call definitely for a speedy organization. Is that condition met by this Bill? According to the admission of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia and Defence, this Bill will put the date of this service at least five years in the future. It also calls for cooperation. Is that possible under this Bill? I contend it is not possible. It also calls for close relation to the imperial navy. Is that possible under the Bill proposed by the government, or is it intended^ by ^the Bill? The government policy, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more nor less than a gross violation of the principles laid down in the resolution of last March. Is it not the rankest hypocrisy to call for a speedy organization of a naval service and while expressing our full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce and safety of the empire, and peace of the world, and yet permit the commerce of the empire and the world's peace to rest on the unaided sea-power of Great Britain, while we waste millions of money and years of time in building that which will be of no use whatever to protect our commerce or t-o ensure the peace of the world? Now there is one other clause in that resolution to which I call attention, the fourth clause:
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.
What was the purpose and meaning of that clause, if not a plain and unequivocal intimation to the world that Canada was ready to back up the motherland in her hour of need? No mention of the consent of parliament there; no talk of the Governor in Council in that; no appeal to visionary ghosts of autonomy or of taxation without representation; no treacherous use of the word ' may.' Sir, that clause, if re-written in accordance with the policy of this government, should read:	,
The House expresses its. firm conviction that whenever the need arises, the government of Canada will be' found still looking to Great Britain for protection, and working overtime to provide a new and promising field of graft for the party heelers by building a useless tin pot fleet, and while the men of England, Ireland and Scotland and Wales and the other over-seas dominions are fighting to retain Britain's naval supremacy, this government will be found ready and willing to give to the imperial authorities tangible evidence of its separatist tendencies, to dismember the empire and besmirch its honour by calling parliament together to decide whether its borrowed admiral will take our fleet of tubs to Great Britain to be protected by a New Zealand Dreadnought, or engage it in codfishing off the banks of Newfoundland.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that the suggestion of the Minister of Finance was a very proper one, and as I have gone a little beyond the hour he mentioned, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the debate go on to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 23, 1910.