1910-11-29

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 17) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster).
Bill (No. 18) respecting the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster).
Bill (No. 19) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada. -Mr. Cash.

Bill (No. 20) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. Germain; and
Bill (No. 21) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE (North Ontario) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 16) to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said:	In many constituencies the deputy
returning officers have been in the habit, at the close of the poll, of allowing the public to be present while the ballots are being *counted. The object of this amendment is to compel the deputy returning officer to exclude the public while the ballots are being counted. It imposes a penalty upon him for his refusal to do so. It also imposes a penalty upon any person who refuses to retire from the polling booth at the request of the returning officer while the ballots are being counted.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That the name of Mr. Gilbert be added to the following committees:-Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Public Accounts and Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General, which Mr. Speaker read, as follows :
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons an approved minute of council appointing the Honourable William Stevens Fielding, Minister of Finance, the Honourable Louis Phillipe Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Minister of Naval Service, the Honourable William Paterson, Minister of Customs, and the Honourable William Pugsley, Minister of Public Works, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of the 11th chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, intituled, ' An Act respecting the House of Conn mons.'

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. McGiverin: for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; the proposed amendment of Mr. Monk thereto, and Mr. Borden's proposed amendment to the amendment.
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, about eighteen years ago, when I had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I took the liberty of suggesting that that was a proper time for parliament to pause for a moment and take stock nationally of our position. I think to-day it is exceedingly appropriate, in view of all that has taken place in the last few years, for parliament to pause and take stock again of our national position. I feel justified in saying that a wonderful change has come over the mode of government in this country in the last few years. If I might be allowed for a moment to refer to the circumstances under which the speech from the Throne was delivered, it would perhaps illustrate as well as anything else the marvellous change that has taken place in our system of procedure. Originally, as we all know when parliament was summoned the King addressed the representatives of the people in a speech supposed to be his, but written practically by one of his chief officers, generally his Lord Chancellor. Subsequently the procedure was changed, so that now it is, as laid down in Todd, ' according to modern constitutional practice, the first duty of ministers in relation to parliament to prepare the speech intended to be delivered by or on behalf of the sovereign at the commencement and at the close of every session.' The speech so to be prepared, it is laid down, ' should include a statement of the most material circumstances of public interest which have occurred since parliament separated, and should include in general terms the principal measures which it is the intention of the ministers to bring for the consideration of parliament. We thus see a great change in procedure, the speech from the Throne being now the utterances of the ministers, for which they are responsible. Perhaps the best illustration that can be given of this change occurred in 1830, when Daniel O'Connell described the speech from the Throne as ' a bloody and brutal one,' and yet it was held that in so describing it he had not exceeded his privileges as a member of parliament. I sincerely hope that nothing I say to-day shall in any way approach the line which was held proper in the case of Daniel O'Connell so long ago as 1830; but I do intend, Sir, to speak with perfect freedom of the speech which has been delivered from the Throne, inasmuch as constitutionally it is not the speech of His Excellency, but the speech of his ministers for which they are responsible.
Before taking up the speech itself, I would say that the change which has come about in the system of government in this country is so pronounced as to be beyond all possibility of question. There was a time when the people of the country looked to

parliament to preserve the liberties of the people and to protect them in the exercise of their just rights. We have illustrations in English history that when monarchs wished to pass most despotic measures, they were wise enough to pass them by means of their parliament so that the representatives of the people might be responsible, and not the monarch himself, and yet it was the monarch's will which was crystal-ized into legislation passed by an obedient parliament. In view of what has taken place within these walls in the last few years, there is no unprejudiced observer who would be prepared to doubt that to-day we have an uncrowned king in Canada who is as despotic and autocratic as any monarch that rules in any land to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who is it?


William Barton Northrup: My right hon. friend modestly inquires who is it and he is perhaps justified in doing so since he is the one man in all Canada who is perfectly unaware to whom I refer. We had a striking illustration in the House a session or two ago of the fact I mention, when a motion was made for the production of some papers. That motion was greeted with shouts of derision and cries of ' lost' from the other side, but when one small voice was raised from the seat occupied bv the right hon. gentle man, uttering the word ' carried,' every hon. gentleman on that side became mute at once and the resolution was allowed to pass without further challenge. We have had instance after instance of that kind in the present parliament and the speech from the Throne before us carries out the line of policy I have indicated, introduced by the right hon. gentleman and apparently to be continued, namely that the people are not to be consulted about the matters in which they are interested and in respect of which they must foot the bill. The right hon. gentleman and his ministers decide during recess what is to be done and rely with absolute confidence on the majority behind them endorsing whatever their views may be, as illustrated in the case to which I referred a moment ago. When once the ruler has spoken, the measure, he calls on his followers to accept at once, automatically passes into legislation.
In this speech from the Throne, I notice that th" first clause has reference to His Excellency the Governor General. It may be somewhat presumptuous on my part to add a word to what has been so well said by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) regarding the present occupant of that high office, but lest perhaps some hypercritical mind might think that my hon. friend was speaking merely officially and not from the heart, Mr. NORTHRUP.
I venture to say that in what he said, he gave but expression to the public sentiment of the country. I believe that we all understand that whatever other factors there may be that justify the existence of that high office and call for its continuance there are two that overshadow all others. One is that there should be a reserve power somewhere, that if necessary could be called upon. The very existence of which is the best guarantee that it will not be called upon. We all know that it has been called upon and that it is capable of being called upon if necessary. Another overshadowing factor is that by his occupancy of that office he can do much to strengthen the ties strong as steel and light as air that bind us to the mother land. And I venture to say that when His Excellency leaves this country it will be said from one end of the country to the other that no previous occupant of the office has ever proved a more sincere, painstaking and successful administrator.
The next reference which I see in the speech from the Throne is to the lamented death of our late King. It would be presumptuous and superfluous on my part to attempt to add anything to the beautiful eulogy pronounced in this House a few days ago by the right hon. gentleman. I may only say that if during the life time of our late Sovereign, it had not fallen to the lot of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wil-fried Laurier) to deprive him of one of his prerogatives, the control of the navy in every portion of his Dominions, we might better appreciate the sincerity of his eulogy.
The next paragraph the speech refers to is trade and commerce, and I notice an extraordinary clause in it indeed. The government calls on the people of the country to notice and be grateful for an extraordinary phenomenon, namely, that the total volume of imports and exports far exceeds all previous records. Now it may seem a small matter to cavil at a statement such as that in the speech from the Throne, but I venture to submit that there is a vast deal implied in the fact that the government of the day should call upon the people of the country for congratulation on the ground simply and solely of the fact that our imports and exports have increased. If the right hon. gentleman is sincere, I should be only too happy to point out to him a way in which he can secure a still further increase in our imports. If he will strike off the duty on coal and the bounties and duties on iron, there will no doubt follow a tremendous increase in our imports.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Barton Northrup: True, you would close down the Nova Scotia collieries; true, you would put an end to the operation of the

Nova Scotia iron mines; true, many Nova Scotians, now happy and contented, would be deprived of the means of existence and would be probably driven to another land, but there is not the slightest doubt that our imports would be increased, and that is a subject upon which we are called upon to congratulate the government. Let me point out an object lesson in this connection. In the year 1896, we had a woollen industry comparatively prosperous. The government interfered and lowered the duty on wool, and with what result? Whereas in 1896, we had imports of wool to the extent of $9,000,000, last year some $22,000,000 of wool and woollen manufactures were imported. Our exports of these goods, it is true, after 14 prosperous years, fell off from $900,000 to $600,000.' True a mill in Sherbrooke, another in Carleton Place, a mill in Montreal, and two mills in Almonte, and numerous others were obliged to close their doors; true many of the mills, which were able to continue running, have been running on shorter time and paying lower wages, but the imports of this country in wool have grown from $9,000,000 to $22,000,000. Therefore, I congratulate the right hon. gentleman, if it is his desire merely to have an increase of imports.
But we have also had an increase of exports, and here too, I might suggest a simple mode by which they would be still further increased. Last year we witnessed the spectacle of a minister of the Crown- the Minister of Finance-who I regret, is not able to be with us-spending a nightly vigil in endeavouring to secure the passing of a Bill to enable a private company to dam the St. Lawrence. Let the government take up that Bill again, let them dam the St, Lawrence. True, they would hamper navigation; true, it would spoil its scenic charms; true, the people of this country might be losers in many ways, but the export of electrical energy would enable us to still further increase the vplume of our exports, of which - the government is so proud. Perhaps no better illustration can be found than the little country of Peru where the people at one time were contented, prosperous and happy, although they had no exports at all. But one day the Spaniards came and at once the exports began to, grow at a marvellous rate. True, the people ceased to be prosperous and contented; true, they were dying like flies, but the Exports of ihat country increased, and that apparently is the beau ideal of this government. That, according to their idea, is the only proper way of carrying on the financial affairs of this country. When I find a government entrusted with our fiscal poliey under such conditions as are alluded to in another part of the address- when I find they have such an extraordinary conception of the meaning of experts and
imports-and I grant that an increase in the volume of imports and exports may be a great boon to the country, but I think I have also shown it might not be-when
I	find the government taking credit for this increase, I think we are entitled to ask to what is it due.
Perhaps it might not be out of place, since speaker after speaker has discussed the fiscal policy which has led to this marvellous growth of imports and exports, and since the Prime Minister himself has been good enough to refer to the national policy as being as dead as an Egyptian mummy, and to call on the people of this country to offer up a humble thanksgiving for the Fielding poliey-perhaps it would not be out of place to call the attention of the country to a few stubborn facts, and I would ask members on the other side of the House to frankly and fairly face the facts taken from the tariff of this country. We had a tariff in 1897 when this government came into power. That was _ the national policy which the Prime Minister tells us has been so deeply interred. A new tariff, they said, was introduced. The two tariffs are in the statute-books, and can be put side by side, and he who runs may read. Let me call attention to a few of the ' marvellous changes ' made by the present government in the old national policy which entitles them to claim so much credit for any increase of prosperity that the country now enjoys.
Under the old tariff the first group of items was ales, beers, wines and liquors-10 items. These were let severely alone, save that one was changed-and increased.
Agriculture, animals and dairy products; 93 items under the tariff of 1894. Of these, 93 items, 81 were left unchanged, 5 were decreased and 6 increased. One was changed from specific to ad valorem.
Fish and products of the fisheries, 19 items under the tariff of 1894. The duties on these 19 items were all heavy, and all were left unchanged under the tariff of 1897.
Books and papers; 18 items, 12 left unchanged.
Chemicals and drugs; 14 items; 9 unchanged, 4 increased, one lowered.
Opium; 3 items; all unchanged.
Colours, paints, oils-, varnishes; 21 items; 14 unchanged, 3 increased and 4 decreased.
Leather, rubber and manufactures thereof;
II	items; 8 unchanged and 3 increased.
Jewellery and materials therefor; 8 items;
6 changed, one increased and one decreased.
Textiles, furs, etc.; 51 items; 22 unchanged, 17 increased, 6 decreased and 6 readjusted as between specific and ad valorem.
Sundries; 26 items; 21 unchanged, 3 decreased, one increased, one new.
Sugar, syrups and molasses; 7 items; one unchanged, 6 increased.
Excluding the items of iron and iron


William Barton Northrup: Only by hon. gentlemen opposite was that suggestion made. Whether they approve or not of our attitude in being willing to assist the mother land in what we believed to be a time of crisis, why will they misrepresent that position which even if mistaken is not one to be ashamed of, and say because we are willing once, or again if necessary, if a similar crisis arise, to assist the mother land we therefore had so little regard for the autonomy of Canada that we were prepared to lay down the principle that year by year we must contribute to the support of a navy over which we have no control? We on this side can appeal to the people to-day, we can say that we had a certain policy last year and this government hud a certain policy. The Minister of Customs last night said tauntingly to this side of the House that we had not done anything and could not do anything and would not do anything, but if we had succeeded it would have cost more than the course the government has adopted. If the opposition had had its way last year, if we had given two Dreadnoughts to the assistance of the mother land, her navy would have been just so much stronger and we believe rightly or wrongly that if all the various parts of this glorious empire, Canada,' Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, would unite in laying down the principle that when a crisis comes we will all be prepared to assist the mother country to the full extent of our resources, we believe that the greatest guarantee of peace that could be imagined would be secured.
But the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his government took their course, they spent: we do not know how much, but certainly some millions of money on ships which are either good or bad, good warships or old junk fit to be sent to the scrap heap. If they are good ships the mother land has been weakened by their loss; if they are old junk, they should be sent to the scrap heap, Canada has not been consulted in their purchase and millions of money have been spent on them. If the views of the opposition had prevailed, if Canada had given two Dreadnoughts, or $25,000,000, what would that have cost us? At 3 per cent it would be $750,000; at 4 per cent, $1,000,000 a year. That would be all we would ever have had to pay for an assistance that would have been assistance to the mother land, whereas to-day we, by the policy of this government, unless the



right hon. gentleman will leave it to the people, are committed to an initial expenditure of millions of dollars in constructing and purchasing ships and millions afterwards to keep the navy in commission. If we would only stop for a moment and lay aside the high-falluting ideas that sometimes take so well with an audience of the character described by the hon. gentleman from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in Drummond and Arthabaska, where he said he could account for the verdict only by their lack of knowledge which is a synonym for ignorance, something which we would not say of the electors in any county in Canada-and study the real position, I venture to say that the people of Canada would oppose absolutely the policy inaugurated by this government. We are told that this navy is for the defence of Canada and Canadian commerce. Against whom? It must be defence against somebody. It cannot be against Germany, or the United States, or Japan, it could not be a defence against any people under heaven except the Esquimaux, and I venture to think we could meet them in a cheaper and more effective way if they came to our shores.
But the Minister of Marine with his usual versatility proceeded to show the necessity of a navy. One does not like to say anything disrespectful of an hon. gentleman, particularly in his absence, but when the Minister of Marine, the gentleman selected by the government as the one to manage and control this navy, speaks on the floor of this Chamber as the official head of the navy, he must have been prepared to enlighten his less informed colleagues on the subject. He had been chosen as the naval officer who would make the navy a success. He explained that the reason we required a navy was on account of the pirates in the Gulf of Mexico, and in order to prove to this House-and I am bound to say he apparently proved it to the entire satisfaction of hon. gentlemen opposite, judging from their applause-in order to prove the terrific risks this country runs from the pirates in the Gulf of Mexico, he read the following dispatch:
Pirates Murder Crew of 17 Men.
Manila, September 25.

There may be some gentlemen on this side of the House who through lack of knowledge may not be aware that Manila is in the Gulf of Mexico, but evidently it is, because the Minister of Marine has said so in justifying an expenditure of millions of dollars to protect the people of Canada, the poor shivering people of Regina, and Calgary and Winnipeg, from these pirates in the Gulf of Mexico, concerning whom this despatch is sent from Manila.


William Barton Northrup: Official despatches from southern ports say it is rumoured that the revenue cutter ' Sora ' has been captured by Moro pirates

Moro is another place in the Gulf of Mexico.
-and the crew murdered. The authorities have been unable to secure confirmation of the rumour, although despatches have been sent to all adjacent points.
The ' Sora ' was used as a patrol boat against the Moro pirates of the southern archipelago in the general campaign against smuggling inaugurated by the insurgents a short time ago.
It was commanded by Captain P. A. Mc-Gorty, and carried a crew of It, all Philippines.
-gathered from the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, of course.
The cutter left Salabo, 20 miles south of Palana, carrying J. L. Peary, collector of the port, who was bound to Sandakan in British North Borneo, to purchase supplies. Nothing has been heard of the vessel since.
It is only fair to the Minister of Marine to say that the argument he advanced to this House to justify the expenditure of millions of dollars on a Canadian navy in order to protect the trembling, shivering, cowardly Canadians and their commerce, against the Philippino pirates in the Gulf of Mexico is as sound logical reasoning as any argument presented by hon. gentlemen opposite, to this House.
Now, hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes blame us because we have not that confidence in them and their administration that they think intelligent people should have. What are the people of this country to think, Sir, when before this august body, supposed to be composed of representatives of the people, supposed to come here and to acquire the best information that will guide us and enable us to legislate honestly, intelligently and in the best interests of those who sent us here-what, I say, are they to think, when the best information we can get to justify this enormous expenditure and this departure from all constitutional usage is such language-I will not use the word that I intended to use, even although I think that under the circumstances of the case I would be justified-as was used in this House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries? In a subsequent part of his speech he returned to the discussion of these piracies in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby showing that the description of the Gulf of Mexico was not merely a slip of the tongue.
The next clause I see in the address is one referring to the Hague tribunal. I am sure that every hon. member of this House must rejoice at the success of the proceedings of the Hague tribunal, and must congratulate the government, the people of this country, the United States and the empire

that it is possible that international difficulties can be settled in such a way as they were there settled. But, does it not strike the right hon. gentleman that when two great nations of the world, such as Great Britain and the United States, who, perhaps, have had about as much difficulty in avoiding complications politically as any other two nations, are beginning by international arbitration to settle Questions which otherwise might lead to war is an inopportune time to commit Canada to a navy? I do not think that any member of this House would be justified from this time forward in treating any utterance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seriously, but, surely, the right hon. leader of the government and some of his colleagues must appreciate the fact that there never was a time in the history of naval construction when so many changes were being made in the vessels as those which are going on today. There never was a time before when aerialists were seeking to conquer the air, and no one can tell what improvements in aerial navigation and naval construction may be brought about in the course of a few years. Is it possible that prudent statesmen, men legislating only for their country, without collateral considerations, would select this of all times to plunge this country into a burden of that extent?
From the information I have from various parts of the country, I have no hesitation in telling the right hon. gentleman that if he would appeal to each of the provinces of Canada and if, in constituency after constituency, the simple question were put to the people: Are you in favour of a Canadian navy or not?-the people would almost unanimously vote that they are not in favour of a Canadian navy. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I am opposed to a Canadian navy, first, because I think the time is inopportune; secondly, because I think we owe a duty to the British Empire which we are not discharging in the way the government has attempted to do it, and which we might discharge in another way. Therefore, I am opposed to a Canadian navy at the present time, but I decline to be put on record as saying that for all time to come, under all circumstances and under all conditions I would always oppose a Canadian navy. I can understand that the conditions might be such that it might be necessary, but before I would agree that it was necessary to have a Canadian navy I would insist on having a friendly conference with the various nations or colonies, call them what you like, which make up this empire. Let them sit down together and calmly deliberate as to what are the responsibilities and needs of this great empire and then, after sitting down together and elaborating some plan by which the end desired may be best accomplished, I am 13*
prepared that Canada shall do its duty, whatever the cost may be.
The next clause in the address is one referring to the National Transcontinental railway. With great joy and satisfaction and much in the way of congratulation the government informs the country that this railway has so far progressed that grain is this season finding an outlet from the west to the Great Lakes over that new highway. I have under my hand, but I shall not occupy the time in reading it unless the right hon. the leader of the government wishes me to do it, the speech made by the right hon. gentleman seven years ago, in 1903, when he trembled with anxiety lest it was then too late. Heaven forbid that it is not too late! Not an hour, not a minute, not a second is to be wasted; this road must ibe constructed from ocean to ocean ! Now, after seven years the government comes before this House and calls on the people of the country to fall down on their knees and thank heaven that this year a little grain has been delivered at the Great Lakes. It would seem, unless I have entirely forgotten what took place in 1903, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company wanted to build a railway from North Bay or somewhere along their own line west to the Pacific ocean and every hon. member on this side of the House wished to assist in building that road for the people of the Northwest. They desired at the earliest possible moment to have two lines bringing the products of the west down to the sea, and yet, when the Grand Trunk wished to build one line of road and when the members on this side of the House believed in assisting them to build this line of road the right hon. leader of the government decided that it should be a different line of road running through a different part of the country. The result is that to-day, after seven long years, the best news that the government can -bring down to the people of this country is that a little grain has been carried to the Great Lakes.
Surely, when the government make predictions, such as they made in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, such as they made in connection with the navy and such as they make from day to day on every subject, every one of which has failed of verification, it' might be expected that the government would be a little more careful to bring the people into their confidence, to bring the representatives of the people into their confidence and not come down in an autocratic way with a scheme cut and dried and declare that it must be passed by this House because one or two gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches have decided that it should be passed. Surely it is time that we should calmly deliberate upon and

discuss these questions in the good old-fashioned way when the representatives of the people are legislating for the people and do not let us have an uncrowned ruler legislating for us according to his own sweet will.
The next clause in the address has reference to the railway to Hudson hay. Here again I have exactly the same criticism to make because the government has proceeded with the construction of that road. Parliament has never been asked a word about it. No representative of this side of the House had a word to say as to whether this road is to be built or not. No one on this side of the House has the faintest idea how it is to be built, who is to build it, or, when built, who is to oper-. ate it. Yet, the government tell us that they have already built a bridge on the line of that road and that we are to have a Bill submitted to parliament this session to provide for the building of the road. There is no man in Canada, outside of the government, that will stand up and say boldly : I am in favour of the building of the Hudson Bay railway. Not even the people of the west will say that. They are all in favour of the building of the Hudson Bay railway provided it is so constructed and operated as to be in the interest of the country. But, if any Hudson Bay railway is to be built like the National Transcontinental railway, sinking hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars, the interest on which the freight carried must pay, and if the operation of that road, when built, is to be like the operation of the Intercolonial railway, a road costing this country $70,000,000 and yet run at a loss, then the people of the Northwest do not want the Hudson Bay railway. Let the right hon. gentleman bring down a scheme for a road properly, economically, reasonably and intelligently built and with proper provision for its operation and I venture to say that hon. members on this side of the House will be ready, as they are always ready to support any honest, intelligent scheme for the betterment of the conditions of the Canadian people. Then, Sir, I come to an interesting clause which I shall read :
The construction of the bridge across the St. Lawrence river at Quebec, the largest work of its kind ever undertaken, has been receiving the careful attention of my government, and the utmost care is being observed so that success may he assured. The substructure is now under contract. Tenders for the erection of the superstructure have been received from four responsible companies, and are now being considered.
It is expected that the contract will shortly be awarded and the work pushed forward to completion.


William Barton Northrup: Seven years ago the government could not wait long enough to discuss the question; time would not wait; the exigencies of the case were such that all haste must be made before the people had time to consider the matter ; but to-day we have nothing to represent the bridge in which so many millions of dollars have been sunk, except a few half constructed piers in the St. Lawrence river, a deficit of millions' of dollars gone where the woodbine twineth, and a loss of some 70 or 80 Canadian lives. Then, the right hon. gentleman comes to the trade question and he speaks about recognizing the importance of foreign markets and he says that arrangements are to be made so that our surplus products may be admitted into the markets of these countries on the most favourable terms. Well, if the right hon. gentleman, had added just two words to that sentence, I would agree with him that it might express his views; had he added the words ' to them ' so as to make it read: ' So that our surplus products may be admitted into the markets of those countries on the most favourable terms to them,' it would more nearly represent the fact. We had a treaty with France last year; it did not amount to much but the right hon. gentleman rushed it through the House. It is true that this treaty let in about a dozen other countries which gave us nothing whatever in return, and therefore I am absolutely literally correct in saying that we arranged to let our surplus products into these countries on the most satisfactory terms to them. Then we have a clause in the address which I frankly admit I do not know the meaning of. I have seen a great deal of discussion in the press, in the reform newspapers especially on the subject of reciprocity and I have heard a great deal said about it in this House. I naturally looked to the speech from the Throne expecting that there would be in it some reference to the subject of reciprocity, but from the first word to the last I challenge my right hon. friend to find one sentence, one word, or one syllable that refers to reciprocity. The nearest approach to it is this long clause winding up with the statement:
While no conclusions have been reached, and no formal proposals made, the free discussion of the subject that has taken place encourages my government to hope that at an early day, without any sacrifice of Canada's interests,

And now, what are we going to get:
-an arrangement may be made which ^ will admit many of the products of the Dominion into the United States on satisfactory terms.
Why, of course we would all hold up both hands for that. But does any one suppose for a moment that our American

friends, the shrewdest, keenest, business men in the world, came to Canada merely to discuss measures by which the products of Canada would be admitted into the United States on satisfactory terms to Canada? Did it ever enter the minds of the right hon. gentleman or his colleagues that perhaps the Americans might like some of their goods to enter Canada on satisfactory terms to them? And, when we are called on to discuss such a question as this surely we have the right to ask that when the question is reciprocity, if it is reciprocity, we should be told so. Everybody will hold up both hands for any arrangement to enable us to send our goods on satisfactory terms to us in the United States, but whether or not we shall agree to let their goods in here is another story. Perhaps I am not altogether in accord with some of my friends on my own side with regard to these reciprocity negotiations, but I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Me-Giverin) who moved the address in reply to the speech, that if the Americans wish to make us propositions it would be the height of folly on our part not to consider any propositions they may make. I think it would be foolish, I think it would be discourteous, I think the government would deserve to be reprimanded by the people of Canada, if propositions having been made by the United States for improved trade relations, the Canadian government should decline to consider them. But, admitting all that, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he does not think it fair that when the representatives of the people meet here in parliament we should be informed of what is the basis on which these negotiations shall be carried on. If the right hon. gentleman were a free trader and every one knew it we would know what to expect; if the right hon. gentleman were a protectionist and everybody knew it we would know what to expect; but if the right hon. gentleman takes the Fielding tariff (which as I have shown is practically a copy of the National Policy) and tells the people throughout the length and breadth of the land in triumph that that tariff is the fulfilment of his promise to give the people of this country free trade, is it any wonder that we on this side of the House are a little anxious as to the attitude in which he and his colleagues shall approach the American representatives when they come to treat with the people of Canada? We can remember in 1891 when the right hon. gentleman and his friends pronounced themselves in favour of a policy of unrestricted reciprocity a policy of continental free trade, a policy of commercial union. And the right hon. gentleman never having repented or recanted so far as we know, it may be that he is prepared to sit down to-day and enter into negotiations with the Americans in regard to improve trade arrangements (as they would call them) the basis being commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity or free trade. Well, I venture to tell the hon. gentleman that even very few of those men now supporting him would be prepared in this year of grace of 1910 to go as far as many members of his party went in 1891.
Then, we come to the reference to copyright, and I must confess that I am rather pleased personally at the statement that some arrangement is being made with the imperial authorities looking towards certain legislation touching copyright. I remember last year that when we were discussing the Navy Bill, the Minister of Justice-and I am very far from attempting to cast the least discredit on him as a lawyer, because he is an excellent and an admirable lawyer -but, the Minister of Justice last year when pointing out the right we had to legislate in regard to a Canadian navy, referred us to the British North America Act to show that the Dominion is given the exclusive right to legislate on that subject. I then called his attention to the fact that the word ' exclusive,' was also before the word ' copyright,' and that if his argument were sound we had the exclusive right to legislate touching copyright. And yet, the courts have held again and again, that we have not that right and that the meaning of the word ' exclusive ' was ' exclusive ' as between the Dominion and the provinces and had no reference whatever as between the Dominion and the mother land which of course had paramount power. Therefore, I feel some satisfaction when I find that the speech from the Throne intimates that by virtue of imperial legislation we are to be allowed to legislate on the subject of copyright. Then we come to the measures to be introduced and we are told that a Bill will be placed before us regarding banks and banking. Well, no thanks to the government for the Bank Act because that has to come before us this year anyway. We are also told that a Bill will be submitted respecting terminal elevators at the head of Lake Superior. Again, we would like to know what the nature of that legislation will be. It may be good or it may be bad legislation, but I venture to think that every member of this House would be in favour of certain proper legislation with regard to the terminal elevators at the head of Lake Superior. But the most remarkable part of the whole address is the promise that a Bill will be introduced with regard to the investigation and betterment of industrial and labour conditions. We have been told by the government often and often that the last word has been said in legislation on these subjects. We have had strikes it is true. We had a strike a year ago in the province of Nova Soctia and I believe there is another strike there which has been pending for a considerable time. We did not

hear of the Minister of Labour doing anything towards the settlement of these strikes, but from time to time the people of Canada were duly informed that all the nations of the world were standing fairly agape with admiration^ at the marvellous labour legislation passed by the Dominion of Canada which had for all time to come precluded the possibility of strikes. We had a strike a short time ago on the Grand Trunk railway. I do not know that the Minister of Labour was able to prevent that strike and we know that the strike went on for quite a length of time. I shall not enter into that subject just now but I may tell the Minister of Labour that later on in the session he will be given an opportunity of explaining who is wrong with regard to some of the charges made in connection with that Grand Trunk strike. This, I think Mr. Speaker, is all the information vouchsafed us in the speech from the Throne. Now, before I resume my seat I would like to refer to one or two other matters. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spoke of the way in which the Conservative government had treated the province of Manitoba in regard to her land as being a justification for the way the present Liberal government has treated the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta with regard to their lands.
I do not wish to go into a debate on this subject. I merely want to call attention to three or four facts which I do not think any hon. gentleman will gainsay. In 1870, when the Manitoba Act was introduced, the government had just purchased a vast area, extending from the province of Ontario to British Columbia. There had been a rebellion in the eastern part of that territory, and in the year 1870, with the embers of the rebellion still smouldering, parliament was called upon to form that part of that great territory into a province. There were a number of clauses in the Bill, which were discussed most exhaustively by the predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite, and yet, though I have read the debate most carefully, I have been unable to find one word in it finding fault with the reservation of those lands in those days. No better reason could be given for that reservation than was given by the Hon. David Mills when he justified the establishment of a second chamber in Manitoba on the'ground that, owing to the peculiar conditions there prevailing, it must be a long time before there would be a competent legislature in Manitoba. With a province which had not a competent legislature, the people being mainly half-breeds, with the government of the day saying that they were retaining the lands to build the national railway which the country desired so much, and with hon. gentlemen opposite, or their predecessors in those days, finding no fault with them for Mr. NORTHRTJP.
doing so, it comes with bad grace from hon. gentlemen opposite to-day to say that because the government of that day felt justified under those circumstances in keeping control of those lands, we should, in the year 1905, say that two provinces, occupied by as worthy, as loyal and as intelligent Canadians as are to be found in the Dominion of Canada, should be deprived of their soil, their minerals and their timber; and, not only so, but as if to add insult to injury, we undertake to pay them an equivalent for them. If they are entitled to their lands, minerals and timber, they should be given to them; if they are not entitled to them, they should not be paid a sum of money in lieu of what they are not entitled to. Therefore, I venture to say that there is no analogy in the two- cases. An hon. gentleman the other day spoke of the American rule, saying that the federal government controlled all the lands in the United States. That is partly true and partly untrue. What are the facts? Immediately after the revolution, when the various states were working in a disjointed way, agitators founding different governments in different states, the original states claimed that they were entitled to portions of the public lands, even away west of the Mississippi, by right of discovery or otherwise. As there threatened to be trouble between the various states over these lands, it was agreed that Congress should hold the lands for the common good of the states entering the Union. But between that time and 1830, millions of acres of these lands were made over to the_ various states for school purposes, just as we think the public lands should be handed over to the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta, to be used by the people of those states for their own benefit.
One other subject to which I desire to refer to-day is the subject of deficits, which an hon. gentleman brought up the other afternoon. We have heard a great deal about the deficits under the Conservative government and the surpluses under the government which followed. I am inclined to think that a careful study of the question would lead one to a very different conclusion. Probably the right hon. the Prime Minister and some other hon. gentlemen opposite will differ with me, but my serious conclusion, after a somewhat careful study of the figures, is that it is very doubtful if the present government have not had a very large deficit practically every year since they came into power. Let me give the figures to justify that statement. When hon. gentlemen opposite came into power there was a debt of $325,000,000. To-day the debt is $470,000,000. I quite understand that that of itself is merely a fact; it is not conclusive evidence. It is fair for the government to say: We have assets to show

for the increased debt. But we start with the one fact, which there is no gainsaying, that the debt of Canada to-day is $145,000,000 more than it was when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. For 13 years prior to that time, under the Conservative government, there was an average income of $36,000,000 a year. For 13 years of the present government, the average income has been $66,000,000. If you multiply these figures you will find that the Conservative government took out of the pockets of the people $468,000,000 during 13 years that they were in power, whereas this government, in the last 13 years, has collected from the people $856,000,000, a difference of $388,000,000. Now, that is a pretty large item. The government which had built the Canadian Pacific railway had built the Intercolonial railway, had studded our shores with lighthouses, had enlarged and improved our canals, had built the Sault canal, left power with a debt of $325,000,000, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite, at the end of thirteen years of power, have a debt of $470,000,000, an increase of $145,000,000, and despite that have taken $388,000,000 more out of the pockets of the people than their predecessors. I admit that hon. gentlemen opposite have spent some money properly. I do not for a moment pretend to say that all the money they have spent has been spent dishonestly or foolishly. But I would like to ask, what is there to-day to represent this $388,000,000, plus. $145,000,000, a total of $533,000,000, that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken out of the pockets of the people since they came into power, over and above what was collected by their predecessors?


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: The Newmarket canal.


William Barton Northrup: I could perhaps give several suggestions as to where the money has gone. One minister was so keen to build a railway to the Yukon that he treated the people with contempt by making a bargain with Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann four or five days before parliament met, and when parliament did meet, it refused to ratify the bargain. We paid out one-quarter of a million dollars for that. We have nothing to show for it. There is a quarter of a million of good Canadian money wasted through the foolish wicked bargain made by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) only four or five days before parliament met. Then we had the North Atlantic Trading Company. We do not know as much about that company as we would like. But that is not our fault. We did our best to ascertain about it, and from what we did manage to learn, in that contract some more millions of our money were wasted, not to use a harsher term.
Then we had the Quebec bridge project, on which these hon. gentlemen opposite
dissipated some $7,000,000, which are gone for all time, taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and not a scintilla to show for it. There is certainly nothing in that transaction of which any government could be proud.
Then take the Saskatchewan land deal. The government parted with 250,000 acres of land in Saskatchewan at $1 an acre. That asset has gone from us, and that land to-day is worth $12 an acre. All that profit is lost to the country but went into the pockets of the middlemen. These lands the company to which they were granted- friends of the administration-sold at $8 to $12 an acre, so that the country is out of all that profit but it has gone into the pockets of friends of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Then we had a number of homesteads set apart for the people. Let me read to you an appreciation from an organ of the government to show how these homestead lands have been administered. Here is what the Manitoba ' Free Press, ' on the 3rd March, 1906, says about this :
A dark, cold-blooded hold-up and swindle is being perpetrated.
Take now the grazing land deals, 1,371, 749 acres leased and 10 per cent sold at $1 an acre. We also had the Robbins irrigation deal, in which 95,000 acres were leased for 21 years, under an irrevocable lease, at 2 cents an acre, and 9,450 acres selected in six townships were sold at $1 an acre, and 380,000 acres at $1 an acre payable in nine years after irrigation. The country got a few thousand dollars but the middlemen pocketed over a million dollars by that deal.
The Galway horse company deal, the timber limit deals, the Blairmore townsite, are other specimen bricks of the administration of these hon. gentlemen. By these deals the country lost-I am not going to use stronger language-over a million dollars which went into the pocket of speculators. In the case of the Blairmore town-site, the government received $480 and the purchaser realized $200,000 on the transaction. It was shown to this House that the timber we parted with for a nominal consideration would stretch in a belt a mile wide from Winnipeg to the Pacific.
Then take the Indian lands in the vicin ity of Winnipeg, to which the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) called the attention of the House only last year, and the New Ontario Indian lands sold for $9,000 and resold for $101,000. I would call attention also to the hundreds of thousands of acres of coal areas of great value which were distributed among friends of the government and lost to the country.
Then there are the fishery licenses-thousands of miles of the best fisheries in Canada leased at the rate of $10 per year-

from which thousands of tons of fish are taken every year and sent to the United States to enrich the holders of these licenses.
Need I refer to the land deals at Moncton, Halifax, Truro and St. Boniface, in which the lands were bought by the government at fancy figures far in excess of their real value, so that the assets received were much less than the money paid for them.
Then we had the Falconer bookkeeping deal, in which some $100,000 in one department and $50,000 in another were wasted and nothing to show for the money.
We had further any number of small transactions and I shall not weary the House with enumerating them, including the Merwin deal, the extravagant expenditures of the steamers ' iVctor,' ' Maison-neuve,' ' Speedy,' the ' Montcalm/ the ' Champlain ' and the famous ' Arctic.' Besides the 'Strubbe files, which cost the seller $2,000 and were sold to the country for $4,500, $2,000 of which Mr. Strubbe put into his pocket and what became of the other $2,500 we cannot find out. In any event the country paid $2,500 more for these files than they were worth.
Then we had the Marine Signal Company scandal, the Ottawa Carbide Company and still worse the Canadian Fog Signal Company. It was shown before Mr. Justice Cassels that this company were manufacturing their instruments at the cost of $450 a piece and for the same instrument they were paid by the government some four or five thousand dollars each.
I would also point to the Wallberg transactions and subtarget deals. The former was allowed to run riot without any contract at all, and the latter were paid $250 dollars for wha,t cost them only $64.
Then we had a number of subcontract deals in which thousands upon thousands of dollars were wasted. Take the dredging contracts and wharfs. For instance the famous dredging contract in Quebec with Dussault and Lemieux. These parties had no dredge to do the work, so they hired the government dredge for which they paid the government 15 cents per yard and were paid by the government $1.07 per yard the government supplying boat, dredge, men, fuel and everything. We also had the Newmarket branch of the Trent Valley canal deal. No one will say that the $2,000,000 expended on this can be justified by any asset which we have got in return. Along the banks of the Trent Valley canal there are illimitable water-powers, all of which have been awarded to a few friends of the government and the country gets nothing. The country had these water-powers, the most precious of the many assets we had, but to-day they are gone where the woodbine twineth.


William Barton Northrup: - - *
Another expenditure characteristic of this administration is the renting of the Woods buildings here in Ottawa. These buildings have been rented by Mr. Woods to the government at a rental equivalent to 25 per cent on the money invested in building them. The contract for lighting these buildings was so outrageous that even the government majority on the Public Accounts Committee voted to cancel it. But what about the many years during which the contract existed and during which it was not concelled.
Then we had the Printing Bureau scandal which will come before the House on another occasion, and in which hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money were thrown away.
If these hon. gentlemen opposite, who talk about the surpluses they have had since they came into power would sit down quietly and figure out the assets which Canada had when they took office and contrast with them the assets they have to-day and then figure out the money they have taken from the people in excess of what the Conservatives took during their regime, and then add the increase of debt, they would not be quite so ready to boast of their surpluses. An attack was made on the late administration because my hon. friend from Nortfi Toronto (Mr. Foster), who was then Finance Minister, had a deficit in 1896. I remember well that in 1891-2 when hard times were oppressing the country and people found it difficult to make both ends meet-when a dollar seemed to many more than $10 to-day-the Minister of Finance, at one stroke, struck off . $4,000,000 to $5,000,000 from the sugar duties and gave the people cheaper sugar which they then badly needed. If there was a deficit that year, the money went into the pockets of the people instead of being wasted in the class of scandalous contracts and deals I have just enumerated.
I shall only say in conclusion that I have spoken in all seriousness when I urged that we should discard the new system of government introduced by the right hon. gentleman and return to the old system under which the Prime Minister who naturally and properly should have tremendous influence on his followers-would not commit them to any legislation during the recess but would give the House an opportunity of being consulted before any new policy was decided upon. It is not in consonance with the spirit of the British constitution that a prime minister and his cabinet should commit the country to any scheme during recess so that when parliament did meet, their followers would either have to endorse these schemes or turn them out of office. If this country is to progress and remain an integral part of our great empire, it is necessary that we should show ourselves worthy of our heritage.


Mr. E. VV. TOBIN (Richmond and Wolfe).: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in answer to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said:


Mr. MONK.: My right hon. friend ought to cite everybody, and quote his own speakers, who said that our Canadian navy would enable us to pound England if she deserved it.
And further on:


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my right hon. friend insists, I can tell him that it is that notary who was brought into the county, and who was the leading man in the county of Richmond. My right hon. friend knows him perfectly well. He came there and made that statement.
And further on:


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to state to my right hon. friend that the name of that notary is Begin, a well-known political worker.
And on November 22 the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) read a declaration in this House signed by Paul Emile Lamarche, a Conservative who had taken part in the meeting referred to in the township of King-sey, in the county of Drummond. I do not see anything in that declaration to substantiate the charge that the words referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) were used by Notary Begin-who, by the way, is not from Richmond, but from Windsor Mills. Mr. Begin, having seen the report in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of the discussion in this House, wired me the following:
Windsor Mills, Que., Nov. 22.
E. W. Tobin,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Montreal ' Gazette ' reports Mr. Monk asserts I declared during campaign that if necessary the Canadian navy could be used to pound England. Please deny. I never said that nor anything like it. Assertion as absurd as idea. Am writing open letter of denial to Mr. Monk through ' Gazette.' If they publish can produce declarations to prove my denial if assertion persisted in.



E. H. BEGIN.

[Stage Direction]
There have been forwarded to me three declarations, one by the mayor of the township, Pierre Tardif, who was chairman at that meeting. This declaration is as follows:
I, the undersigned, Pierre Tardif, of King-sey Falls, county of Drummond, and mayor of the place, solemnly declare: that I have taken communication of the Montreal ' Gazette,' dated the 22nd day of November, 1910, reporting that in a course of a parliamentary debate which took place at Ottawa on the previous day, Mr. Monk said that a prominent notary of the town of Richmond, named Begin, in a speech made during the last campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska declared that * if necessary the Canadian navy could be used to pound England ';
That the notary Begin who made a speech here on Sunday, previous to the polling day, is not of Richmond but of Windsor Mills;
That I was chairman of the meeting;
That the speakers at that meeting were Messrs. Drepeau and Lamarche on the Nationalist side and on the Liberal side Messrs. Guillemette and Morin said a few words, and notary Begin made the main speech on the Liberal side and Mr. Lamarche had the reply;
That I am positive that notary Begin has not used such words as reported in the Montreal ' Gazette,' nor any others to the same effect, nor has he expressed anything conveying such an idea.
And I make this solemn declaration believing the same to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath under the Canada Evidence Act, and I have signed. One word erased is null.
Declared before me at Kingsey Falls, this 25th day of November, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Joseph Vide;., J.P.
And Mr.   J@: Smith, of Kingsey Falls, makes the same declaration, signed before Joseph Vidal. J.P. And Mr. J. B. Prefontaine, of Kingsey Falls, formerly of South Durham, who is a brother of a good Conservative, Dr. Prefontaine, of South Durham, who is known to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and was with him in the county of Drummond and canvassed the French electors of that township of Durham the Saturday before the polling took place, makes a declaration in the same form as the others.
I would ask the hon. member for Jacques Cartier to withdraw his words in reference to Mr. Begin, especially as I see that the declaration that he got from his own party, Mr. Lamarche, a Conservative of Montreal, did not substantiate in any way the statement that the words attributed to my friend, Mr. Begin, of Windsor Mills, had been utered by that gentleman.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: I thought perhaps my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) would like to take the opportunity to speak. I would be glad to afford him the opportunity to say anything he desires. Mr. Speaker, we have listened with considerable interest, and, I must confess for myself with a little endurance to the magnificent address made by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). But I think the House generally will agree with me that that hon. gentleman travelled from Dan to Beersheba in that address. There is no question in the King's speech, or outside of it that he did not refer to. Even questions upon which he has made speeches in this House repeatedly for the last four or five years he thought fit to bring up again to the attention of parliament at this time. He began by saying that the Liberal party in Canada was under the tyranny of a despot.

Well, I am a democrat myself, but I have no objection to the despot if he is a good one. The chief objection to the despot and tyrant is the unreasonable way in which they administer power. But when a man in power can lead the public forces of this country to a considerable measure, at any rate, of national success, as has been done by the leader of this government, I think we can excuse him if he exercises considerable personal authority over those who follow him. So far as I am concerned, I suppose the hon. gentleman will place me in the category iof a sl,ave, 'as he would other members on this side. Well, I am no man's slave and no man's tool. Although I have taken the position in this House on almost every occasion since I came here, of supporting the policy of the leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I have done so after having given my very best judgment on the conditions and circumstances and arrived at an independent conclusion that this was best for this country.
My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup), made some reference to the general trade of Canada. His remarks were perfectly in keeping with what I think are his well-trained Tory instincts. I do not blame my hon. friend for anything he says of that character because if there is one man in the opposition who is true to Tory record and that is possessed of real Tory instincts, who has a Tory disposition and who always arrives, perhaps in a roundabout way, at Tory conclusions, it is my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup). I was, however, surprised that there is one man in this House who would complain about the improvement and increase in the general trade of this country. That Sir, is the basis of the prosperity of every country, that is the basis of the prosperity of this country. The evidence of the progress and development of the trade of Canada is the evidence of our national prosperity. The greatest countries in the universe to-day are France, England, Germany and the United States. They are the four great nations of the world. I am glad, to say that as a member of this House I have no regrets on that score, but will always contribute my influence and vote in favour of increasing the trade of this country. My hon. friend made some reference to the naval question, and in my opinion touched every part of it except that part of it which is before the House for consideration, and I must say for I followed my hon. friend very closely last session, that he, with the same expedition as the rest of his party, has made a wonderful change in his position in regard to that question. My hon. friend shakes his head. I make that statement and I will give my hon. friend the proof. What was his position on the navy Mr. RALPH SMITH.
last session? It was that this country and this parliament had no jurisdiction to pass a Bill of that kind and he began and argued and ended the speech by making a plea to the Prime Minister of this country to submit the question of the authority for the establishment of the navy in Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada. That was the position taken by my hon. friend at that time.


William Barton Northrup: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: It is very remarkable that my hon. friend did not mention the Supreme Court to-day. Not only so but he has accepted fully the position taken by the leader of the opposition this session against the construction of a Canadian navy and has emphasized the necessity for a contribution to Great Britain at this date when his own leader is convinced that whatever crisis might have existed a year ago none exists to-day, and has eliminated from his proposals any question of a contribution to Great Britain.
I wish to follow some of the remarks of my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), a representative from the province of British Columbia. The complaint I have to make of his speech is that it was prepared as a defence against the Borden policy of last year and therefore could not fit in with the Borden policy of this year. It was quite evident to me before my hon. friend had gone far, that there was very little in common between the criticism he was making against the policy announced by his leader at this session, and his position taken with regard to the policy announced by the leader last session. I notice however, that he still clings to the old flag. He did it of course, with a considerable amount of brag, with some amount of dramatic description. He showed great deference to the empire and he had a great wealth of patriotic phrasing, but it is easy to see that these are not the materials that build ships for the navy. The patriotism of language and fine words will not strengthen the British Empire. The professions of hon. gentlemen as to their loyalty make no contribution to the progress to the increased stability of this country or to its protection or development. We live in deeds, not words, and my hon. friend can talk until doomsday, but if that is all he has to offer as a contribution to the development of this great country, then surely we have failed in the great mission and responsibility which rest on us.
My hon. friend is at variance with his own leader in the province of British Columbia. A great deal has been said recently, and said by ministers in the local government, as to the probability of my good friend Mr. McBride coming down to take charge of the political destinies of the Con-

servative party in Ottawa. If my hon. friend has been looking over the press of British Columbia, he must have arrived at the conclusion that some of the strongest leaders of his party have decided that the principle of a Canadian navy enunciated and inaugurated by the Laurier government is the 'right principle. I would remind the hon. gentleman that just a few days ago the president of the Privy Council of the McBride government, at a military banquet in Victoria, announced himself absolutely and emphatically in favour of the policy of the Laurier government in regard to a Canadian navy. I would remind my hon. friend also that to-day Captain Clive Phillips Woolley, an old opponent of mine, a straight-forward, outspoken, independent gentleman, the president of the Navy League in British Columbia, has been lecturing through the country and in the city of Toronto. What does he say, one of the leaders of the Conservative party in British Columbia, president of the Navy League, paid perhaps by the Navy League to go through the country and discuss the question of a Canadian navy? He said: I am in absolute agreement with the principle of a Canadian navy as proposed by the Laurier government. It is perfectly true- I have no disposition to deceive the House -that Mr. Woolley has said: I would have been better pleased if the Prime Minister and his government had gone further, and had made a contribution. I believe there has been a crisis in England for some time, I believe there is a crisis still and I would have been in absolute accord with the Liberal party if they had provided for a contingency of that description. That is the position that Mr. Woolley takes and is what he said. When members from the Dominion parliament go back to the capital city of Victoria or the cities of British Columbia and designate the Canadian navy as a tin-pot navy, I want to put myself on record as saying that I have absolutely no use or tolerance for a man of that description. When he takes that position he is slapping directly at my hon. friend who is not in his seat, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) who, when he went back to the city of Victoria last session, designated the Canadian navy as a tin-pot navy. But now, I said that the premier of British Columbia was at variance with my hon. friend. Of course, Mr. McBride spoke before the hon. leader of the opposition moved his amendment, but that would only indicate that my good friend, the leader of 'the opposition, had not taken his friend, Mr. McBride, into bis confidence. I think that is a very unfair advantage to take. When you are compelled to agree on points ultimately, whether you disagree at the present time, it is only fair that you should know what
is in the future. The training ship, ' Rainbow/ went into the harbour of Esquimalt in my district the other day. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) was present. My hon. friend the member for Victoria was present and my hon. friend-and I may call him so because he is my friend-the premier of the province of British Columbia was present. I want to read to the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), and to the Conservatives of this House and to eastern Canada, what Mr. McBride, at the official reception of the ' Rainbow/ said about the Canadian navy. I can only say that if the prognostications of some of the responsible ministers of British Columbia, who anticipate that Mr. McBride is going to take charge of the destinies of the Conservative party happen to come true before -these hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity of changing again, then Mr. McBride will support the Laurier government on the question of the Canadian navy. Mr. McBride said:
He entirely endorsed what Mr. Templeman had so eloquently said and what his honoured leader of the government has been pleased to say also.
I want to call my hon. friend's attention particularly to this report.
We realize the great significance of the step the Canadian people have taken in the establishing of the Canadian navy

Is there any misgiving about that?
-into which the Canadian people have entered with all heartiness

Now the theory of hon. gentlemen opposite that the Canadian people know nothing about it and that in order to give them an opportunity to know something about it my hon. friend should dissolve this parliament and go back to the country is altogether at variance with what Mr. McBride says that they have entered into it with all heartiness

-and with every determination that at all costs we shall take a place in the defence of the empire such as the energy of our people in numbers and wealth would warrant us in doing.


Mr. HUGHES.: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: We have the support of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). I am surprised that we did not have it when he made his speech.


Mr HUGHES.: I was commending the expression of the Prime Minister of British Columbia that we should support and not disintegrate the empire.


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend says that he was commending the speech

of the premier of British Columbia that we should support the empire.


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Ralph Smith: The premier says that to support the empire we must have a Canadian navy and that is just the difference between my hon. friend and the premier of British Columbia. The hon. member for Yale-Cariboo thinks we should support the empire, but he thinks we can do it with fine phrases. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton thinks we can support the empire but he does not think it is necessary to spend money to do so. I have made no preparation to say anything with reference to the hon. gentleman, he has provoked what I have been saying, but I noticed that when my hon. friend made his speech recently he did not say one single word in defence of the amendment of the leader of the opposition. The only reference he made to that amendment was when he was taking his seat and when he said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I am willing to support the amendment of my honoured leader.
Now, I want to come to the consideration of the position taken by the leader of the opposition generally and I want to bring, if I can, the attention of these gentlemen back to the position that if there was any mistake made in the formation of the Canadian navy, if there was any mistake made in spending the money of the people of this country in connection with that navy, if there was any mistake about the policy that this government has provided for and is carrying out, the responsibility belongs to every member of this House. The House must have been struck by this fact that in the whole discussion on this question hon. gentlemen have never referred to the session of 1909, and that is the beginning of the whole thing. I listened to the magnificent speech made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on that occasion, and to the resolution with which he concluded. I have read it again. I listened to the speech of the leader of the opposition that backed up that speech of the hon. member for North Toronto and the resolution and I have read it again, and I want to make this statement that everything in those speeches, everything in the position taken at that time, justifies this government and the country in what they are doing in connection with the Canadian navy. I will say the opposite, that nothing in the speech of my hon. friend from North Toronto and nothing in the speech of the leader of the opposition bears any relation whatever to the proposals that these hon. gentlemen have made in 1910 or at the present session. Now, Sir, the responsibility for a project of this kind was when we commenced it, and what are the facts? The resolution was proposed, the resolution was submitted to Mr. RALPH SMITH.
this House, the leader of the opposition amended that resolution to make it unanimous and responsible ministers went to England on the authority of that resolution. These ministers went to England and declared to the British authorities that the policy of Canada was for a navy in Canada which would defend the right, the trade and the position of Canada and would at the same time be a contribution towards the defence of the empire. Who gave them that mandate? Every responsible member of parliament, in the session of 1909. Assuming, therefore, that the whole proposal is unreasonable, assuming for the moment, as these hon. gentlemen say that there is no necessity for a Canadian navy, what I contend is that every hon. member of this House is under obligation, if he is a straightforward man, to say:	1
was a partner in the creation of that proposal. Horvever much hon. gentlemen opposite may refuse to take the responsibility of their action in 1909; however much they may hide their heads in the sand; they are face to face with the records of parliament, and the conclusion of the intelligent people of the country must be that parliament in 1909 unanimously decided to establish a Canadian navy for Canadian interests and for the interests of the empire. There is nothing like going back to the law and the testimony, and no matter how much hon. gentlemen opposite may try to shelve this responsibility, the responsibility rests upon them and will always rest on them. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite how they can explain the remarks made by the leader of the opposition in 1909, when they attempted to avoid responsibility for whatever has happened since then in connection with the naval policy. I ask these hon. gentlemen opposite how they can brush aside the words of the leader of the opposition spoken in the House on March 19, 1909, when he said:
In so far as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to-day outlined the lines of naval defence of this country I am entirely at one with him. 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.
Mark that. Can there be any dispute about these words? Can it be denied that that being the date at which this important policy was founded, that the leader of the opposition assisted at the foundation. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) is a gentleman for -whom I have the highest respect, but I must say that in my opinion no parallel can be found in the political history of this country for such a quick change of attitude on a public question, by a gentleman who assumes the responsibility of leader of a great party. Mr. R. L. Borden continued to say:-

The other experiment has been tried as between Australia and the mother country and it has not worked satisfactorily in any respect; so, I am at one with the Prime Minister as far as this is concerned. I am at one with him in this respect also.
I want hon. gentlemen opposite to listen to this:-
I am at one with him in this respect also that I think that an expenditure of money designed for that purpose ought, in the main at least, to be under the control of our own parliament.
Why, Sir, when we take his present proposition for an imperial navy, which must be controlled by the imperial authorities, and contrast it with the position he took when he spoke the language I have cited to the House, we can easily see where he is at. He said further:-
And that by making an appropriation of that kind and attending to the defence of our own coasts, by co-operation and co-ordination with the imperial naval forces, we would be doing our duty not only to Canada but to the empire as a whole.
Is it any wonder, in view of this language, that I should say that the leader of the opposition must take the responsibility for assisting, in the year 1909, in the foundation of the naval policy of the government? I say, further, that every position taken by the leader of the opposition since that date, when the project of a Canadian navy was founded, is contrary to the proposition which he laid down in the year 1909. Listen to what the hon. the leader of the opposition has since proposed. Last session his proposition was, in the first place, that the whole question of a Canadian navy ought to be submitted to the people, and in the second place, that an immediate contribution ought to be made to the mother land to provide assistance in what he considered to be a period of crisis. The position taken by the leader of the opposition to-day is an extension of the position taken last year. He now says that the whole question should be submitted to the people, and the crisis not existing to-day, the question of a contribution is absolutely eliminated from his plan. I say, therefore, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that the policy supported by the leader of the opposition in 1909 has been absolutely and entirely carried out by the government at the present day, and every position taken by him since then upon which he has tested the opinion of this House is contrary to the doctrine he laid down in 1909. I am a democrat, I have been trained in that school and I am not ashamed of it; I have always tried to act with caution and to devote the greatest possible investigation into every project before I assume responsibility for it; I can quite conceive that there might be occasions in this country, as there may be in any country, when great national projects might, with propriety, be submitted to the people, but, if the people ought to decide as to the navy I tell the leader of the opposition that they ought to have decided it in 1909, when the leader of the opposition moved his original resolution in this House, and not in 1910. In all his utterances in 1909, was there a single word said in favour of submitting this question to the people? Was there a single gentleman on the other side of the House who then ventured to suggest that the proposition should be submitted to the people? No, Sir, not one single reference was ever made in that whole debate to the people of Canada being given an opportunity to consider this question before we entered on the project. I wonder if gentlemen opposite from the province of Quebec presented this question to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska in its true light? I wonder if they told them that the Canadian navy was reaily established in 1909, and that not one member in the House said a single word at that time in favour of referring the question to the people? And,' suppose we adopted the principle of a referendum in this country, where would we draw the line? Everything that comes before this parliament is in a sense important, and what would we refer to the people and what would we not refer to them? There is only a question of degree between a thing that costs the most and a thing that costs the least. One thing may cost $1,000,000 and another may cost only $1, but the $1 belongs to the people just as much as the one million does. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I have no doubt they know it, that their proposition in regard to the general question of referring these matters to the people is utterly impracticable and utterly impossible. We are representatives in this House, not delegates. I can conceive of small nations which might carry on their business by sending delegates to a conference instead of sending representatives to parliament ; but if the people are to decide matters directly, and not through their representatives, then black balls and white balls would accomplish the business just as effectively as representatives in parliament. The representation of the people of this country in parliament involves a very heavy expenditure, and if the members of this parliament are not to think out public questions according to the conditions and circumstances surrounding them, then I submit there is really no necessity for representatives at all. One would suppose, to hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking of this as a great principle, that it was a feature of the policy of the Conservative party. Though not a native Canadian, I have studied the political history of this country, and I would

ask the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) how often did the Conservative government of this country since confederation submit questions to the decision of the people? How often did they dissolve parliament in order to obtain the decision of the people on any project before carrying it through? The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) did specify certain questions which he thought might very properly be brought under this principle, for instance, the autonomy of the Northwest provinces. My hon. friend from East Grey is not in his place, but I was going to ask him this question. The Conservative government of this country took the responsibility of bringing the crown colony of British Columbia into the confederation. There is no comparison in importance between that project and ajn extension of the autonomy of western provinces which have always been part of the Dominion ; and yet did the Conservative government submit a referendum on the question of bringing British Columbia into the confederation? I do not say that I would have supported a proposal of that kind if I had been a member of this House at the time. I am merely putting that ease before the House in contrast to the suggestion of the hon. member for East Grey. In the discussion of that question in 1872, as the records show, three amendments were proposed to the terms of union. Those amendments were not in favour of giving the people a voice in the decision of the matter, but were in favour of giving the members of this House at that time an opportunity of ascertaining what view the people of eastern Canada took of those terms, and every one of those three amendments was voted down by the Conservative party in this House. Was there any plebiscite taken in this country when we undertook the responsibility of forming a militia? This government has increased the expenditure for that service up to nearly $7,000,000 a year, a very much larger sum than the Canadian navy will cost for some years to come. Has there ever been any suggestion made by hon. gentlemen opposite that the question of enlarging the militia should be submitted to the people before that was done? What is the navy, after all? It is simply an extension of the principle of national protection, and if that is right in one direction, it ought to be right in another. I submit that with this great country developing at the rate it is, with national issues of great importance constantly arising at short notice in this parliament, the proposition submitted by our hon. friends opposite becomes absolutely impossible. Let me come to the present position of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. He has changed his position again. He has disposed of the Mr. RALPH SMITH.
question of providing for any urgency or crisis in the old land. vVas there a crisis a year ago? Was there ever a crisis, with regard to the relations of Great Britain and Germany. There was a crisis in the mind of Robert Blatchford ; there was a crisis in the pages of the yellow journals ; but every intelligent precaution was taken by the responsible ministers in England, especially in the last two or three years, and it was impossible to find in the midst of the political conflict there in the last twelve months, a single reference to any crisis with regard to Germany to necessitate any special consideration either a year ago or at the present time.
My hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) quoted from a speech of Lord Rosebery to prove his position. But what was the date of that speech? It was the very date when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was so seriously impressed by the seriousness of the crisis that he brought into this House his famous resolution. In that year, the year 1909, I admit that there was a great deal of feeling and excitement in the old country, but I have had considerable experience in that country. I was 34 years of age when I came to Canada, and I had previously some little experience in English politics, and I have no hesitation in stating that the war scare of a year ago was just the ordinary one that has frequently been raised to suit political times and conditions. Was there an emergency a year ago? My hon. friend must have thought so since he wanted Canada to make a contribution to the naval defence of the empire. Is there an emergency to-day? My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) says there is and so does my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), yet they both propose to support an amendment that makes no provision to meet that emergency. I have asked was there an emergency last year. I did not believe so, and I voted against any provision from this country to meet an imaginary contingency. But if there was a real and substantial crisis a year ago, what is the condition to-day? My hon. friend the leader oi the opposition argued that we should have had an investigation to find that out. In his last proposal he puts himself in the position of the Prime Minister and points out what he and his party would do if they were in power. They would, he said, correspond with the government of the old country, they would find out by investigation and inquiry whether any imminent danger realty existed, and if they discovered that such did exist they would come back to parliament and ask for the necessary means to meet the crisis. Well, if the hon. gentleman admits that there is a crisis-as hon. members opposite have done in their speeches-why does he

not make provision to meet it this year as he did last? Is he going to let it go by default? He has had now, since we last met, a good many months' opportunity to investigate, and surely he Is a wiser man to-day than he was a year ago. In his capacity as leader of the opposition, the hon. gentleman is saddled with responsibility from which he cannot escape. He has said what he would do were he leader of the government. But he is the leader of a great party, which is also bound to do what it can to protect the institutions of the country, and he is just as responsible for the education of public opinion as he would be if he were Prime Minister. But up to the present he has made no such investigation, and the result is that he does not know if there really exists any crisis or emergency which call for action on the part of Canada and submits to this House a resolution which is remarkable for nothing so much as its indefiniteness.
Then he takes the position that the Canadian navy should not be a separate unit, but should be under one central control, that of the British Admiralty. But that is in direct contradiction of the position taken by him in 1909. In his speech of March 29, 1909, he said:
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 entirely believe in that. The other experiment has been tried as between Australia and the mother country and it has not worked satisfactorily in any respect. In Great Britain the contribution has perhaps been regarded as rather unsatisfactory. In Australia it failed in the end to meet with the approval of the people for the reason that Great Britain felt restrained to ask Australia that the field of operations of the squadron should be extended to the China and Indian seas, and when the operations of that squadron were so extended the Australians felt that the contribution which they had been making for some years past was not really being used to give that protection to Australia that her interest demanded.
So that the individual unit system my hon. friend then considered impossible. It was found impossible in Australia. But if it was impossible in Australia, what special conditions now exist which make it possible in this country?
In conclusion let me say that I believe the people of this country will remember a few things. The first is that the naval policy of this country was determined in 1909 upon the resolution presented by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and supported by the leader of the opposition. That was the time when the Canadian navy was built. There may be of course objections to the Bill as brought down, and my hon. friends have a right to criticise its details. But what I say is this, that in 1909 they stood for the absolute principle of a Canadian navy, and a Canadian navy only. But in 1910 and this session they have taken up a position contradicting that. Such complete reversal of policy on a great question of this kind can never be acceptable to the people. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) pointed out to the possibility of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) going to British Columbia. For mv part, I would be delighted to see him there, and he would have as far as I am concerned, just as good a reception as Dick McBride gave to the Prime Minister. But there is one question which the people of that province will put to him. They will ask him which of his three policies he stands for. They will say to him: You took the responsibility of building a navy in 1909, parliament adopted that policy on the terms of your own resolution and the strength of your own speeches, do you stand for it now? If he replies that the latest policy he advocated is the best, then the question will naturally be put to him: What guarantee have we that, if we should support you, you will not by the time you get into power, have adopted another policy. You have made a complete change of front within eighteen months, how do we know that we may not have our confidence betrayed again and be playing into the hands of political deceivers.
An hon. gentleman supporting the Conservative party took the responsibility of making a statement on the floor of the House to-day which I am not sure jwill meet with the support of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). He took the responsibility of saying that the whole of British Columbia, that the whole of the west was against the Laurier policy. Well, they will have to exempt Mr. McBride. We have demonstrated that to the House very clearly. They have to exempt the president of his council-that is perfectly true. They have to exempt Mr. Clive Phillips-Woolley, president of the Navy League, and a prominent Conservative of British Columbia. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) has been in British Columbia. What is the feeling in that province on this question. The feeling in British Columbia, and especially on the coast, is that if- there is any fault to be found with this policy, it is only that it does not go far enough. There is not a single man in British Columbia who has not taken the position that the principle of a Canadian navy, the principle of spending Canadian money on Canadian ships for the protection of Canadian trade and the training of Canadian sailors is right. As I have said, some of them want to go

further. But that is not the position for hon. members opposite to take, because they are opposed to the Canadian navy, and naturally, would be more opposed to it if it were larger. It is a good thing for them that it is as small as it is, since they do not want it, but wish to submit the question to the people: it is a good thing for them that this is a ' tin-pot navy ' and the expenditure on it is as small as it is. These hon. gentlemen have thrown to the winds anything which would serve them as an argument that they are not entirely opposed to the principle of a Canadian navy. And I do not understand why men should object to a Canadian navy who do not object also to the Canadian militia-the two things are the same as far as I can see, for each is a national system of protection and paid for out of the public treasury. But these hon. gentlemen have not made any complaint as to the militia, nor have they ever suggested the submission of the militia question to the people.
Now, the people of this country want something definite. I believe the people would rather vote for a man who sometimes makes a mistake, than vote for a man who does nothing. And the difference between the Liberal party and the opposition, judging the opposition by the amendment proposed by its leader, is the difference between a policy of doing something for the national development, and a policy of doing nothing. Of course, we have to admit that, in this, hon. gentlemen opposite are following the true traditions of Toryism. The one thing that makes these hon. gentlemen sore is the fact_ that the Laurier government has done things, that great national projects have been carried out and that the country has made progress under this government. I do not pretend that there may not be dispute with regard to the details of this naval policy. But every great national project put into effect by this government has developed the country, increased its influence and raised it in the estimation of our own people and of the world.
Now, let me say in conclusion, the real spirit of empire is to develop this country. 1 am an Englishman myself, and my family connections are in England. But I realize that Canada is part of the British Empire and that the more you do for Canada the more you benefit the empire. I submit that it is true of every great national project that the argument against it has been reduced by some thinkers to the contention that it would lead to independence or the contention that it would draw us away from the empire and into annexation with the United States. These have always been the cries raised by pessimistic souls in this country. Let any man look over the records of great national move-Mr. RALPH SMITH.
ments in Canada, from the Act of Confederation to the building of the Canadian navy, and he will see that the arguments raised by some people were simply these- that it would lead to independence or that it would lead to annexation. Sir, I do not believe any such arguments. This is part of the empire, and when we develop this part we are helping to develop the whole. This is part of the empire did I sav? Yes, and perhaps destined to be the great centre of the empire at some period in the world's history. If hon. gentlemen opposite would have the larger vision, if they would extend their political horizon, if they would have faith in the possibilities of this country including the possibility of its being the great centre of the British Empire, they would realize the importance of a policy of national development. 1 support the national policy that develops the interests of this country. But these hon. gentlemen tell us that to develop the national interest is dangerous. Sir, the foundations of British interests in this country are not in mere forms; they are not to be found only in words such as those used by the leader of the opposition. They are in sound principles of liberty and justice and the rights of man, under which every foreigner who becomes a subject in this part of the empire learns to prize our institutions and 'traditions against anything that he bears in recollection of his native land. The strength of the British Empire is in its traditions and institutions and from these it draws the power to assimilate new comers from other lands. There is no fear of the British Empire. Sir, the subterfuge of one who does not wish to do his duty is to clothe that unwillingness in extreme expressions of loyalty; the man who wants to do the least is always the man who professes a wish to do the most. That is a position that the people of this country will appreciate. It may be that this navy is at present a tin-pot navy ' as the hon. member for Victoria says. But if the hon. member thinks of it, he knows that the United States navy was a ' tin-pot navy only a decade ago. The mighty naval force of Japan was a * tin-pot navy at first. It is impossible to bring national institutions into existence in complete formlike men, they have to grow. Every great institution and reform has known its day of small things. We commence small; but we have commenced; and we stand or fall by this policy of a Canadian navy. I believe that the courage shown bv the government will be appreciated by the people; I believe the people will say: We will forgive mistakes in the men who do things, but we cannot forgive the political lethargy and indolence that never attempts to do anything.


Mr. E. N. LEWIS. (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, the House is now nearing the end of the first two weeks of the session. For the last ten days we have listened to a discussion on the subject which was the main topic of debate.last session. It would be futile on my part to speak at any length on the question of the navy. Even were I of a mind to do so, I gave my statement to the House last session in unequivocal terms and set forth what I took to be the wishes of the electors in the west riding of Huron. I have no knowledge or information which would lead me to believe that they have changed their opinion. In brief, I believe that four out of five, if they were asked their opinion, would vote against a regular navy, against old country militarism in any shape, or form, and I believe that if a vote was taken in my county that would be the result. The county, a portion of which I have the honour to represent, is principally Liberal. I have also been through the county of Dufferin and have asked a great many representative men there, almost to a man on the other side of politics, and I believe that their opinion is the same, that four out of five of them would vote against the imposition at this time, on this country of a regular navy.
The hon. gentleman who has just sat down, (Mr. Smith, Nanaimo), says: Why do you not object to the militia when you object to the navy? The militia has nothing to do with a regular, old country militarism. I am strongly in favour, and so are the people of my riding, of the militia. I would ask the government to back up the Minister of Militia in the desire he expresses for the improvement of the militia, but his hands are tied by a militia council. It is natural that gentlemen of the military profession should want to do things in their own way, but I would remark that in my younger days, when our expenditure on the militia was a million and a quarter instead of eight million dollars, we had in my own tovm three companies of militia who were out nearly once a week during the summer months. We now see nothing of them except once a year. A military inspector from the old land, a very estimable gentleman in his profession no doubt, but a man who wishes everything done in his own military way, has reported that we should have 15 more general officers at headquarters. If he puts that into effect then with the small number of militia we have in the country who go out to the few small camps that are held, we must be reminded of the disaster that recently almost came to a small South African republic when ten generals were rescued from death in one small merchant steamer. I stated last year that in my opinion, there was no crisis and I quoted the opinion of the greatest naval expert, Captain 14
Mahan, the author of ' Sea Power ' and other noted works. He expressed the belief that the great preparation of the German navy was in order to prevent the United States prohibiting German interference in South America, and when one thinks for a moment of what would happen if Germany should ever be so foolish as to go to war with England, it is seen that these preparations could not be against England. Thirty days after a declaration of war had been issued, a French army would be in Berlin and the Crowns are not so steady on the heads of European sovereigns that they would imperil them by the great danger of revolution which a war with England would entail. If there was such a war Germany would be a republic from that day evermore. We have had recent instances of revolutions and more are in the air. Reciprocity with the United States and other tariff matters have been the subjects of discussion. In a weekly report issued by one department of the government I see notices from Canadian agents in different countries, Mexico, Australia, the Netherlands, or some other distant place, that if Canadian merchants and manufacturers and farmers in certain lines will send to certain reputable merchants in these places, Canadians can do business. In the United States publications similar reports are published from American commercial agents in Owen Sound, Winnipeg, or Vancouver, or other Canadian places, informing the manufacturers, the merchants or the farmers of the United States that if they send to certain merchants in these Canadian centres they can do business. That is their purpose in this country. What have we to inform our farmers or merchants of ways and means by which they can further their business relations with our greatest trade competitors? May that not be one reason why they send four million dollars worth of goods into Canada against our $400,000 more or less to the United States? I do not object to a discussion of commercial relations with the United States because it would be discourteous and unbusinesslike not to carry on such discussions, but I ask on what the government found their information from the other man's point of view, whom have we in the United States to tell us their views, to furnish us with business information? I suggested last session that the first minister should appoint at the city of Washington a Canadian attache to advise in business matters the representative of the British Crown, who has our interests there at heart and who very very seldom knows anything about our affairs. I said that one of the former ministers of England, the Imperial Ambassador to Washington, had stated that seven-tenths of the business he had to do with the United States government was in connection with Can-



ada, and I now give notice that I shall at a future time, put a resolution on the order paper asking the government to appoint commercial agents in all the large centres of trade in the United States to give us information and to further the interests of Canadian manufacturers, farmers and tradesmen^ of all kinds. Remember the old legal maxim, a case well prepared is half won.
I am surprised that no reference is made in the speech from the Throne on the important subject of representation in this parliament. It has been current report in the newspapers that representatives of the maritime provinces will come to Ottawa to interview the government as to the representation of those provinces. I see nothing in the speech from the Throne with reference to that subject, but it is a matter which we should have discussed to the fullest extent. My own opinion, and I believe the opinion of the people whom I represent, is that we have too many representatives for this country in this parliament. I put it on this ground: I do not mean for one moment to argue the question of the pro rata, or system of representation.
I say we have too many representatives. If the apportionment between the provinces is the same as at confederation I have no objection to it, but there are too many. I wish to prove by a simple little illustration why it would be better to have a smaller representation. If you take the smaller municipalities in the county it will serve as an illustration. There are 25 municipalities in my own county, each having from five to seven representatives, or 130 representatives in all. Then, when we come to the county council we have one or two representatives for each municipality, or about fifty in all. On one occasion the Ross government tried to do away with that and to divide the county up into sixteen sections, but they did not succeed, and we went back to the old system of two representatives for each municipality. Then, when we come to the provincial legislature, we have three representatives for the county of Huron. That is, no doubt, proper; it has never been changed and no one objects to it, but the higher up we get the smaller the number. When we come to the Dominion parliament, the highest parliament in the land, we still have the same as for the provincial legislature. If the United States of America, with 90 millions of people, had the same number to represent them in proportion to the population that we have they would have 2,335 members of Congress. If the mother land, with 45 million people, had representatives to the same number as we have, or in the same proportion, they would have 1,452. I contend that if the British North America Act is to be changed with reference to the representation the number [DOT] Mr. LEWIS.
should be cut down. Our numbers will steadily increase until we have to change; let us do so now.
There is another matter that comes very close to every person in this country, and that is the cost of living. I contend that the question of the cost of living is one that-should receive our most earnest and careful consideration, because, no matter what explanation may be given as to the reason for it, there is no doubt of the fact that the crux of the matter is there is not enough food produced in the country to supply the demand. That is evidenced everywhere by the prices. The same thing is occurring on the other side of the line. I contend that we should limit our immigration and keep out all those of the non-producing classes who seek to enter our country. We should not have the stigma cast upon us that is cast upon the people on the other side of the line of having a nation of organ grinders and banana pedlars.
There is another matter with reference to which I wish to commend the government, and I am surprised that they have not gone farther in the same direction. I refer to their action with reference to the rules governing this House. The changes that they have made will be conducive to the best interests of the people, and I want to say, Sir, that the people are tired of this parliament sitting here for five, six ot eight months.


Mr. TOLMIE.: You are helping them to do it.


Edward Norman Lewis: I w'as guilty once and only once, but I have nut been of late years. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tolmie) and his leader will follow what I am going to tell them it will reduce the time of the session from one to two months. My suggestion has reference to the estimates. I submit thatl we should follow the rules that are carried! out in other countries which have been longer legislating than we have been. The mother land, Germany, France and and even the province of Ontario have rules with regard to the consideration of estimates different from those which prevail in this House. Four-fifths of the time of this House is taken up in the discussion of the estimates. I submit that without changing the rules of this House in so far as they affect the result we could reduce the length of the session by at least six weeks by a very slight change in our procedure. If the minister of any department will give notice that two weeks from a certain day he will be in Room 62, or>
whatever committee room it may be, with his estimates at a certain hour, say 10 a.nr., and let any hon. member in this' House be allowed to go there and investiJ gate the various items, it will be possible to pass all non-contentious items en bloc.

It would not affect the contentious items being brought up in this House. Ministers are generally urbane, amiable and kindly in their manner when they are passing their estimates, knowing nothing about the items themselves and being obliged to ask the engineer or official sitting near them and then passing the infor-, mation on to the committee. Why, Sir, I have known an item of $40,000 in this House to take up a whole sitting and items aggregating $10,000,000 to be passed in ten minutes without proper investigation. The time to stop a useless expenditure is not in the Public Accounts Committee after the money has been spent and when the matter is referred to a board of judges, i.e., a committee, the majority of whom are against any explanation. The time to stop it is before the expenditure is made. The government as a whole have the interest of the country at heart, and I believe they wish to prevent such unwarranted expenditures as we do. If they would simply have the estimates examined carefully by this mode and all non-contentious items passed en bloc a great improvement in the procedure would be effected. The opposition could appoint a committee to attend but any member of the House would be at liberty to ask any questions with regard to any item that he desired. Hours and hours of useful time of this country would be saved as well as thousands of dollars.
Now, there is another matter with reference to this debate with regard to which I desire to make an observation. I have taken the example of speakers before me, and probably I have wandered more than I should have done under the existingj rules. But, when an amendment has been made to the motion for the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the Throne and that amendment has reference to a certain subject, not for one moment in the old country would it be competent that any other subject should be gone into than that referred to in the amendment. The Speaker's hand should be strengthened by this House in order to enable him to make such a ruling. '
I desire also to say a word with reference to the operation and exploitation of mines in this country. I am very proud of the mines of Canada and I believe some are being exploited honestly and to the fullest extent of the law and the money behind them. But' I ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) if it is not time that some safeguard should be put around the poor people of this country who invest their hard-earned savings in useless mines when nothing is left afterwards but a hole in the ground and a lot of deluded shareholders simply because they thought they could buy for ten or five cents what appeared to them to be a 14*
dollar. In the last Ontario ' Gazette ' there were fourteen companies incorporated, two of which were mining companies. Each represented $1,000,000 capital, or $2,000,000 for both. The other twelve are commercial companies with an aggregate capitalization of $950,000. Their stock is offered at one hundred cents on the dollar and, very often, if the project looks feasible, at more. You can often buy mining stocks for one cent or two cents on the dollar. I think there are ways by which safeguards could be provided so that the money that the people put into mines, over and above a reasonable amount for promotion expenses, should be used in the exploitation of the mines themselves. Then, I would ask the government Minister of Mines to look into the campaign made by that well known paper ' Saturday Night ' of Toronto against wild-cat promotions. Whether it is the Toronto ' Globe ' dealing with investments in pulp, or the ' Saturday Night ' with investments in mines, or the Montreal 'Star ' with the cocaine evil, I think the members of the government should take the trouble to inquire into these grievances set forth by those or other enterprising papers, and assist in providing a remedy so far as it is in their power to do so. Then, when the government is revising the Banking Act, I ask that some provision be made by which not only the branches but the head offices of the banks shall be inspected, so that there may be_ prevented in the future certain occurrences which have been detrimental to the credit of the country. I cannot from my own knowledge suggest means to accomplish this, but I trust the Minister of Finance will soon be back in the House restored to health and that he will look into the matter. Then, there is another thing to which the member for Kootenay alluded and to which I may also refer.
I have thought this matter over for months, and I have been advised that were I to advocate it in the House it would be disastrous to me in my constituency, but I believe it is in the interests of Canada that attention should be called to it. There are 220 of us sitting in this Chamber legislating for a country which we know little about, What do the men in the maritime provinces know of the great west, and what do the men in the west know of the maritime provinces. Sir Oliver Mowat when premier of Ontario inaugurated expeditions through the province so that the members of the legislature might know the territory they were legislating for, and although that policy was opposed by the Conservatives then in opposition, the same system is carried out by Sir James Whitney to-day, showing that it has a useful side.
I would, therefore, ask this government once in each parliament, not once in every session but once in each parliament, to

inaugurate a system of expeditious by which the members of this parliament might learn at first hand the resources of the different portions of Canada. Commencing, say next year, let the men of the west and the men of Ontario be brought down to the maritime provinces to see the new dock yards at Halifax, to see the harbour of St. John, or the site'for the Prince Edward Island tunnel and to see the different industries and public works in that oart of the country ; and then when next year the men of the western provinces shall have seen eastern Canada, the men of eastern Canada might tire year following be taken out over the Canadian Pacific railway and brought home by the new Transcontinental railway, or the Canada Northern. I believe that if members of parliament had an opportunity in this way of seeing their country they would be better able to legislate in the interests of the whole Dominion. I do not believe that the people of Canada would in any shape or form disapprove of such a policy. It is a truism that one cannot legislate prudently and properly in reference to something he knows nothing about, and the more we know of our country the better able we are to legislate in her best interests. I might cite an example of that in my own constituency. I had been several times to the government in reference to a certain matter, and I got very scant encouragement, but the moment the minister saw the locus in quo, and saw, that in my constituency we have one of the finest ports on the Great Lakes competing only with Buffalo and United States routes, a port going through Canadian channels, which takes one-third of the grain of the west, he realized that my cause was just and that the project I was urging on him well deserved encouragement from the government of Canada. '
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: the best men in England, of Sir Edward Grey, or Right Hon. Reginald McKenna. First Lord of the Admiralty, of Lord Rosebery, of Mr. Balfour-we took the opinion of every man of consequence who knew the condition of things in Europe. Then we declared that, as there was an emergency, the first thing was to meet that emergency. Then, we came to the question of the permanent naval policy of this empire. And here we were at issue again with the Prime Minister, because he did not give, as we contended, what he had agreed to give. And we took issue with him again on the question of the permanent naval policy of Canada, and declared that before going ahead with a policy of this kind, the people should be given an opportunity to express themselves on the subject.
That, it seems to me, is a fair and reasonable policy. I am confident that the people o'f this country will agree that this was the proper thing to do.
Now, I would like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) where this policy that has been adopted is going to lead us? This navy, apparently, is not to "be able to fire a gun without an order in council. Apparently, it can go down to the Philippines and waste and destroy marauding privateers there. But what I had in mind particularly was the subject of expenditure. We know actually nothing of what this navy is going to cost us. The position of the Minister of Marine in this matter reminds me of a story I read of a French-Canadian who was leading a steer to market. His name was Louis Brodeur. To identify himself more closely with the steer and not let it go get away from him, he tied the rope around his own body. In a short time the steer became a live issue, and he could not get away from it. The steer led him down the highway at a terrific rate of speed, having got beyond his control-a sort of Drummond and Arthabaska.
A friend observing his rapid progress, said,
' Where are you going? ' And the answer of the French Canadian was, ' I don't know; ask the steer.' That is the position in which the Minister of Marine finds himself to-day. It seems to me, looking over the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, that they have concentrated on three points. The first point that I observe, nearly every one of them thought it incumbent upon him to make was to laud to the skies the premier's western trip and to say that because the premier was well received in the west, he was the favourite of the people of that country and that he had made the west what it is to-day. Next, I notice ^ that these hon. members seem to unite in saying that because the country was prosperous, the credit was due to the leader of the government. And the next thing was that, in view of the alarming defeat of the government in Drummond and Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
Arthabaska, it was necessary to show that this arose from the fact that the Nationalists had carried on an anti-British and unpatriotic campaign, and not because they had not submitted their policy of permanent naval expenditure to the people. Incidentally, they tried to prove that the Conservatives were allied with the Nationalists in some way in that campaign.
Now, so far as the Northwest is concerned, I firmly believe that the prosperity enjoyed by the people there is not attributable to anything the Prime Minister has done. The hon. member for South Wellington said that we endeavoured to present the Prime Minister as a man who had uniformly set his face against that western country. Now, let me point out one or two things which give us reason to say that he has uniformly set his face against that country. Take the Canadian Pacific railway. In those days the Liberal-Conservative party thought that the railway was a necessity, for these millions of acres of virgin prairie were simply waiting for the hand of man. But the present Prime Minister voted against the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. And we know that when that construction had gone to a certain length the financial position of the company became such that they were unable to carry on the construction further. And what was his attitude then? The Canadian Pacific railway, in 1884, came to this government and said, in effect: We cannot go on unless we can get a loan from this government; our directors have gone so far as to mortgage their personal property and pledge their own security to raise money to carry on the work; we have plenty of security to give you-and they presented a tabulated statement of the securities they offered amounting to $200,000,000-and we ask you to give us a loan of $30,000,000. I give this valuation of these securities at $200,000,000 on the authority of the present Prime Minister himself. At the last session of parliament, speaking on the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, I was comparing the amount of security offered by the Canadian Pacific railway in 1884 for the loan of $30,000,000 with the kind of security that was offered by the Grand Trunk Pacific when the loan of $10,000,000 was asked for.
I made the statement that the Canadian Pacific railway on that occasion had offered us a first mortgage on securities valued at $200,000,000. The Prime Minister spoke after me and adverted to the statement I had made, and these are the words used by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion
I was struck with the argument used the other day by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and I shall refer to that argument now. By way of showing how much better were the terms that the government in 1884 made with the Canadian Pacific railway than the government of to-day is

making with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, he went on to give the value of the securities which were placed in the hands of the government at that time by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and he used these words:
I had given details which went to show how the $200,000,000 was made up, and concluded : ' So I think I am safe in saying that we had a security valued at $200,000,000 on which we proposed to lend $30,000,000.' And commenting on this the Prime Minister went on:-
I have not a word to say against that statement; I have not the slightest exception to take to what the hon. gentlemarf says there; I believe that the securities which were offered to the Canadian government at that time are fully worth $200,000,000 to-day. But what were the conditions that faced the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in 1884? It was a young company composed of able and active men, and yet it was offering $200,000,000 in securities in order to borrow $30,000,000.
Here was the proposition from this great company. Fighting for its very existence, it came to the government offering $200,000.000 as security for a loan of $30,000,000 at five per cent. Yet the present Prime Minister had not felt sufficient confidence in that western country or in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to vote for the loan and he voted against it, and he declared on the floor of the House that he would as soon believe that the waters of the sea will flow back into the Great Lakes as that one cent of that money will ever be returned to the Dominion exchequer.' And yet, within a period of two years, every cent of that money, with five per cent interest, was returned by the company. Have we not, then, some justification for saying that the Prime Minister is the man who has uniformly turned his back against the west?
Let us compare our attitude with his. When the government proposed the Transcontinental railway, did we vote against the construction of it? No, we objected to the terms of the bargain with the company and introduced resolution after resolution for the purpose of bettering the contract. But, eventually, we voted for the Transcontinental railway.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Sora Middlebro: Perhaps I am mistaken. Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that I am mistaken on that point? But I will compare the two loans. I have pointed out the attitude of the Prime Minister on that occasion. But what was our attitude on the Grand Trunk Pacific loan? The Grand Trunk Pacific Company came back, much like the Canadian Pacific railway, asking' a loan of $10,000,000 in order that they might go ahead with the construction. Did they present security of six or seven times the value of the loan? No; according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) himself, we were to get a shaky third mortgage on nothing, coupled with a doubtful guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific. We on this side tried to get these terms amended, and to have more security given, but they could not give it. I myself moved a resolution asking them to put in more security. But when we could not get it, did we vote to strangle the Grand Trunk Pacific? No; we voted for the loan. That showed the difference in the attitude of the two parties.
Away back in 1868-9, when we proposed to buy out the rights in the Northwest itself of the Hudson Bay Company, the opposition of that day moved an amendment and divided the House. I must say that the present Prime Minister was not then in the House, and that Hon. Alexander Mackenzie did not vote for the resolution- that is, he did not negative the buying of these lands, but 41 of his followers did.
Now we find that the Prime Minister refused to give to the provinces of the west the lands which naturally belong to them. These lands belonged to the Dominion of Canada, and it is bnly a question of who shall administer them-the Dominion parliament, or provincial parliament. I think it goes without saying that the government, or party that knows best how to administer the lands is the government representing the people living on those lands.
Then, take the case of the Riel rebellion. Do you think that the Prime Minister showed himself to be a man who had not turned his face against the west when he voted, not in favour of the government of the day that was trying to maintain law and order, but against the government and in sympathy with Riel? I could enumerate other instances to show the right hon. gentleman's attitude toward the west, but I need not do so.
The right hon. gentleman has said that the puddings which the west are eating today are the result of his policy. I can see no connection between the puddings which the west are eating and the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, except that he is the man who lacked the faith to give the vote that built the road that opened the west, that grew the grain, that made the flour, that made the pudding the westerner eats.
I have observed, too, that the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite during this session have been particularly directed with a view to proving that the opposition are not as loyal as people generally think they are. I do not know exactly why they have made such a persistent effort this session to prove that we are not the loyal party of Canada or that we are not as loyal as people usually think we are unless it

is because there has been an election in Drummond very recently, and I would like to term this loyalty of the hon. gentlemen their post-Drummond, latter-day loyalty. What did the hon. member for South Well ington (Mr. Guthrie) say? He first of all denied that his party had ever advocated the policy of mutual preferential trade within the empire. He said that they had never advocated that and that the Conservative party had. He said that the Conservative party had advocated a policy which had for its object the taxation of the food products of the empire. I shall give his own words :
Last night my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) stated that in 1892 the Prime Minister had gone to London, Ont., and in a speech stated that the policy of the Liberal party was a policy of mutual preferences with Great Britain, and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) meant to convey the impression that the policy of the Liberal party implied that a tariff should be imposed by Great Britain in favour of the products of Canada. Well, the position of the Prime Minister at that particular date is a matter of record in this parliament, because he voted for that resolution moved by Sir Louis Davies and that resolution stands today as the guiding principle of the policy of this government in regard to trade with Great Britain. But, Sir, look at that ridiculous position which hon. members of the Conservative party in those days took upon that question. What did they ask Great Britain to do and for what purpose?
Mr. McNeill and the Conservative party had, the effrontery to ask Great Britain to tax the food supplies of her people.
How consistent too of these ultra loyalists of the Conservative party tihose navy-league lovalists of the Conservative party; those gentlemen who at public banquets and Canadian Club lunches in particular, tell us what enormous burdens England has to bear to support that navy which protects us, and who calls on us to pity the poor mother land groaning under the weight of the taxes which she imposes upon herself; how inconsistent it is that those same ultra loyalists, those same navy leaguers, those men some of whom sit on the opposition benches to-day, should deliberately and solemnly in 1892 and continually since then ask Great Britain not only to tax herself for her navy but to tax herself for her very food stuffs for the benefit of Canada.
The hon. gentleman probably did not know when he was uttering these words that he was calling the right hon. the Prime Minister ridiculous, a man who had the effrontery to ask Great Britain to tax her food supplies for her people, ridiculous and inconsistent an ultra-loyalist, a navy league loyalist, a Canadian club loyalist ; and the hon. gentleman was stating that he had no patience with anybody who advocated a policy of that kind. I shall quote the words of the Prime Minister himself on that very same question two or three weeks Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
before the general election of 1896 at Toronto-and he repeated the same statement at London, as alleged by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). When the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made that statement I remembered quite conclusively that in the campaign years ago when I was on the stump I had charged the Prime Minister with stealing that plank from the Conservative platform. I shall prove that the Prime Minister was in favour of that policy in 1896 and I would point out how unkind it is for the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to call the Prime Minister the names he has applied to him. In the ' Globe ' of June 13, 1896, I find what 1 assume is a verbatim report of his speech. He said :
I agree with him (Sir Charles Tupper) in regard to preferential trade. This is a new idea and one which in itself is fraught with greatness not only for the Canadian people, but for the British Empire at large. And now the principle is proclaimed that there shall be preferential trade within the empire at large. That is to say that England and her colonies should trade upon a footing of preference over other nations. Imagine what would be the consequences if the products of Canada, the wheat, the barley, the oats, the butter, the cheese, which we are sending to England were to be accepted in the British markets on terms of preference over the products of the United States, of Russia and all the other countries which are competing with us in that market. The advantages are obvious, 6o obvious that the moment I saw the idea I jumped at it and immediately declared myself in favour of it.
The right hon. gentleman jumped at a policy which is described by the hon. member for South Wellington as ridiculous, selfish and unpatriotic. That was the most unkindest cut of all, because while no man in the House can bear the shafts, the thrusts -and the rebuffs of the opposition so well as the Prime Minister, it is not right, it is a shame That he should get these unwitting lateral lunges from the members supporting him. I do not follow the arguments of my hon. friend from South Wellington, but I do follow the arguments advanced on that occasion by the Prime Minister. They were sane and sound and in the interest of the people of this country. I wish to ask this House what could be more to the advantage of this country than to secure what Mr. Joseph Chamberlain proposes, what Mr. Austin Chamberlain proposes, what Mr. Balfour proposes, a preference in the English market on our wheat of perhaps 6 cents a bushel. That is the policy advocated by my hon. friend in Toronto, but I am sorry to say that, on the first occasion on which he spoke in England, he repudiated it, he said he would have none of it, that he would not ask for

a mutual preference. He is about to negotiate for reciprocity with the United States. 1 ask him not to forget reciprocity within the the empire when he is carrying on those negotiations with the United States, I ask him to place nothing in the way of that mutual preferential trade within the empire the attainment of which I think is only a matter of years. I ask him to place no stumbling block in the-way of that reciprocity but to follow the policy which he enunciated in Toronto.
I wish to say a word or two in reference to the navy. In listening the other day to the recriminations and counter-recriminations passing to and fro across the House between hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec, I wondered whether such a scene as that had been witnessed in the good old days when that grand old statesman Sir John Macdonald, had the destinies of Canada in his hand, because I believe that although Sir John was not of the same race as the hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec, he seems to have held a warm spot in the hearts of his fellow citizens from Quebec and the proof of that is that during his whole regime we never witnessed such a scene as we have witnessed in this House in the last week or ten days. Is there a man in this House who can say that he remembers Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Mackenzie Bowell or any other leader of the .Conservative party, or any member of the great Conservative party uttering any sentiment, which could by any manner of means be construed into disloyalty to the British Empire, or advocating any principle of independence or any principle that would weaken or sever the ties binding this country to the mother land. I think I am safe in saying that the whole tradition of the Conservative party is against that, the whole policy of the Conservative party rebuts any such contention. Even the trade policies advocated by the Conservative party all pointed in an opposite direction. What was the attitude of the Conservative party during the time my right hon. friend was advocating so many of these trade .policies-anti-British trade policies, I have no hesitation in calling them? Can any man say that if we had adopted the Liberal policies of continental free trade, unrestricted reciprocity or commercial union, the ultimate effect of these polices would not have been to have driven us into the commercial arms of the United States and eventually to have driven us into the political arms of and annexation to the great country to the south of us. During all the time that these policies were being advocated by the right hon. gentleman the grand old man was combatting them tooth and nail, sometimes at great odds, but always successfully. There came a time when the greatest man in the
Liberal party said: I will be no party to advocating a policy which I believe will ultimately lead us into the arms of the United States. The Hon. Edward Blake had the courage of his convictions and he came out and said: I have come to the parting of the ways; one leads to political annexation with the United States and the other leads to maintaining and preserving the bonds which unite us to the mother land.
Then, we come down and we compare the attitude of the two parties upon this question and what do we find? Has the right hon. gentleman himself been responsible for any of the sentiments which have been expressed in Drummond and Artha-baslca? Has his conduct always been such .that the utterances that he has made will be repugnant to the utterances alleged to have been made in Drummond and Arthabaska? I will take one or two and I will not detain the House. First, I will take the speech made by the hon. gentleman in Boston. I am going back a considerable time because I want to show that the position occupied by the right hon. gentleman has been consistent in advocating a policy which might lead the people to believe that it was to the advantage of this country that we should become an independent nation. It is not for me to say that the premier should not advocate such a policy; he has a perfect right to do that, but it is right to let the country see what the policy was that was advocated by the right hon. gentleman. Did anybody ever hear of a Liberal-Conservative, did anybody ever hear of Sir John Macdonald, or any other member of the Conservative party give utterance to such a sentiment as this?
The conduct of England and Canada during the civil war of 1861-66 was a disgrace to the civilization of England and Canada. ... It is a great, a fatal mistake to make allegiance, British allegiance, the basis of trade. . . . The present position of Canada cannot last, even at this day England and Canada have interests totally apart, and that the time will come when in the very nature of things separation must take place. I am a subject of the British Crown, but whenever I have to choose between the interests of England and of Canada, it is manifest to me that the interests of my country are identical with the interests of the United States of America.
and yet these are the words of the Premier himself.
It was just such a policy as that which led the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. G. A. Turcotte), who is one of the government members sitting on that side of the House to make a statement in this House last session. What did he say? The words which I have read are the words which were attributed to the right hon. gentleman by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Fos-

ter) and not denied by him. They were, in fact, reasserted by the right hon. the Prime Minister later in the House. But, last session the hon. member for Nicolet, inspired by the sentiments uttered by the right hon. gentleman in Boston years ago, and which were cast up to him in this House by the hon. member for North Toronto, the seeds of these sentiments having taken root in the breast of the hon. member for Nicolet, that hon. gentleman gave utterances to the following sentiments, as will be found at page 4625 of ' Hansard ', March 3, 1910:	*
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) in one of his outpours of sarcasm, taunted the right hon. leader of the Liberal party for having in by-gone days advocated independence for Canada. I fail to see there anything objectionable, anything which could justify the taunts of the deputy leader of the opposition. Is it not proper and fair to acknowledge that the Canadian people gravitates towards and aspires after a state of perfect development, complete maturity, which cannot be, after all, anything but independence, if not annexation.
The right hon. the Prime Minister was in the House when that speech was made and I never heard him repudiate it. It was exactly in line with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. gentleman in Boston. But the hon. member for Nicolet was not satisfied with that. He said:
Independence seems to be, in some quarters, a scare-crow, the nightmare of those in whose eyes the interests of Canada are of little account and who reserve their love and loyalty for the empire. But, I put the question to these hon. gentlemen. Will not Canada sooner or later have to choose between annexation and independenec ?
He was not satisfied with that, but he almost wound up his speech with these words:
But the day will come, and my most earnest desire is to see it reached when relying solely on our own strength, our own energy and our own resources, we will be at liberty, like the sister nations of free America, to proudly fulfil our destiny under the flag of independence.
In another portion of his speech he said that the creation of a Canadian navy was the last step towards the independence of Canada. So that the right hon. gentleman's speech has borne fruit. I could quote more of this speech. But, the right hon. gentleman himself said:
Sir, I made no mistake when I said that the natural destiny of this country was independence. I say so now upon the floor of this House.
So that, upon the floor of this House he reiterated and corroborated the speech delivered at Boston.
The next case I will take up is that of Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
the South African war. What was the attitude of the right hon. gentleman then? We were faced with a crisis in South Africa and the empire was faced with a crisis. All the other nations of the empire were making their contributions. The right hon. gentleman was the Prime Minister at that time. What stand did he take? He said: I cannot do it; I have not the power. The Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, leading the Conservative party at that time, from the city of Halifax, telegraphed to the right hon. gentleman and said: If you will send an emergency contingent to South Africa I will give you the support of myself and the members of the opposition in the House of Commons. But, that was not sufficient. The right hon. gentleman still said: I have not the power; I cannot do it. But then the newspapers of this country took the matter up, public opinion was aroused and the Montreal 'Star' did herculean service at that time. It sent despatches through the length and breadth of Canada and ninety per cent of the replies received said: By all odds send a contingent to South Africa; we do not know when we will need assistance ourselves. Not until then did the right hon. gentleman act. He followed public opinion instead of leading it, he found that he could do then what he said before was impossible, and he sent a contingent to South Africa. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) says that is something which proves that the right hon. gentleman has always been exceedingly loyal to Great Britain. I do not think that it does; I think that was doing something that he was forced into.
Now, we come to the conduct of the Liberal party during the campaign of 1896, which was so beautifully exposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). We have the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) standing up and saying that any man who would publish a cartoon, or any man who would utter words which were attributed to the Nationalists, was guilty of a shameful act, was guilty of a crime. Then it was proved that that very cartoon, which he had described as criminal, had been published in the official organ of the Reform party. Then the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) made a very long speech, filled with political platitudes, but with nothing very practical. He did not know at that time that this cartoon had been published by the minister's own paper. He did not know that these speeches to the electors of Drummond had been delivered in by-gone years by Reformers, telling the people that it was not necessary for them to fight for Great Britain. He did not know that these sentiments had been uttered by the press of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for South Ontario gave utterance to one of his elementary

principles, as he called them, and one of these elementary principles was that if it had not been for the passing of Magna Oharta, eight hundred years ago, expressions such as had been used by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would have been sufficient to justify the government in placing their authors in jail and allowing them to stew in their own juice. He did not know that these expressions had been used by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at that time and so we get a thrust in the rear from the hon. member for South Ontario.
Well, then, we come later on to the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska. I might mention, by the way, the speech made by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean)-I think it was-which I do not think was a very patriotic speech. But, it was a speech which was not repudiated by the right hon. leader of the government. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McLean) said:-
But, Sir, the most silly contention I think I have ever heard made in this House is that she has protected our shores from invasion by foreign foes. Now I ask when in the memory of living man have our shores been ever threatened by a foreign foe. The only occasion I remember is what was known as the Fenian Raid, and that was not inspired by any dislike for Canada but by a dielike for Great Britain, because she denied to a certain portion of her subjects the right of privileges which _ they thought, and which I think they were justly entitled to. ' Hansard/ 1910.-p. 4419.
These, Sir, are sentiments that would not emanate from any member on this side of the House, and it is up to the member for South Huron to withdraw them. We had the other day in Ottawa, Mr. S. S. McClure, one of the most prominent newspaper and periodical publishers in the United States, and listen to his words abo.ut the British navy:-
If I were able to give you advice, which I am not, I would give you advice on the following lines. First, I would make it a matter so clear and plain that every man, woman and child should know it in his heart that the most important institution in the world to-day for human peace and justice and maintaining of the great highways of trade is the British navy.
Now, Sir, I agree with Mr. McClure, and I think I may say that the members on this side of the House agree with his words concerning the power for good of the British navy. And in one respect that is exactly where we take issue with the government of the day. In what we may call the unanimous resolution passed by the House in 1909, the principle was expressed that whatever was to be done by the Dominion of Canada must be done to strengthen the central force that went for the protection of the empire, but the naval policy placed
on the statute-books by this government has as its guiding principle that this navy of theirs is to be a separate entity, a little navy for Canada alone, which cannot go to war except an order in council is passed by the government. That is the distinction between the two parties and that is why we voted against the government Bill. Perhaps I might put that more clearly by quoting from Mr. R. T. Stead's poem, ' The Empire Builders.':-
I'st well to boast of Empire and brag of Britain's might,
I'st well to sing of her soldiers or hurry them into the fight,
I'st well to raise your anthem for the King upon his throne,
While ye leave the mother country to bear the load alone?
Many the winds that rise and fall to the flag that ye call your own,
And ye walk secure to the end6 of earth wherever that flag is known;
Safe as a child in its mother's arms ye come and ye go at will,
And ye take it all for granted

and your
mother pays the bill.
Never a wave that beats your shore but knows her floating steel,
Never a sand in your harbour fronts but knows her iron keel,
Never a child in your inland towns but lisps of her 'hearts of oak',
And the breath that ye breathe as the air of God is thick with her sulphur-smoke.
Dreaming your dreams and visions

making
your dreams come true

Offering not of your substance, offering words in lieu

Large in your little dealings, small in your great affairs,
Proud of the land that bore ye, but blind to the load she bears.
That defines the distinction between us. We on this side of the House do not propose to leave the mother country to bear the burden alone; we believe that in assisting to uphold the supremacy of the British navy we are simply assisting in the protection of our own shores.
Now, Sir, I want to say a word or two concerning certain remarks made by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), and anything I may say will be said in a friendly manner, because the hon. gentleman and I represent adjoining constituencies and we are the best of friends. But, as I have already pointed out, whenever an hon. member on the other side of the House desires to climb up in the esteem of the Prime Minister, he proceeds forthwith to bestow on the right hon. gentleman the most fulsome eulogy, and he immediately proceeds to select a method on which to climb. And so, the hon. member for South Grey, (Mr. Miller), selected a metaphorical tree on which to climb in the estimation of the Prime Minister.

441}


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no.


William Sora Middlebro: The right hon. gentleman thinks not, and I would be inclined to th'ink not also judging by the very cool manner in which my right hon. friend listened to the eulogy. I want to point out that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) selected that metaphorical tree as a means of climbing into the esteem of the Prime Minister there was some method in his madness, because as you know, if you have any suspicion that you are not going to get into office you can pluck a little graft from that tree on the way up, and then .again, if you are going to have a tumble the branches will break the fall and your friends will not hear you hit the ground. You will see, therefore, that the metaphor has its double application, and probably the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) selected his metaphorical tree for that reason. But, Sir, it was absolutely painful, it was cruel to see the way the hon. gentleman maltreated that tree. At one portion of the hon. genueman's peroration he took unto it wings, and I observed that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) who as chairman of the Conservation Commission is supposed to look after all the natural resources of this country including trees ; when he (Mr. Sifton) saw the fearful maltreatment my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) was giving to the metaphorical tree he got uneasy, and he left his seat and he walked in front of the member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) and with a strong conservation look on his,face he tried to impress upon him the advisability of leaving that tree alone, which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) did forthwith. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) attempted to prove that because the Conservatives did not place a candidate in the field in the Drummond-Arthabaska election it was a conclusive proof that they were in alliance with the Nationalist party. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) think that is a fair argument?


Mr. MILLER.: If he did not think so he would not have used it.


William Sora Middlebro: Then I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) if it is not just as fair for me to say that because Sir Wilfrid Laurier placed no candidate in the field in South York against Mr. Maclean, therefore the Prime Minister and Mr. Maclean are in an unholy alliance. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) now if that is not as fair an argument as his?


Henry Horton Miller: I will answer as many questions as my hon. friend chooses to put to me. I do not know that upon that occasion there was any disloyal element putting forth a candidate in South York.


William Sora Middlebro: 


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman is begging the question.


Henry Horton Miller: I say the circumstances were entirely different.


William Sora Middlebro: The point I am making is this : the hon. member said that because we did not put up a candidate in Drummond and Arthabaska that therefore we were in alliance with the Nationalists, and I say if his argument is good, therefore as the Liberals put up no candidate against the member for South York, would it not be as fair to say they_ were in alliance with the member for South York. Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) that while it is quite true the Conservatives had no candidate in Drummond-Arthabaska at the last election, it is just as true that the Conservatives had no candidate in Drummond-Arthabaska at the last general election, and that, because the riding was so strongly Liberal that it was not considered advisable to put up a candidate. The argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) therefore, falls to the ground because at the general election there was no question of loyalty or disloyalty, there was no question of alliance with the Nationalists because there were no Nationalists there, and yet the Conservatives had not a candidate in the field. In view of this, I think the hon. gentleman ought to admit that his assertion in that respect was absolutely unjustified. But, if the hon. gentleman will still assert that there was an alliance between the two parties, perhaps he will take the opinion of the Toronto ' Globe ' which a few days ago said :
The outstanding incident in yesterday's debate on the naval service Act of last session was Mr. Borden's assertion that the Conservatives are not in alliance with the Nationalists. That Mr. Borden's view is the correct one is shown by many indications.
I, therefore, to-day say that the assertion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) : that the Liberal-Conservatives are in alliance with the Nationalists, utterly falls to the ground, and such an assertion simply shows that these gentlemen opposite feel so keenly that public opinion is against them that they endeavour to turn the tide by making statements which they cannot substantiate by evidence. A word in conclusion-I think that any one who has listened to the speech of the leader of the opposition, having in view the fact that the unanimous resolution which was passed in this House in 1909 was not carried out by the government at all ; having in view the fact that the government came down with a mongrel navy policy to which we never assented having in view the fact that in the interval an emergency had arisen which was satisfactorily met by

the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, and having in view the fact that our proposition not having been carried out the two parties were at issue,
I think that no man in this country can to-day find fault with Mr. R. L. Borden's policy when he says : We are again at issue on the naval question, and we are in favour of submitting that issue to the bar of public opinion in this Dominion at the next general election.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I must crave the indulgence of the House, having already spoken in this interminable debate,, if I rise again further to trespass upon its patience. But occupying the position I do at the head of the government, perhaps it will not be considered amiss if I again rise with the view of stating the view of the government on the new phase introduced in this debate by the two amendments which have been moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) will pardon me, I am sure, if I do not attempt to reply to the very interesting speech which he has just delivered, and there is a very good reason for it. He has spoken of everything except the amendments before the House. He has travelled far afield; I do not blame him for it. He has gone from east to west, and from west to east again, he has spoken of ancient history and of modern history, but he has said never a word about the amendments which we are now to dispose of. The amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is quite in accord with the position he took last year, and it will be sufficient, for me to read both amendments to justify what I now say. Last year my hon. friend met the Bill which was introduced with an amendment in these words:
This House, while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown, is of opinion, that the Bill now submitted for its consideration changes the relations of Canada with the empire and ought in consequence to be submitted to the Canadian people in order to obtain at once the nation's opinion by means of a plebiscite.
This year my hon. friend has expressed the same idea in somewhat more condensed language, by moving:
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
Barring the fact that this amendment has dropped the idea of a plebiscite, there is not much substantial difference between my hon. friend's motion of last year and his
motion of this year. Perhaps my hon. friend would permit me to offer .him my compliments on the fact that in this matter at all events he has been somewhat consistent since the question was introduced into the House. To say of any man that he has been consistent is not paying him a great compliment; but, small as it is, I offer it to my hon. friend, because after all it_is something, considering the surroundings in which he is placed, where nothing has been more remarkable than the changes in the views of his friends which have occurred with something like lightning rapidity. But what shall I say of the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition? All I have to say of it is mat it is the last chapter in the history of the variations of my hon. friend on this matter. I might refer to the many somersaults performed by my hon. friend on this question since it came before this House; but I will not do it, for the reason given to me in the town of Melville, last year why the houses in that town had not been counted. Melville is a new town which has sprung up within the last two years on the line of the Transcontinental railway. It has a population now estimated at 500, three banks, four churches, and one large school with four teachers. I asked one of the enterprising citizens 1 met there, one of the new settlers, one of those typical western men in whose breast hope always springs eternal, how many buildings there were in the town of Melville? His answer was: 'I could not tell you, Sir; we never counted them, because if we undertook to do so, by the time we reached the end of the operation, there would be so many new buildings that we would be out of reckoning. That is the reason I do not count the turns made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition; I would not undertake such a task. Perhaps I might simply skim over the subject and show to what degree of inconsistency a large party hungering for office can descend. This question which we have now again before us, which occupied the large part of last session, came in complete form for the first time in the session of 1909, upon a motion introduced by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Hon. Geo. E. Foster). The motion has been more than once quoted, but as it formed the basis of the question which we are now discussing, it will bear being repeated again. My hon. friend moved as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self-help and selfrespect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.

Mark the words: 'Canada should no longer delay.' For a long space of time this subject had been before the House. The question of a Canadian navy to guard our shores and commerce has been more than once brought to the attention of this House. It has been discussed in numerous meetings and in innumerable newspaper articles, and therefore my hon friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was simply following the trend of public opinion when he brought it !to the attention of this House. When he last brought it up, it did not meet any adverse comment but was accepted by everybody. Not a voice of dissent was heard, not even the voice of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who was present on that occasion, who heard the discussion but who could not bring his courage to the sticking point, and oppose the resolution. My hon. friend has told us subsequently that he left the House and was not present when the vote was taken. Whether he left the House to shirk the vote or for a more praiseworthy motive, does not matter, on that occasion everybody in this House agreed to the proposition, and I must say that there was no one so enthusiastic in its support as my hon. friend the leader of the Conservative party. He was not satisfied with the resolution but wanted immediate action to be taken. I myself was in favour of the motion, but I thought the language rather vague and deemed it my duty to put it in more concrete form. I moved an amendment which I shall not quote in its entirety, but there is one paragraph, which is the kernel of the whole thing, and which I shall read to the House. That paragraph in my amendment was this
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the 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 Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
My hon. friend agreed to this-not a word to be taken out of it; but the only fault he had to find was that the language was not sufficiently definite. He was not satisfied that we should provide for the organization of the naval service, but instead that we should provide for its immediate organization. Not an hour, not a day was to be lost; and following his suggestion, we inserted the word 'speedy.' There was no question then of consulting the people or having a plebiscite or a general election and inviting the people to tell us what we should do. My hon. friend did not want us to wait a moment to consult anybody but insisted that we should go Sir WILFRID LATJRIER,
on immediately. He was in that frame of mind when the session closed. After the session he went to England and there presented to the people of England the motion which had been passed by this parliament on the necessity of an immediate organization of a Canadian service. After his tour in England and almost on the same day that he landed in Halifax, he spoke again on the same subject in the same way as he had done before and depicted all the advantages which would accrue to the country at large, and Nova Scotia and Halifax in particular, from the immediate organization of a Canadian navy. On the 14th of October, my hon. friend spoke at Halifax, as follows :-
One governing principle at least should control, namely, that out of our materials, by our own labour and by the instructed skill of our own people, any necessary provision for our own naval defence should be made. In this connection may we not hope that there shall be given a stimulus and an encouragement to the ship-building industry of which Canada has long been lacking? To-day should be Nova Scotia's opportunity in this regal'd. Providence has endoxved this province with the material, with the men and with the maritime situation which are essential for developing a scheme of naval defence and protection.
There was no suggestion there that we should consult the people. Providence itself had decided that the navy was in the interests of Nova Scotia.
But my hon. friend, after he had landed in Halifax, became aware of certain speeches which had been made by certain of his followers, many of whom I see now before me, in which they had taken a position absolutely different from the one they had voted for a few months ago, on the 26th of March, 1909. It is of record that many gentlemen on the other side, after the close of the session 1909, after they had voted for the motion introduced by myself in amendment to the resolution of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster)- I except of course my hon. friend from Jacques Gartier (Mr. Monk) who did not vote,-went about the country and made speeches against this policy. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) is no doubt too close a student of our political history not to have been aware of these speeches, and I do not think I am making a violent supposition when I suppose that many of these gentlemen came to him and told him that there was some embarrassment for the government in that policy and that he had better withdraw the support he had given it. Our mother Eve was tempted by one only, I do not know how many tempted my hon. friend, but in any event he proved himself a true daughter of Eve. He succumbed to the tempter, but it was somewhat embarrassing to him perhaps to se-

lect a ground upon which he should fall and find reason for going back upon the policy he voted for only a few months before. There was an expedient ready at hand, namely, the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the people should be consulted. Such as it was, my hon. friend had some difficulty in swallowing it, but he was equal to the occasion. He accepted the idea that there should be an appeal to the people before proceeding with the policy, but he larded and buttered that idea on one side with the proposition that the policy which we had introduced was ill-advised and dangerous; and on the other side he larded and buttered it with the statement that we should in the inception, while at work consulting the people, send to England the price of two Dreadnoughts, $25,000,000. Thus larded, he brought in an amendment supporting the policy of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), swallowed it without any hesitation, and with it his convictions and conduct of a few mouthy before. He moved his motion and it was not accepted. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier moved his motion which was also rejected and the Bill was passed. Then, according to all parliamentary usage, the question was at an end, so far as legislation was concerned. But it did not follow that it was at an end in so far as opposition to the policy was concerned. That could go on. It was the right and privilege of the opposition to fight against that policy in any capacity they pleased. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who is, as everybody knows, a good parliamentarian, understood this. When, at the opening of this^ session he spoke on the address, he reminded us of the friendly advice he had given us last year, and which we had not accepted. But he did not go further; he did not move an amendment. But, immediately afterward, arose my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the apostle of stagnation and negation. And he moved his amendment, repeating, as I stated, the motion he had made before. His amendment is in these words:-
The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.
Now, I am told-I do not know whether the statement is true-hon. members opposite can tell me whether it is or not-that when this motion was moved there was quite a feeling of embarrassment in the ranks of His Majesty's opposition. Last year a similar motion moved by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier had gathered a few votes, not only of the Nationalists, but of the Conservatives-of the faithful. And I am told that immediately there was an
intimation that, unless there was another amendment moved a good many gentlemen on the other side would vote, as they had voted last year, with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. That would not have suited the view of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden)and his friends; they did not want to appear to have any alliance with the Nationalist party. Therefore, a new amendment was devised by my hon. friend, not differing materially from the amendment of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, but doctored a little to make it more palatable. This is the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden)
We beg to assure Tour Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire. We desire, however, to express our regret that Your Excellency's gracious speech gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada.
Between the amendment of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition there is not much difference; there is enough, however, to mark a line of cleavage, so that gentlemen on the other side may say they have no relation whatever with the Nationalists. My hon. friend has told us, and has reiterated, and my hon, friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) a moment ago was careful to repeat so that it might be made known and sent broadcast, that there is no alliance whatever between His Majesty's opposition, the loyal party of Canada, and the Nationalist party. Nobody pretended or believed, in fact nobody ever thought that there was between my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and his party on the one side, and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and his party on the other side a treaty of alliance solemnly signed by plenipotentiaries with all the rules of the protocol. Nobody believed that -there is no necessity for it; a wink is quite sufficient.
Henceforth the naval policy of the government, a policy which I thought at one time would have the support of all Canadians-I am sorry I made a mistake; I presumed too much on the patriotism of these hon. gentlemen on the other side-will be attacked in Quebec and in the other provinces on the basis of the same resolution, that there must be an appeal to the people, but on very different arguments in Quebec and in the other provinces. In Quebec the policy will be attacked, as it has been attacked by the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier aitd his friends, on the ground that it is an imperial policy; in Ontario and the other English-speaking provinces it will be attacked on the ground that

it is a separatist measure. The government will be attacked from the right; it will be attacked from the left. But the object will be the same-the destruction of the government. There will not be a treaty of alliance -there is none. But, should these tactics succeed and the government be defeated, both the parties sitting there will be at the death falling upon each other's necks, kissing, embracing and hugging each other in the very ecstacy of delight that at last the government has been defeated. There would be a jolly time, to be followed, however, by a jolly row. For the time would come to divide the spoils, to form a government, to define a policy and to determine whether the Tory lion was to swallow the Nationalist lamb, or the Nationalist lamb to swallow the Tory lion. My hon. friend opposite is already beginning to endure the punishment which will follow his course. That punishment is indicated in the altered tone of the Nationalist press toward him. It has been to the credit of my hon. friend that, hitherto, he has had the honour of the insults of the Nationalist press. Henceforth he will have the insult of Nationalist praise.
Such is the position we have to deal with at the present time. Let me, therefore, examine the two amendments which have been presented. These amendments are a very lame and impotent conclusion to the violent language with which our policy has been attacked both in Quebec and in the other provinces. If that policy needed justification for its .strength, its wisdom, its opportuneness, it would be found in the tameness of the amendments that have been proposed. If my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier were convinced that this policy is the first step to conscription, that it is going to tear children from their mothers and is going to send Canadians upon all the seas of the world, to be disembowelled by German shells, or killed by Russian bullets, or Japanese shots, wouid his proposal be simply to refer such a monstrous policy to the people? No, he would say: Down with such a policy!-we will oppose it; we will never submit to it. If the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) were satisfied, as he Las alleged on the floor of this House, and as his friends have alleged here and elsewhere, that this policy is not only ill-advisel, but that it is dangerous, that it is a step leading to separation, would he and his friends be content to send that question to the people to pronounce upon it? Would not they denounce and oppose such a policy?
My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) in the speech which he delivered, which was very temperate in tone, and to which I listened with great interest, gave to the House a long list of our delinquencies-and according to the hon. gentleman they are many, indeed. One of them was the policy which we introduced in 1898 for Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the building of a railway to the Yukon. My hon. friend forgot to say that it was not the policy of his party to leave that question to the people, they combatted it and succeeded in killing it in the Senate. When in 1903 we introduced a measure for the building of the Transcontinental railway, although the question had never been brought before the attention of the country, still the opposition did not attack that Bill simply by stating that the question should be referred to the people; my hon. friend and his friends attacked that policy from the first, they opposed that railway from the moment it was introduced. The amendments I have quoted to the House asking that an appeal should be made to the people before the policy is proceeded with are simply subterfuge to escape responsibility. Hon. gentlemen know that if there is, in some sections of the country, a sentiment of hostility to that policy, caused by its not being known as it shall be known in a fqw years, there are on the other side many sections of the community amongst the bast informed of the whole population of the country who are in favour of it, and therefore they take this middle course of not attacking it outright themselves, but asking to have it referred to the people so that the people may pronounce on it, so that they may afterwards form their opinion not on their own consciences, but upon the consciences of the electors.
Let me go further and deeper into tins question. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, as I know from past experience, have not the same opinion that I have on the autonomy of the young nations of the British Empire. I remember that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on a previous occasion said that we had heard too much of autonomy in this House. I have heard the same remark made elsewhere, that we give too much attention to autonomy. I answer my hon. friend from Toronto, I take the ground here, that the very basis on which the British Empire rests, the very basis upon which alone it can be maintained, is the autonomy of all its component parts. When the early Canadian reformers asked for this country the privilege of being administered by responsible government, they built better than they knew. It was they who laid the foundation upon which the British Empire now rests. Conceive if you can what would be the condition to-day pf Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand, of South Africa, if these countries had continued to be governed as they were governed before from Downing street under a centralized government. Does any one believe that Canada would have reached, under such a system, the position she now occupies, covering a whole continent, with a population of 8,000,000, with a revenue of $100,000,000 and a

trade of $700,000,000 and more, the home of a people of different origin, happy and contented? Does any one believe that Aus; tralia would have attained the position which it has now attained, in which it is becoming stronger and stronger every day, and becoming the leading nation in the southern Pacific ocean? Does any one believe that New Zealand would have reached the position it has, or that the greatest wonder which I have seen accomplished under British institutions, that is the unification of South Africa, would have been carried out successfully? This is the basis upon which the British Empire rests. Every nation within it-and I hope in saying so, I do not shock my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) who I notice, always takes exception when we speak of Canada as a nation. I am sure he will not complain any more in view of the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in which he uses this very expression
We beg to assure Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire.
My hon. friend is corrected not by me, but by an authority which I am sure he will not dispute, and henceforth he will agree that we are a nation.


Samuel Hughes: Of the empire.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, I say nothing to the contrary. We are a nation of the empire, and the British Empire to-day comprises a galaxy of young nations. My hon. friend will agree that it is part of the duty of a free nation to provide for its defence. No one in this House will refute that sentiment, at least in words, however much it may be refuted in action. It is the part of a young and free country such as we are to-day, nation and free, to provide for its own defence. That was at all events the attitude which was taken many years ago by British statesmen with the full concurrence of Canadian statesmen. As soon as confederation had been adopted in 1867 the British authorities put it upon us to defend Canada, our own country, and this was assented to by Sir John Macdonald, by Sir George Etienne Cartier, by all the men of that day, as a duty which naturally devolved upon us. In the early days of the 19th century Great Britain had undertaken the defence of Canada. She had erected strong fortifications at Quebec, she had erected fortifications at Halifax, and later on when British Columbia came into the confederation, she placed a naval station at Esquimalt, and also established a naval station at Halifax. But, the British nation put it on us that we should 15
provide for our own defence and relieve the British taxpayer of the necessity of himself providing for the defence of our country. We accepted that duty, we undertook to garrison Quebec and Halifax and Esquimalt. The British nation then withdrew their naval stations at Halifax and Esquimalt and we have now undertaken to do what was done by the British nation, that is to say keep a naval reserve at Esquimalt and at Halifax. Will any one tell me that these fortifications which have been built by Great Britain at Quebec and at Halifax should remain unmanned and should be allowed to fall into decay? Is there not the same necessity today of providing for our defence as there was then? Will any one tell me that these naval stations at Halifax and Esquimalt are to remain untenanted and unmanned? Sir, whatever may be the view of hon. gentlemen opposite, our policy is that it is our duty to replace by Canadian troops and Canadian seamen, the British troops and British seamen who have been removed from Canadian soil.
I would ask the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) if that was not the very thing he had in mind when years ago he moved that the time had come when Canada should no longer delay to assume her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of our exposed coast line and great seaports. But Sir, there is more. I alluded to that two or three days ago in the debate on the address. I called the attention of the House to the fact that we are all the time extending our population northward and westward. We are building a railway from the interior to the Hudson Bay shores, a railway the terminus of which will be at least 600 or 700 or 800 miles from Halifax. We are building a transcontinental railway the terminus of which will be at least 600 miles from Esquimalt? Will any one tell me that we can afford to leave these isolated stations without any protection? Sir, whatever may be the verdict or the opinion which in a moment of passion or excitement may be pronounced in the calmer moments my hon. friends opposite will come to the conclusion that we have to protect these distant shorAs either by fortification or by ships. Now, if that work is to be done, if that duty is to be undertaken, it can be undertaken only by one of two parties, either by England or Canada, and our answer is that Canada must do it. That is my answer to the motion moved by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the motion moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).
Let me go still farther and if possible let the discussion touch the very rock bottom of the matter with which we are now concerned. Let us not wink at the



facts, but, if possible, let us argue this question without any prejudices at all in the light of the duty which we owe to-ourselves as a nation and which we owe to Great Britain as a part of the British Empire. A school has lately arisen in Great Britain which has quite a number of disciples in this country, the object of which has been to draw the young nations of the empire, Canada in particular, into the armaments of England, into the maelstrom of militarism in which England is engaged as one of the great powers of Europe. We have always, on this side of the House, fought against that idea. We have always maintained that the conditions of England and the conditions of Canada are so different that at this time it cannot be thought of at all events. I do not speak as to the future although I hope the day will never come. But, at this time it cannot toe thought of that Canada, a young nation with everything to create, shall be drawn into the abyss of this expensive militarism. My hon. friends on the other side of the House have always been coquetting with this question, and they have always pointed to the adoption of the idea and, in so far as they could, they have pronounced in favour of it. In so far as the present government is concerned the matter came up in a concrete form at the conference of 1902. There, we had the proposal made to us in so many words that we should equip and maintain a body of troops for imperial service and make a yearly contribution to the navy. I shall not quote at length from the Blue-books on this subject. I prefer to take the resume of the proceedings of the conference id. 1902 which was made last session by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) for which I complimented him at the time and which I think I might read as a very fair resume of what took place at that conference. I will quote the proposal which was made to us by the Secretary of State for War in the very language of my hon. friend from North Toronto and I ask hon. gentleman on the other side to listen to this. My hon. friend said, speaking of the conference of 1902 :
With reference to military defence, no definite conclusion was reached at this conference. The Secretary of State for War and New Zealand suggested an imperial reserve, that is a special body of troops ear-marked for imperial service, and held ready in the different colonies for emergencies when they arose. Cape Colony and Natal agreed to that principle; Canada and Australia thought it best to raise the standard of the training of the general body of the forces, leaving it foi the colonies to determine the nature and the extent of the assistance when an emergency arose; and both argued that in that way you would avoid any jealousy that might arise Sir WILFRID LATIRIER.
from there being two kinds of militia, so to speak, one, a special reserve marked for a special purpose, and the other thrown alongside of them, the general militia of Canada. In that respect I am not at all saying that I do not think the position taken by Australia and Canada was a proper position. I am not here to comment on this to-day, but simply to make the review.
The main proposal that was made to us, as defined by the hon. member for North Toronto, was that we should equip a body of troops, ear-mark it and place it under the immediate command of the Secretary of State for War for imperial purposes. Then, speaking of naval defence, my hon. friend thus referred to the proposal which was made to us :
Sir John Forrest, its Minister of Defence. The First Lord of the Admiralty who I think at that time was the Right Hon. the Earl of Selborne, prepared a paper which was presented to the conference. The general line of his paper was that in the study of defence it is the best defence which is in a position to become aggressive when an emergency arises, that there was need not only of money but of man contribution; he would like to see each colony represented in the navy with vessels and with men from the colony. He thought the allocation in peace time would be easy, but all through his memorandum he stood unflinchingly for one control, absolute in case of war and in case of emergency. Some discussion took place but not very much at this stage and it was then decided that the conference should separate and that each colony should have its own conference with the Admiralty and that then a report should be made to conference as to what had been agreed upon.
Then he went on to say that Canada did not agree to either of these two proposals, and I have again to repeat that we did not agree and we placed on record our opinion as to what our policy should be. The question has often been referred to but it bears repetition. It is well that I should state what we did on that occasion and what was the policy to which we assented, which we declared and which has been ever since, for the last eight years, before the Canadian people. We stated that :
The Canadian ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborne respecting a navy, and by Mr. St. John Broderick respecting the army. The ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much from the expense involved, as from a belief that the acceptance of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial government. Canada values highly the measure of local independence which has been granted her from time to time by the imperial authorities, and which has been so productive of beneficial results, both as respects the material progress of the country and the strengthening of the ties that bind it to the

mother land .... At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval system of defence as well. On the sea coast of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early date a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
I beg to call the attention of the House to the fact that we refused to be drawn into the position which was asked of us that we should have a military force under the direct control of the war office and we insisted on maintaining our autonomy in this respect as in everything else. The same question came up in 1907 upon a motion moved toy Dr. Smartt of Cape Colony to which the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) has just alluded. It is well that I should be permitted to quote again the motion of Dr. Smartt, and now yon will have the reason ~why we did not agree to it. The motion of Dr. Smartt was in these words :
That this conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contributions towards the upkeep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-the contributions to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the Admiralty and as would best accofd with varying circumstances.
There were many reasons why for my part I could not agree to this motion, but the one reason which is germane to the present discussion is-and I alluded to it the other evening-that it was drawing immediately this young nation into the military and naval system of Great Britain, and for reasons which I shall state later on I thought that should not be done Last year, you remember, I was the subject of much obloquy from gentlemen from the other side for the stand I took on tha1 occasion. I heard hon. gentlemen of thf opposition say that it was a sad and humiliating day for Canada when the Prime Minister had refused to vote for the motior of Dr. Smartt.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon friends opposite cheer too soon, and in r moment I shall tell them why. I did no' take any notice of these statements at thi time; I was not at all disturbed by th< obloquy cast upon me for I knew I was in 15i
the right and I knew the time would come when the position I had then taken would be justified even on the floor of this House. And, Sir, that day has come; it has come sooner than I expected; it came the other day when the leader of the opposition moved his motion and when he made the speech he then made. I owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for having adopted as he did the ideas which I presented on that occasion, and which I reaffirm to-day. I do not know that I should thank my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) for his good intentions; I do not think there was any good intent there, but I tender him the deepest expression of my gratitude for his action, and now I shall quote his own very words and point out to him in what respect I owe him that gratitude, and in what way he has adopted the very policy which I advocated in 1902 and in 1907. When my hon.. friend moved his motion he indulged in a very natural supposition for him, for he talked of what he would do if he were in office. He has long been thinking of that I know, and perhaps he may have to think of it for some time to come, but at all events it is quite in order that he should review these public questions from the point of view of his holding the office and the responsibility which now rests upon my poor shoulders. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) said:	*
So far as I am concerned, it seems to me that our plain course and duty would be this: The government of this country are able to understand and know, if they take the proper action for that purpose, whether the conditions which face the empire at this time in respect of naval -defence are grave or not. If we were in power we would endeavour to find that out, to get a plain, unvarnished answer to that question, and if the answer to that question, based upon the report of the government of the mother country and of the naval experts of the Admiralty were such- and I think it would be such-as to demand instant and effective action by this country, then I would appeal to parliament for immediate and effective aid, and if parliament did not give immediate and effective aid I would appeal to the people of this country.
Noble sentiments. I have not a word to say against them; wise sentiments, wise policy. Does not my hon. friend the leader of the opposition here tell us that if he were in office he would not have rushed to offer two Dreadnoughts as he did last year. Now, my hon. friends on the other side of the House, it is time for them to cheer. Last year, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, without information, without knowing in the least what was the condition of affairs, rushed in and asked parliament to vote $25,000,000 to purchase Dreadnoughts for an emergency. The hon. gentleman did not know whether or not there was an emergency but he rushed into

it, and his followers voted with him. But to-day, the leader of the opposition tells these same followers in so many words that they should not have taken his advice of last year, and that he should have consulted the authorities to know whether or not there was. an emergency. Well, we knew there was no emergency, and therefore we voted against the contribution which was advocated by my hon. friend: Surely my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is not tender to his followers in this, but that is no concern of mine. Then, speaking upon the general question of the naval policy, the leader of the opposition goes on to say:
I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in imperial defence involves very large and wide considerations. If Canada and the other dominions of the empire are to take their part as nations of this empire in the defence of the empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole empire, shall have absolutely, as, citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the councils of the empire relating to the choice of peace or war throughout the empire?
Noble sentiments again, wise advice again. When I was in London in 1902 representing in my humble way and to the limits of my poor ability, Canada, my country, and when we were asked to launch into this imperial armament, ~"I tftbught like my hon. friend the leader of the opposition :
That the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in imperial defence involves very large and wide considerations.
And I thought also that:
We should not contribute to that defence of the whole empire while we as citizens of that country have absolutely no voice whatever in the councils of the empire relating to the choice of peace or war throughout the empire.
To again use the words of the leader of the opposition. And that is exactly what I did. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite, is the time for you to cheer. I am happy to say that upon this very question, if defence I needed, but defence I need not, I have my defence in the words coming from the lips of the leader of the opposition; that under present circumstances it is not advisable for Canada to mix in the armaments of the empire but that we should stand on our own policy of being masters in our own house, of having a policy for our own purpose, and leaving to the Canadian parliament, to the Canadian government, and to the Canadian people to take part in these wars in which to-day they have no voice, only, if they think fit to do so. This is the policy which we have presented.
It is not my habit to offer any counsel to my friends on the other side of the House, but may I be permitted to read on Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
this occasion the advice which is given to them by one of their best friends in Canada. If there is one paper to-day in the Dominion of Canada which ranks higher than another for its temperate discussion of public affairs it is the Montreal ' Gazette '. The Montreal ' Gazette ' is not a supporter of the Liberal party; it is one of the strong pillars of the Conservative party, but it always discusses public questions fearlessly and in the light of sound reason. This is what I read in an article published in the Montreal ' Gazette ' a few days ago:
In the matter of the navy, or the beginning of the navv, the case is simple. Provision for the protection of the country is a necessity of the world's conditions. It would have to be made and paid for no matter what Canada's political affiliations. It is something to be regarded as a duty, not as a matter of hurrah or political profit or partisan zeal. And there is no difference in principle between defence by sea and defence by land. If these things are forgotten in the discussions of the next few months, and any important section of the opposition sets aside its wholesome party traditions to join in what seems to be a big noise, then again will a promising chance of success be thrown away.
I will now part company with the hon. leader of the opposition. Let me come to my friend the member for Jacques Cartier. In his speech the other day, which I will not undertake to review in toto, because a large part of it is of a character which I do not feel called upon to answer, here is what my hon. friend said, speaking of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska:
I believe that no less a sum than $50,000 was expended by my right hon. friend's party.
This is said in a speech which is meant to be serious. When a man of the position of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier makes such a statement, he says too much or he does not say enough. It is not sufficient to say, ' I believe that the sum of $50,000 was expended by the right hon. gentleman's party.' I might say that I believe that a sum equal to that was spent by the Nationalist party. If my hon. friend were to ask me what is my authority for the statement, I would say I have none, no more than he has. There is just as much truth in the one statement as in the other. These things, Sir, are not meant for grave discussion, and I have to ask the House's pardon for having spent a minute of its time in alluding to such an inane assertion. But I come to something more serious. In my hon. friend's speech-and this is the part I intend to review-my hon. friend made use of these words-big words':
On the one hand we have, as I hope to be able to show presently, a misrepresentation of our attitude and our policy on the facts of the case by the Prime Minister.
A misrepresentation-this is big language. I doubt if it is parliamentary. But I did not call your attention to it, Sir, at the

time, nor do I intend to call your attention to it at this moment. I noticed it at the time, but I was eager to follow my hon. friend to the end of his speech. I listened to him attentively, because this was not the first time that my hon. friend had stated that I had misrepresented facts in regard to this naval policy. In many speeches delivered in the province of Quebec I had read the same words. I was anxious to know, and till the other day I never did understand what my hon. friend meant, when he stated that I had misrepresented certain facts with regard to the naval policy, and concealed something which I should have disclosed. My hon. friend, but not so much he as the leader of the party in Quebec, made the statement more than once that there has been a conspiracy in this matter between His Excellency the Governor General and myself. Now, Sir, I am here to answer my hon. friend to-day. I understand now what he means; I have read his speech carefully. My hon. friend contends, when he says that we have misguided the House and have kept something hidden, that on the 10th of February, 1909, an order in council was passed approving a plan which had previously been rejected by the Canadian ministers at the conference of 1908, and which pledged Canada to participate in the military armaments of Great Britain, that that order was passed in secret, was kept concealed for a long time, and was so concealed when the naval policy of the government was brought before the House. In order to do no injustice to my hon. friend, I will quote his very words and leave the House to judge between him and me in this matter. The House can then judge for itself what value is to be attached to the words of my hon. friend. In his speech, after having reviewed the conference of 1902 and the conference of 1907, and after having given me a meed of praise for my attitude at both of those conferences, which almost brought a blush to my cheeks, saying that he approved of almost everything that I had done as representing Canada, my hon. friend went on as follows:
I am not aware that in the elections of 1908 or at any time-I speak subject to correction-his conduct in that respect was called into question. How can we explain the attitude of my right hon. friend subsequently? Through all the negotiations from beginning to end something seems to be hidden. Let me call the attention of the House to what happened in 1909. My right hon. friend claimed that everything has been above board. But in 1909, the question never having been submitted to this House or to the people, while we were sitting here in the month of February, an order in council was passed, which will be found in Paper 99, of the Sessional Papers of 1899:
Return to an address calling for a copy of orders in council, correspondence, letters, despatches, memoranda and communications,
between the imperial and the Canadian governments relating to the organization of an imperial general staff.
In 1909, on the 10th of February, after having had previously, at the conference of 1907, refused to accede to the proposal of the War Office for a military organization, when the House, I say, was in session, when we were here ready to speak on behalf of the people, an order in council was passed which is quoted in these documents, absolutely approving ot the military plans of the War Office, and directing that a telegram should be sent to London in these terms:
'Your despatch, Canada, 30, January 15. My ministers fully accept the principles set forth in memorandum by general staff. Despatch will follow explaining precise position of Dominion government/	.
Now I would like to ask the House how it is that a plan which had been previously made and had been refused by my right hon. friend, should, when the House is sitting on the 10th of February, 1909, by an order in council, without consultation with the House in any way, receive the sanction of the government.
Again, Sir, I have to thank my hon. friend for the unqualified approval which he gave to my attitude at the conference of 1907; but I take issue with him in his reproach when he said that I had departed from the principle I had maintained at that conference. My hon. friend approved what I did at the conference of 1907, and he approved therefore this resolution which was passed by that conference and which is to be found in the book entitled ' General Staff service of the Empire.' That resolution is as follows:
That tills Conference welcomes and cordially approves the exposition of general principles embodied in the statement of the Secretary of State for War, and, without wishing to commit any of the governments represented, recognizes and affirms the need of developing for the service of the empire a general staff, selected from the forces of the empire as a whole, which shall study military science in all its branches, shall collect and disseminate to the various governments military information and intelligence, shall undertake the preparation of schemes of defence on a common principle, and, without in the least interfering in questions connected with command and administration, shall, at the request of the respective governments, advise as to the training, education, and war organization of the military forces of the Crown in every part of
fliA ATrmirp.
This met the approval of my hon. friend and the scheme which was passed provided that the general staff should simply collect intelligence to be distributed among the different nations of the empire and in no way, provided that it should participate in the maelstrom of militarism in Europe.
I am not afraid of any invasion of Canada, at all events of eastern Canada, but I am not so sure that we can leave unguarded the province of British Columbia or the western shore of the Pacific ocean. I am not afraid

of any danger of war between Great Britain and the United States. Their civilization is too much advanced to contemplate anything of the kind, and they have too many interests in common to warrant it? Each of these nations looks upon war as the curse of civilization. But on the Pacific ocean, where we have for our neighbours, Russia, Japan and China, when we have in these countries a vast humanity, seething in the formation of a new civilization, it would be folly to say that danger of war is not at all to be apprehended in that quarter. For my part, I entertain no such view, and I do not think it behooves Canada to look, under all circumstances, to Great Britain for the protection of our Pacific coast. If there should be an invasion, does not my hon. friend think that we should have troops and a navy to repel it and that the 'best instruction possible should be given to our officers? Does not common sense demand that if we are to repel invasion at any time, that if our troops are to fight for the defence of the country-and my hon. friend knows they can only be called on for the defence of this country-then our system of organization should be absolutely the same as that of the British Empire.
Upon the plan which was suggested for the formation of a general staff, certain things were to be done. Read the conclusions of the paper proposed as a basis of reorganization. They are as follows:-
To sum up, the following seem the main points requiring attention at the present moment, in order to lay the foundation of an imperial general staff:-
I.	All the forces of the empire to be organized for war on the same general principles, especially as regards the system of command and staff duties. For this purpose the formation of the imperial general staff should be proceeded with as far as the present available means permit.
II.	Uniformity to be ensured in the system of training officers for the general staff by arranging for-
(a)	Uniformity in the system of educating regimental officers from whom selections for the staff colleges are made. This is to be secured by recognizing the Staff College at Cam-berley as the central school of military education for the empire, and by filling at the outlet, to such extent as may be approved by the respective government of the oversea dominions, the most important instructional appointments by Camberlev graduates.
(b)	Uniformity in the system of selection of regimental officers for staff college courses.
_ (c) Uniformity in the entrance examinations, curriculum, syllabus, and teaching at the several staff colleges.
III.	Uniformity in the carrying out of staff duties, to be attained by encouraging graduates of the staff colleges, who aspire to holding the more important general staff appointments, to undergo a further course of train-in" in England or India; and by arranging for a systematic interchange of officers of the


Wilfrid Laurier: Imperial General Staff between the various appointments throughout the empire.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the right hon. .gentleman think that that was a matter for parliament to decide?


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall come to that presently. Parliament can decide and can recall our action, but that is not the point. The point I make against my hon. friend is that in his speech here the other day, and in his speeches at Quebec, he said that we accepted a plan whereby our forces were to participate in the wars of Great Britain. My hon. friend says that that was a plan for parliament to decide upon, but what prevented him from bringing the matter before parliament? He said that we kept it secret, and that it was kept secret when we introduced our naval policy. Whether it was secret at that time or not does not matter. It was not a matter which concerns our naval policy, but our militia. What does my hon. friend mean?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The right hon. gentleman asked me a question. My objection was that that plan was not submitted to parliament which was sitting at the time.


Wilfrid Laurier: My point is not with reference to the publication of the order in council, but to the passing of that order. Does my hon. friend not know that every member of the Privy Council is sworn to secrecy, that the first oath taken by a privy councillor is to keep secret what transpires in the council. Does he not know that all orders in council are passed in secret and that the members of the Privy Council can only be released from secrecy by His Excellency the Governor General on the advice of the government? In this case the order was released by His Excellency. My hon. friend said that it was not communicated to parliament. The other day, speaking of the speech delivered by my hon, colleague, the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Fielding), he said:-
That statement which I now make can be verified. Mr. Speaker, the agreements arrived at of a military nature were more sweeping because at that time we did not know what was contained in that secret order in council passed on the 10th of February, 1909, which was only laid on the table of this House long after.	[DOT]
When I heard these words, I must confess I was dumbfounded, and when I read them later, I was still more astonished. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), spoke on the 20th April, 1907. My hon. friend tells us that at that time the order in council, which was passed on the 10th February, 1909, had not been laid before the House. Sir, it was moved for on the 22nd February, 1909:-

Return to an address to His Excellency tlie Governor General dated the 22nd February, 1909, calling for a copy of orders in council, correspondence, letters and despatches, memoranda and communications, between the imperial and Canadian governments relating to the organization of an imperial general staff.
And that order was passed by the House on February 22, 1909, and was complied with when? We had brought in our policy, and Mr. Fielding had spoken, after the order was brought and laid upon the table of this House, on March 5, 1909. I could not believe that the leader of a party could be guilty of such levity. I went to the clerk and asked him to tell me when the order had been brought down, and I have it in his own handwriting-March 5, 1909. Sir, it is with such accusations that my hon. friend has met us in the province of Quebec, speaking to his fellow-countrymen and mine, declaring that I had been guilty of a conspiracy, that I had kept something hidden from the House, something of which he did not know and in the keeping back of which there was some mysterious intent. It is with such fabrications that he has been trying to poison the _ minds of the people of our province. 'Misrepresentations,' says the hon. gentleman. Yes, there were misrepresentations, but not on my part.	.	.	,
One word more, and I have done. Ana perhaps the House will forgive me if, in this last word, I take the opportunity of speaking of my own career. It is now twenty-two years that I have been the leader of the Liberal party, and during these twenty-two years we have had what we may claim to be a measure of support in all the provinces. At the present time, we have a majority in six provinces out of nine-Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I am free to say that the province of Quebec has always given this government its chief support. May I not make an open confession and speak with perfect freedom and candour on the present occasion. 'Blood is thicker than water,'-that is not a French saying; it is an English saying. Blood is thicker than water even in the English provinces. It may be that in the province of Quebec there are men who have given their support to the party with which I am allied because I am of their race. And I may say that, similarly, there may be men who have given their support to my hon. friend opposite (Mr. R. L. Borden) because he was one of their race. But, so far as I am concerned, my endeavour has always been to keep the policy of the party upon lines which would appeal to the conscience of all races and all creeds. At the present time there is in my own province a certain section of my own fellow countrymen-Nationalists they are called to-day-who have seceded from my party and from myself because I have endeavoured at all times to maintain that policy which would appeal to no creed or race as such a policy of moderation. There are, as I have said certain men, certain young men, who have separated themselves from me for this reason. I have no reproach to make, there are men within my hearing to-night who know that, years ago, I told them that 1 expected such a thing. For I know that human nature is about what it ha.s always been. If .1 may, without presumption, compare my historical self to historical personages, I could find many precedents for such a thing as is occurring in the province of Quebec. If there was one man who did more than another for Irishmen, that man was Daniel O'Connell. He it was who led in the successful effort to remove the shackles which the penal laws had imposed upon his fellow Irishmen. The day came, however, when he was attacked by some young enthusiasts who thought his policy too moderate. His policy was to ask for the repeal of the Union and for the re-establishment of an Irish parliament upon College Green. But there were certain enthusiasts-the young Irish party they called themselves-who thought mis policy too moderate and preached complete separation from Great Britain. However, this party did not go very far The inanity of their policy was soon found out And many of them, I am glad to say, lived to recant their former opinions. And the policy followed to-day by these young men in the province of Quebec will not go far either. The naval policy of the government is a policy broad in its conception, a policy Canadian and not sectional. It may meet with defeat here and there, but this will not affect my courage. We will go on to the end, for we know we are in the right and that the right will prevail.


Mr. T. W. CROTIIERS. (West Elgin).: As this debate has lengthened out far beyond what was anticipated when it began, I shall endeavour to make my few observations very brief.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And, in the first place, I would simply cordially endorse the many kind and complimentary


Some hon. MEMBERS: Stay and take your medicine.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Go on out; you are cowards.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Such expressions should not be used in the House. That word 'coward' will have to be withdrawn. I understood that word.	*


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Certainly, I withdraw it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think an apology is due to the House for the use of the word.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Schaffner) perhaps used the word in the heat of the moment, but I think that, now that he has withdrawn it, he should make an apology for the-


Mr. FOSTER.: What about the word ' liar,' used the other day?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I withdraw the remark I made on account of the disorder on the other side, and in deference to the ruling of the Speaker I must apologize. I have to obey the*Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The House will understand I am trying to do my best to- maintain the dignity and decorum of the debate, and I appeal to the House to sustain the Chair in this matter.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: You may endeavour to do it, but I would respectfully suggest that the word ' coward ' is not a more offensive word than the word ' liar,' which was used the other day.


George Eulas Foster: Apologize.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Ask the other man to apologize.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The speaker has no right to take part in the debate under the rules of the House. Hon. gentlemen will remember that I stated the other day I did not hear the expression used by the member for Temiscouata, but on seeing it in ' Hansard ' the day after I called attention to the word and asked that it be withdrawn. In this case I heard the remark, and I thought it my duty to ask that it be withdrawn.
. BORDEN (Halifax). It was reported in Hansard * and no apology was exacted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Make him apologize.


An hon. MEMBER.: Take your hat off when you address the Chair.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Apologize. Question.


George Eulas Foster: Make the member apologize.	*


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Apologize Mr. SPEAKER.


Wilfrid Laurier: Everybody knows that an incident which has taken place in the House cannot be recalled in the middle of a debate. Whether or not the hon. gentleman should have apologized the other day I am not prepared to express an opinion.


George Eulas Foster: He was on that side of the House; he was not asked to do it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take off your hat when you address the Chair.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has no reason to speak in that way. If the withdrawal of the ivords was not sufficient for my hon. friend he should have risen at the time, but I submit to my hon. friend who leads the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden (Halifax) it is too late to recall it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to say either whether an apology should be exacted in one case or the other, but I am prepared to say that if an apology is exacted in one case it ought to have been in the other.


George Eulas Foster: The apology will be given before the House does business.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend opposite knows as well as I do- that a question of that kind cannot be recalled. All men are fallible, my friend from Toronto himself, everybody is fallible. If a mistake is made the time to call attention to it is when it occurs; if exception is not then taken it should not be recalled afterwards.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have nothing to say further.


Robert Laird Borden: We might as well have this question threshed out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: No one called attention to the case of the extremely offensive word the other day at the time, except by calling ' Order,' which was repeatedly called on this side when the expression was used. No hon. gentleman in this House asked for the ruling of the Speaker's Chair in this case, and I simply venture to say that I never heard anything asked in this House toefore except the recall of the offensive word used. I do not remember any occasion in my experience-


Samuel Hughes: And there is no authority for it.


Robert Laird Borden: And I simply rose to make the statement which I now reaffirm, that the word ' liar ' is as offensive a word as, yes, and a more offensive word, than the word that was used to-night, and that within the space of three days, if an

apology is asked in the one case it ought to be asked in the other case.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker-


George Eulas Foster: Equal rights.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will allow me, one man must be allowed to speak at a time. The Speaker the other day stated that he did not hear the word ' liar '.


Samuel Hughes: He heard the apology.


Wilfrid Laurier: The following day when his attention was called to the word in ' Hansard ', he called upon the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) to withdraw the word and he did so. On this occasion I did not hear the word coward myself, but it appears it was spoken and Mr. Speaker called the attention of the House to it, and exacted an apology.


Samuel Hughes: He had no right to.


George Eulas Foster: Without being asked.


Wilfrid Laurier: He did not exact an apology the other day, but I submit that we must have parliamentary government and institutions, the Speaker is not infallible any more than anybody else, we are all fallable.


An hon. MEMBER.: We know that.


Wilfrid Laurier: But if a mistake has been made, I appeal to my hon. friend that this is not the way to correct it, we can call the ruling of the Chair into question on a subsequent day, and have a debate on it, but at this time I submit to my hon. friend and I appeal to his parliamentary knowledge that this is not the time


Some hon. MEMBERS: Apologize.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want this thing to go just as it stands now. The leader of the House knows very well that we cannot work on together in this House, or in any other House, if one side of it is to use the word ' liar ' and when the gentleman or the man who used it acknowledges it he is not reprimanded by the Speaker; and on the other side of the House when a man uses the word ' coward ' as my hon. friend did in a joking way I am thoroughly assured

	*


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, well, well, well.
Mr. FOSTER-the Speaker makes it his business not only to call him to order, but to go further, a thing that I have never before seen in this House in my 23 years experience, and demand without being asked by any member in the House, that this
gentleman apologize, we cannot live this way, and we will not live this way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


George Eulas Foster: I do not care what the Speaker's views are or what his affiliations are, he must be fair to both sides of the House. That is all I ask. I do not know' whether the gentleman is here who used the word ' liar,' but if so he can cut the Gordian knot mighty quickly, as far as he is concerned, by getting up in his place and making an apology to the House, it will be then left for the Speaker to explain his conduct.


An hon. MEMBER.: The man is here, let him apologize.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have again to appeal to the other side of the House. We are here to legislate, wre are here guided by certain rules, and one rule of the House is that an incident of this nature cannot be recalled in the midst of a debate. The Speaker may have been right, or he may have been wrong, this is not the time for me or any one


Robert Laird Borden: Let him apologize.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, this is not the time. I appeal to the House, this can be made a subject of a debate, we can have a debate over this, we can determine if Mr. Speaker was right or wrong, every decision of the Speaker is subject to appeal. I have to say this, and to appeal to the other side that on the present occasion we must proceed with the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Apologize, order.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out to the First Minister that he could very quickly settle this matter by appealing to the Speaker


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Samuel Hughes: And make the hon. gentleman apologize.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER Order! Go
on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I rise at this moment to move the adjournment of the debate. I think that will be the proper thing to do.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I know that the House will bear with me for a. moment while I say a word further in explanation and that it will admit that I, myself, of my own initiative, called upon the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) to withdraw the expression which he had used, as I considered that was the proper course in the discharge of my duty.


George Eulas Foster: Why did you not ask him to apologize?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Because I did not hear the word used. But, I consider it my duty to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the expression and now, as I am the humble servant of the House and as I am here to maintain its rules. I called upon the hon. member for Temiseouata to withdraw the expression and he withdrew it.


Samuel Hughes: He did not.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He withdrew the expression as 'Hansard' shows. I did not at the time call upon him to apologize because I did not hear as I have heard in this case, the hon. member use that expression. If, under the circumstances, the hon. member for Temiseouata considers that he will be fulfilling his duty by apologizing for the expression I think he should do so now.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiseouata).: (Translation.) If it is against the rules of the House I have nothing to say.


George Eulas Foster: Is that an apology, Mr. Speaker?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: (Translation.) I did not exactly catch the hon. gentleman's meaning.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: (Translation.) I said that if it was against the rules of the House I had nothing to say. I am not allowed to speak if it is against the rules.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: (Translation.) My intention in asking the hon. gentleman to apologize, is to settle the present incident. The other day I considered that it was my duty to call upon the hon. gentleman to withdraw a certain expression without asking an apology. In the discharge of my duty, I have just called upon the hon, member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) who had ignored the rules of the House, to withdraw the expression he had used, and to apologize. I think it would be proper for the hon. member for Temiseouata to do the same, so that we may go on with the debate.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I not only withdraw the expression but apologize to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: And I will not ask him to come out into the corridor to settle it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion to adjourn the debate?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I agree to the adjournment and I desire to move the adjournment of the House at this time.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I ask the hon. gentleman if he still insists on the motion to adjourn the debate.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn the debate.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. gentleman insist upon it, is it withdrawn?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I move to adjourn the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Wednesday, November 30, 1910.