1910-12-01

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WARBURTON moved that the Public Accounts and report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. LENNOX.: I desire that that motion be allowed to stand until to-morrow.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.



HOUSE OF COMMONS-PROMOTIONS IN TRANSLATION STAFF.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons laid upon the table of the House with other papers on the subject, on Wednesday, the 23rd instant, by virtue of Section 24 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, that Mr. Louis Laframboise be promoted from subdivision B to subdivision A of the first division, be concurred in.


Mr. FOSTER.: I have not had opportunity to read this recommendation. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be good enough to tell us what it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is an entry in the Votes and Proceedings as follows :
Mr. Speaker informed the House, that he had directed the clerk of the House to lay upon the table his recommendation and other papers in connection with the promotion of Mr. Louis Laframboise, now chief of the translation branch, from subdivision B of the first division to subdivision A of the first division.
And the same are as follows
To the Honourable
The House of Commons.
The Speaker of the House of Commons has the honour to recommend the promotion of Mr. Louis Laframboise, now chief of the translation branch of the House of Commons and late translator, from subdivision B of the first division to subdivision A of the first division, the vacancy in subdivision A of the first division above referred to is caused by the superannuation of Mr. Achille Frechette, late law translator and chief of the translation branch, which took place on the 1st day of November of the present year.
Mr. Laframboise has presented a certificate of qualification for this grade from the Civil Service Commission of Canada, copy of which is appended hereto. I also append hereto the report of the clerk of the House on this subject.
CHARLES MARCIL, Speaker of the House of Commons.
23rd November, 1910.


Mr. CARVELL.: 23rd November, 1910.
The Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Sir,-The superannuation of Mr. Achille Frechette, law translator and chief of the translation branch of the House of Commons, on the 1st day of November, 1910, created a vacancy in subdivision A of the first division of the organization of the Staff of the House of Commons.
I have the honour to recommend for promotion to the vacancy Mr. Louis Laframboise who is at present in subdivision B of the first division, and who was promoted to the position of law translator and chief of the translation branch on the superannuation of Mr. Frechette. This promotion is recommended for merit.
Mr. Laframboise has been for thirty-four years in the service of the House and has throughout that period given complete satisfaction in the discharge of his duties as translator. He is, therefore, in my opinion justly entitled by service and qualification for the promotion recommended.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Tour obedient servant,
THOS. B. FLINT, Clerk of the House.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF CANADA, OTTAWA.

[Stage Direction]
The Civil Service Commissioners have had under consideration an application from the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons for the issue of a certificate of qualification. nder the provisions of Section 2-1 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, in favour of Mr. L. Laframboise, who is recommended. foil' promotion from subdivision B to subdivision A of the first division. Having satisfied themselves that Mr. Laframboise is specially fitted for the duties of the position to which he is to be promoted, and that his qualifications are such as to render unnecessary auy special examination in his case.
Now, therefore, this is to certify, pursuant to the provisions of Section 24 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, that, in their opinion, Mr. L. Laframboise is duly qualified to be an officer of subdivision A of the first division on the Staff of the House of Commons.
Dated at the office of the Civil Service Commission of Canada, this 19th day of November, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Commissioners.
And there is the certificate of Mr. Tremblay in the same form. These documents show that all the rules of the Civil Service Amendment Act have been fulfilled in these cases.
George Eulas Foster: That is, as I understand it, Mr. Frechette was superannuated, thus causing a vacancy, and Mr. Laframboise is recommended for that vacancy by the clerk, concurred in by the Civil Service Commission?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: I make a similar motion with regard to Mr. Tremblay:

That the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons laid upon the table of the House, with other papers on the subject, on Wednesday, the 23rd instant, by virtue of Section 24 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, that Mr. Remi Tremblay be promoted from subdivision A of the second division to subdivision B of the first division, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I was requested by the Committee on Marine and Fisheries this morning to bring before the House the regulations adopted on September 30, last concerning the lobster fishery. I may say that these regulations were made upon recommendations contained in a report made by the Committee of Marine and Fisher-eries last session. The committee would like to study these regulations, and, possibly, amend them. In order to put the thing in regular form before the House, I move :
For a copy of the existing lobster fishery regulations adopted by order in council of the 30th September, 1910.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Pursuant to the order of the House, I beg to lay on the table a copy of the regulations referred to, and I move:
That these regulations as authorized by order in council of September 30, 1910, based on recommendations contained in a report of the committee submitted to the House on April 25, last, together with the report, be referred to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MEIGHEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 23), to amend the Railway Act. He said:	The purpose of this
Bill is, to deal with the old question of the loss caused by animals getting on the railway right of way. The section which it is proposed to amend is subsection 4 of section 294 of the Railway Act. Under provisions of this section tire railway company is made prima facie liable in the case of losses of this kind. Such is the state of the law and of the amendment that was adopted last session, that a railway company are able to escape liability by proving that the animal got at large through the negligence or wilful act of the owner. The amendment which I propose alters that provision. At the present time the burden of proof of negligence is on the railway company, and they must prove that the owner of the animal was guilty of negligence or of a wilful act in allowing the animal out. The burden of
proof is not shifted by the amendment, but the nature of the proof is altered, compelling the railway company to prove that the animal got upon their right of way without negligence on _ their part and without violation of the provisions of the law. The amendment further alters section 254. Subsection 2 is specific in the matter of fences and gates, it is specific as to their size; and in the matter of cattle-guards, it is also specific as to what they must accomplish. It says nothing about their nature, their construction or dimensions. The present amendment compels the railway companies, before a fixed time, to submit the nature, dimensions and construction of their cattle-guards to the Board of Railway Commissioners for its approval. The effect will be that if a railway company complies with the specific dimensions prescribed by the Board they will be absolved; but they must so comply and if they fail to comply they will not be able to throw back the liability on some one who perhaps was negligent, but more remotely negligent than the company; that is to say, they will apply the general law to themselves in cases of damage, and the party who is immediately responsible for negligence will be held responsible, and not the party who is remotely responsible.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 24) to amend the Canadian Shipping Act. He said: This Bill is precisely the same as the one introduced last session, and which passed its second reading. It expresses the wish of the Dominion Marine Association, representing practically all the vessels on the Great Lakes, and is intended to place the province of Ontario on a parity with the other provinces in this respect.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. PERLEY.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), to an article that appears in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of this day, and which is headed ' Discontent in our navy. Jack Tars want more pay and quarters for their families.'
Halifax, N;S., Nov. 30.-Sixty youths have joined the 'Niobe' here. They are all city boys. The pay on joining is thirty cents a day, but grows bigger with service and merit. The able seamen on board get seventy cents per day, but they are complaining that this is less than they have received, and less than they were led to expect they would re-

eeive. Nearly all of tliem have families on the other side, and they say they were led to believe that quarters would he provided for their families here. There seems to he considerable discontent among the crew on this account, and there appears to he a desire to get hack home.
I would ask the minister if he knows anything about this, and has any explanation to offer.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not seen the article, and have no information with regard to it. No complaints, so far as I know, have reached the department. Will the hon. gentleman let me see the document?


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister look into the matter, as it is very important?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly.



ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the 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.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), on the 23rd of November, in the course of his speech, made the following statement:-
In citing these things the point I want to make is that it is very unfortunate that we cannot avoid racial and religious appeals in this country. Should such appeals not he stopped? Is it not the duty of every good citizen of Canada to endeavour to put an end to them? No political party can reap advantage from them. These appeals do not count for much among political partisans, hut the unfortunate part of it is that there are some people in the country whose minds are influenced by them. . . Is it rot time that racial and religious appeals should cease, and that all Canadians should work together for the prosperity and progress of our country?
The Prime Minister, at the conclusion of his speech delivered the day before yesterday, also made a statement and an appeal; the statement being that he had never, in the course of his political life, relied upon appeals to race and creed, and an appeal that such methods of political campaigning should be laid aside in this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as these two statements are concerned, they are correct in the spirit that they embody, they are fine as far as words go, they are absolutely right in theory. But the question that I wish to discuss for a few moments is as to how these hon. gentlemen, and the party to which they belong, and which the Prime Minister has Mr. PERLEY.	,
long led, how this party and these gentlemen have, in their practice, realized these fine theories, these high and perfectly proper ideals. I think we would all be relieved in the Dominion of Canada if we could once and for all put away entirely from the politics of this country all these unworthy and damaging methods of political campaigning. Everybody knows that an appeal to reason, to intelligence and to conscience is the proper one to make. Everybody knows, at least after he has had some experience of public affairs, that that kind of appeal is the only one which, in the end, pays, and that an appeal to prejudice and to ignorance, though it may be temporarily successful, in the end all comes back upon the man or the party that uses it.
I do not deny that temporary advantages may be gained but I do say as a fact that they are but temporary and that whilst they are harmful to the public life of the country, damaging and hindering to the progress and development of the country, they are, in the end, neither useful nor advantageous to the party that uses them.
The statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and the assertion and the appeal made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, make it necessary to trace for a little the course of these gentlemen in the public annals of the country. I do not propose to go into this matter thoroughly or fully ; if I did it would take more time than I have at my disposal, or than this House could give even for such an object. I propose simply to give a few specimens, culled from 1896 up to the present and to place them side by side with these fine theories and high ideals and to ask the House and the country to decide how practice and theory, performance and ideals, meet, as regards the action and the course of my hon. friends opposite.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in 1896 was a representative in this House and a worker in his party, and I suppose he stood well in the councils of his party. Anyway he has since been selected to fill one of the most responsible positions in the cabinet of the Dominion. In 1896 that hon. gentleman ran a campaign in the province of Quebec. He had been in this House before that time and on the occasion of a vote for money to pay for Lee-Enfield rifles and some field artillery which was absolutely necessary to arm the militia of this country and to bring their armament up to anything like a modern standard he flatly opposed the vote, not only on financial grounds but on the ground that this country had no business, no right, no duty, no obligation to assist in the defence of the coun-

try in so far 'as it took away from the burden of Great Britain. In this House he voiced his dissent from the vote, he voiced his sentiment that that was a matter, if it was to be done at all, for Great Britain to do, and said that he himself was very much surprised that Great Britain who, he understood, was to protect this country and the colonies had asked us to buy and pay for the artillery which was necessary to arm the militia of this country. In that spirit he went to the country and took a prominent part in organizing and carrying out the campaign in the province of Quebec. He assisted in that campaign by his own platform utterances and by writing in the papers supporting his side of politics. He assisted in that campaign by having papers that were devoted to his party voice his own views. I shall read one extract only from ' Le Soir ' of June 18, 1896, as a sample of the statements which were published broadcast and used in the general election of 1896 in the province of Quebec. It reads :
One of the fads of Old Tupper is imperial federation. Imperial federation means a more intimate alliance between England anil her colonies in general and more especi-ially with Canada. One of the conditions of that alliance would be that in time of war, Canada should be called upon to pay a share of its costs both in men and money. And, as England is nearly always at war with some one, we would be forced to continually tax ourselves to find the money and draw lots to furnish the men. And in return, England would make these droll baronets, or knights of this, or commanders of that. But the people will remain food for powder.
Sir Charles Tupper had hardly returned from England than he began to prepare the means for the realization of this awful project.
The article then goes on to summarize the difficulties that England was in, one with the United States over the Venezuelan question. It then mentions my resolution of 1896, of the 21st of April for the amount of money that was required, and continues :
And why should we fight for England?
Why all these warlike preparations if we are not to have war?
The electors should bear in mind that those big and fat leaders who are always desirous to exhibit themselves as more patriotic than others, more loyal than others, and ready to plunge us into war for the benefit of others, will not he the parties who will pay and hear the burden. Those rifles, those guns, the electors will have to handle. You are considered good only for food for the cannons. The Tnppers, the Angers, the Taillons, will be in their offices as ministers, from where they will send you to death with light hearts, and a glass of champagne in their hands. Once more, why all those rifles, guns and bayonets, if this good Tupper and Company do not intend some sinister design? Your
children -will he sent to Africa and Asia whence they will not come back.
And so on and so on. That is in the campaign of 1896. In ' Le Soir ' newspaper which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows very well ; it is said that he contributed to it and I have never heard that he denied.
My hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), is sometimes independent and sometimes not quite so independent. Yesterday he referred to the appeal made in the contest of Drummond and Arthabaska, an almost exact transcript of that just read by me. My hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) said that was damnable language. What does he think of the language which if not actually written by the minister appeared in ' Le Soir,' the organ of the party in full sympathy with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in 1896 which was circulated everywhere through Quebec and brought its toll of votes from the prejudices and feelings aroused and by virtue of which and similar articles the Minister of Marine and Fisheries sits here to-day, by virtue of which and similar utterances my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) is able to say that he sits on the ministerial rather than on the opposition side of the House.
If these were damnable in the Arthabaska-Drummond election, were they not equally damnable in the elections of 1896? But the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to-day robed in his innocent and more loyal habiliments, and he appeals to us now to have nothing to do with the appeals to race and to religion, and he deprecates the use of such appeals. But, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is not on record in this House, or in this country, or in any part of this country, for ever having lifted his voice to put down such appeals as those which were being circulated, and which brought the grist to his own mill in 1896. Now, Sir, I am going to read another of these, and here it is:-
The most important issue before the electors is the question of imperialism. In the future if you elect a partisan of the Conservative party, of Sir Charles Tupper, Canada will have to contribute to every important war of the empire.
If war were to break out with France or Russia, we would have to send at least one hundred thousand men. Where would they find them?
They would resort to conscription, and I would submit to you ladies here present, that they would come into your homes, carry ofi your husbands, your beloved sons; young girls, they would cary oft your lovers, to fight in a war in which this country had no interest. I am opposed, as I always have been, to any contribution on the part of Canada to any war of the empire, whether

53&
great or small, whether just or unjust.
1 denounce the policy of assisting Great Britain. I still have confidence that the Liberal party can restore the feeling of safety.
The Conservative party is pledged but Sir Wilfrid is not.
Does my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), not recognize in this the very sub-stratum and foundation of the articles that were read by the Minister of Marine as having been used in Drummond-Artha-baska? Is not this also damnable language? By whom was it used and in whose interest was it used? It was used in the election of 1896 and 1900; it was. spread everywhere through the province of Quebec; it was used by a disciple of my right hon. friend, who, having used it so faithfully and to such good effect, has been rewarded by the right hon. gentleman, and is to-day a judge in the province of Quebec, because of his work. Then, my right hsn. friend had a very industrious and able colleague at that time, and that colleague did yeoman's work for him in the province of Quebec and elsewhere :-
England be blowed.
The manifesto of Sir Charles Tupper savours of imperialism. There is the fast Atlantic service, to cost $750,000; the policy of rifles and fortifications, $3,000,000; and" the trans-Pacific cable, which will cost millions!
What is there in all this that is of interest to Canada ?
England has an interest in uniting Australia and Canada by cable, in garnishing our frontiers and our ports with fortifications, and in having rapid steamers between Quebec and Liverpool.
In case of war with other nations England will find these very convenient and very useful.
Have good sense and patriotism.
Work for Canada and for the well-being of her population before sacrificing our efforts for the glorification of England.
French Canadians, be on your guard!
I cite that from ' La Patrie ' of May 6.


Mr. HUGHES.: In what year?


George Eulas Foster: In the year 1896, during the election campaign of 1896. My right hon. friend profited by that. Did he know that ' La Patrie ' and his colleague who owned and who- managed ' La Patrie ' was using such appeals to race, such unworthy appeals as that? Did he ever rise to rebuke, or did he ever take his counsellor with him in private and secret and admonish him to be a little more modest and moderate? His-torv does not record it, and my right hon. friend cannot tell me that he ever did so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who was that?


George Eulas Foster: That was published in ' La Patrie.'


George Eulas Foster: Sir WILE'RID LAURIER. Yes, but who was the editor? The hon. gentleman said he was a colleague of mine.


Mr. FOSTER  J.@: Israel Tarte.


Wilfrid Laurier: He was not then a colleague of mine.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, he became your colleague shortly after and I will give my right hon. friend something that was written in 1990, which is even hotter, and I think I had better give it just now. This was in 1900:-
Mr. Tarte's final appeal to the people of Quebec is published in ' La Patrie ' to-night, and is as follows:	_	,
Patriots vote on Wednesday against the in-sulters of our nationality, against the enemies of our province.
' My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was alive in 1904, and in 1904 there was a newspaper called ' Le Canada.' Now, there aTe newspapers and newspapers in the province of Quebec; some of them are business papers and are run on commercial principles; others are political papers that draw the breath of life and their daily bread from the government of the day. ' Le Canada ' is such a one as that. 'Le Canada,' I believe, had an able lot of writers. It is. said that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself was one of these Vriters, but at all events that paper was no doubt well scanned by the hon. gentleman, and I have no doubt he knew what was going on. Well, Sir, in 1904, whether the conception was that of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or not, whether the mechanical execution was done by the Minister of Marine or not, there appeared in ' Le Canada,' in 1904, just before the elections of that year, a cartoon which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in a moment of forgetfulness, or of extreme audacity, tried to palm off on this House a few days ago as a cartoon conceived, executed and distributed by disloyal Nationalists-and may be by equally disloyal Liberal-Conservatives in the Drum-mond-Arthabaska election. What was the teaching of that cartoon in 1910, according to the words of the hon. gentleman himself? He told us it was criminal and shameful. Was it less criminal and shameful in 1904, on the eve of the elections, when it was published in ' Le Canada,' and was distributed everywhere through the province of Quebec, and, in the interests of whom? In tm interest of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who made his pious declaration the day before yesterday in this House. Was it shameful and disgraceful in 1904? There is only one thing I know that could be more shameful and disgraceful than that in a party canvass, and that I shall mention a moment later. Should a public man in this country, a Prime Minister of the Dominion, a minister of the cabinet in

this country, profit by what they must have seen day after day under their own eyes and in their own paper; to profit by disgraceful and shameful cartoons, the teaching of which was what? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries was eloquent almost (for him) the other day when he said: I have stood by the British flag, I stand now by the British flag, I shall always stand by the British flag.
Was fie standing for the British flag, was his party paper standing for the British flag, when in 1904, on the eve of an election, it posted up before the electors of the province of Quebec a cartoon which represented Jean Baptiste with both hands holding up the Union Jack, the British flag, and just at one side of him the Briton himself taking advantage of Jean Baptiste's grip upon the British flag to rifle his pockets and steal his money? Is that the way to uphold the British flag? That, it seems to me, is the way to teach, as they unfortunately have taught too many in the province of Quebec, that the British flag is to be viewed with suspicion, and that British power also is to be viewed with suspicion. I said there was only one more infamous than that; what is that one? It is one which at the time was sent to me. I have made diligent search for it; I have been unable to find it. But I have its description, what is it? In the year 1900 there was distributed broadcast in the province of Quebec a cartoon which I will describe. Yonder is a citadel. Inside of it is Laurier and Tarte and others of the Liberal leaders. Behind them is the French population of Quebec. In front comes up a straggling horde of Tories armed to the very teeth, with long streaming banners, and on these banners the inscriptions, ' Down with the Pope,' ' Down with the French Canadians,' ' Down with the Roman Catholics.' I said there was only one baser cartoon that was possible than the one which must be fathered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; this is the one, Sir. My right hon. friend profited from that appeal to prejudice, an appeal which might have brought votes to him, but which was of a character so debasing, so mean, so utterly mischievous and dangerous in a country like this, that it passes the wit of man to conceive that anybody could have concocted it, let alonft have distributed it amongst the French population of the province of Quebec. My right hon. friend himself was not above an appeal to race prejudice. In the elections he said at St. Lin:
I am a French Canadian like yourselves. The same blood runs through my veins that runs through yours. I foresaw the war that would be waged against me on account of my race and religion. That war has now burst upon me with a bitterness which I little expected. I am attacked in the province of Ontario because I am a French Canadian, and the declaration is repeatedly made that
a French Canadian has no right to be a premier of a British colony.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Our hon. friends opposite, a limited number of them, think that is a worthy thing to be done by the Prime Minister, who so nobly exposed to the country his ideals the day before yesterday in this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that all the quotation?


George Eulas Foster: That is all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no, there is more than that.


George Eulas Foster: If there is anything worse than that, I would like to know it.
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER. If there was anything worse, my hon. friend would have quoted it.


George Eulas Foster: No, I may not have brought out the worst. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a little pamphlet which was published and used in the province of Quebec in the year 1900. It has thirty-eight pages. It is of course printed in French. It is entitled:	' Le Toryism, Voilk.
l'Ennemi.'
Now, I make the statement that from the first page of the thirty-eight in that pamphlet, issued and distributed by the Liberal party as a campaign document in the province of Quebec in 1900, there is not one single question of policy raised. Tariff is not discussed; taxation is .not discussed; trade policy is not discussed; Grand Trunk Pacific is not discussed-was not then in existence; nothing is discussed of all the matters of policy which from 1896 up to that time had divided and were dividing the parties. From the beginning to the end of it there is nothing else than an appeal to the race instincts and the religious instincts of the people of the province of Quebec. I am going to read some of the headings:
(Translation). The importance of the next election cannot be overlooked by any one.
The question to-day is not one of protection or of free trade, having but a material interest; the future of the Canadian nation is at stake.
From the evening of the 23rd of June, 1896, our opponents have resolved to ask the English population of this country to give their suffrages against the cabinet of which Sir Wilfrid Laurier is the head, for the reason that the Prime Minister is a French Cana-adian.
Not some pagers have so demanded, not some individuals have so demanded, but ' nos adversaires out resolu.' I will read this in English for the benefit of my hon. friend from Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) whose early education has been neglected.


Samuel Hughes: I will read it in French if the hon. member wishes.

Mr# FOSTER (reading):
From the evening of the 23rd of June, 1896, our opponents (that is, the Conservatives of the Dominion) have resolved to ask the English population of this country to give their suffrages against the cabinet of which Sir Wilfrid Laurier is the head, for the reason that the Prime Minister is a French Canadian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That_is true.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has bitten off more than he can masticate when he says that. My hon. friend would be perfectly right in saying that he might quote individual utterances and phrases from newspapers here and there to that effect, that is not the point. The point is that the Liberal-Conservative party was represented to the electors in the province of Quebec as a body who were demanding the English people of this country to vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier simply and solely because he was a French Canadian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I repeat that is true.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has a perfect right to persist if that is to his taste.
Dans toutes les provinces anglaises, le mot d'ordre est: pas de premier ministre franpais.
In all the English provinces the watch word is: No French Prime Minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is true.
Mr. FOSTER, (reading)
Sir Charles Tupper and his followers, his lieutenants and organizers have no other war cry


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.
Mr. FOSTER, (reading):-
-than the continual slander they are bringing against the French Canadians and their public men.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hear, hear.
Mr. FOSTER, (reading) :-
From one end of Canada to the other we are represented as a race inferior and disloyal-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. FOSTER, (reading):-
-unworthy of enjoying the privileges of the Britain nation.


An hon. MEMBER.: True beyond question.
Mr. FOSTER, (reading):-
Toutes les bouches qui parlent en ce moment pour sir Charles Tupper et pour son parti vomissent la colere, la haine et Finjure a Faddresse des Canadiens-franpais.
All the mouths which speak at the time in favour of Sir Charles Tupper and his party vomit forth their anger, hatred and slander against French Canadians.


Samuel Hughes: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


George Eulas Foster: And so it goes on.


Mr.   BRODEDR@: There must be some quotations there from the 'Mail and Empire ' ?


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes, I am reading the headlines. My hon. friend seems to know exactly what is in this. Would I be going too far if I named him as the author of the pamphlet?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This pamphlet contains extracts from speeches and articles published in the Tory press.


George Eulas Foster: Would I be going too far if I said that my hon. friend had knowledge of this pamphlet in the year 1900, and approved of it?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Answer, answer.


George Eulas Foster: The minister's silence implies consent (reading) :-
(Translation). We are a race of vipers. We must be crushed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is taken from the Toronto ' News.'


George Eulas Foster: -
(Translation). Let us take care! The French Canadians are a vanquished people.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is taken from the 'News' again.


George Eulas Foster: -
Fanaticism of partisans as organs of Sir Charles Tupper.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Is that in the 'News,' too?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Let my hon. friend read the next one in which it is said that the Jesuits are the dogs of the Pope of Rome.


George Eulas Foster: -
(Translation). It is now Rev. Gorman who speaks. Fanaticism of partisans as the organs of Sir Charles Tupper.
The object always is the same and that is to provoke jealousy and spite against the government whose chief is a Roman Catholic and French Canadian. Again:-
(Translation). Why was this infamy published, if not to raise the English and Protestant fanaticism of Ontario against the French premier?
Then another headline is:-
(Translation). Gratuitous insult to the clergy. The French Canadians are ignorant and disloyal.

Gratuitous insult to the clergy. The French Canadians are ignorant and disloyal.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would invite the hon. gentleman to read in English what is 'there quoted from the 'Mail and Empire.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: In another part


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I am making this speech, and I must counsel my hon. friends not to interrupt me too much.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: -
(Translation). The policy of the Conservative party is to proscribe the French flag; that is, to deny the French Canadians the right to call themselves and to remain French.
The policy of the Conservative party- not the policy of one set of men or advocated by one paper or two-but the policj of the Conservative party is to proscribe the French flag. That is to deny the Canadian French the right to call themselves and to remain French. That pamphlet was distributed among the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, and that was the policy described in it as the policy of the Conservative party.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That was taken from the 'Citizen.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: And so on. 'M. Meunier de l'Isle d'Anticosti' is also another heading; and after some comment on the Island of Anticosti and some trouble which occurred there, this goes on to say:-
AH this has been done designedly, with the object of exciting the fanaticism of the English provinces against their French Canadian Premier.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Now, Sir, I have read
some headlines. I have read quotations from page after page of the document to show that, from beginning to end, it was designed and circulated for the purpose of representing to the people of Quebec that the Conservative party as a whole made this their policy and that they had no other policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Well, there is no fair-minded man in this country, who knows anything about our political history, who will make such a statement or attempt to back up any such statement. My quarrel with the pamphlet of that time is this and this only, that, under the eye of the
right hon. the Prime Minister himself, with the knowledge of his colleagues, of set purpose and in cold blood, this pamphlet was published, the object of which was to absolutely malign the Liberal-Conservative party and do that for the purpose of appealing to French Canadian jealousies.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: I know, as every man in this House knows, that there are men who make imprudent statements when on their feet that they would not make in cooler moments. I know as well as any man knows that there are those who vote with a party who will make extreme statements because they believe them or for other reasons. But it is not right to hold a party responsible for these extreme statements, made here and there


Mr.   ILSON@Laval: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) allow me to ask him a question?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Mr. WILSON (Laval).: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) prepared to repudiate all these articles that are reproduced from the ' Citizen ' or the * Mail and Empire '?


George Eulas Foster: I will answer my hon. friend before I get through. My quarrel is with the Liberal party for having knowingly and of set purpose entered upon this line and pursued it to the end. And they sit on the government benches to-day largely because of the overwhelming majority they got out of the province of Quebec through the use of such methods as these. I denounce these methods as appeals to race and creed, as studied, deliberately concocted appeals, and made for a purpose. And I put these acts alongside the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and the statement of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and ask the House and the country to judge how their practice accords with their theories and their ideals. What happened as a result of the elections of 1896, and more particularly of the elections of 1900? Why, these hon. gentlemen came back with a majority in this House, and with an overwhelming majority in the province of Quebec which majority in the province of Quebec they owed very largely to the appeals that were made in such literature published under their saction, and with their privity and knowledge.
Now, the question was asked me whether I approve of utterances which might be quoted, which are extreme and unfounded, and which, even if there is a foundation for them are imprudent and should not be flung abroad as firebands in a country like ours. In this my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) asks me a perfectly fair question: Would I approve of them? I would not ap-

prove of them. So far as the statements are well founded, whether it be wise to bring them up or not, I have no censure to offer; the man or paper who makes the statements is responsible and no other. But, so far as statements are made which have no foundation in fact, and which are injurious in their effect, I condemn them wherever they appear, and I. hope the time has come in Canada when they will never be used again. But, if I condemn these, I must condemn equally the spirit and action of searching the records for just that kind of expression and publishing it in a 38-page pamphlet and sending it broadcast as covering the only point at issue between the parties. The first is reprehensible, but the latter is more reprehehsible. For it is done in cold blood, the result of a search, a diligent search, to find out what can best appeal to prejudice and what can best slander an opponent.


Charles Avila Wilson: That is no answer at all.


Haughton Lennox: Come again.


Charles Avila Wilson: I am ready tG 4 come again '. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster)-I think I have not the reputation of being an interrupter. But I would ask my hon. friend, in all frankness, if he can blame the French Canadian member of parliament, for instance, who denounces before his fellow citizens of Quebec what certain papers- even let us say some fanatical papers-say against his people? I think that is a fair question.


George Eulas Foster: I will give my hon. friend a square answer. The French Canadian member has a perfect right, if he thinks it is a prudent thing to do, to stand up before his fellow French Canadians and say that such and such a man or such and such a paper made such and such a statement. But it will be his part, if he is manly and honest, not to say that this represents a party, but to say that it is the utterance of the individual, or the paper quoted. I wish my hon. friend would answer that as frankly as I have answered his question.
I have stated that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Marine came back from the province of Quebec with an overwhelming majority. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries was very much exercised as to a telegram that I sent, and as to a speech that I made.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries seemed to enjoy himself richly over a telegram that was despatched by me from the city of Toronto to the Montreal * Herald '. He started out by saying what that telegram was. His interpretation of it was altogether too free, and I invited him to read the telegram itself. It is always the Mr. FOSTER.
better way. There are some who are a little free in their translations, and it is always well to have the original text close by. The translation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was a very free one. Those of you who have been at college would probably not misunderstand what I say-a remarkably free one, representing me as saying to the electors of Arthabaska-Drummond : Misrepresent all you like ; use race and creed arguments if you will, be disloyal if you like, no matter, strike Laurier. Arouse the country to -an interminable howl of partisan race and disloyal commotion if you like, but strike Laurier. Now my own is a little free rendering of what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said, but the sense of it is there. Well, here is the telegram. It is divided into two parts. When I was asked, and I was so proud to be asked by the ' Herald ', I knew its object was perfectly good in asking me just to send at its own expense as long a telegram as I liked of advice to the voters of Drummond-Artha-baska. Well, I thought it over, and I said to myself : I do not often get access to the columns of the ' Herald ', I do not often get an opportunity to have my feelings with regard to the Laurier government spread abroad in Grit papers in the province of Quebec. Now here is a chance to have it done, and without cost to myself. So I think I will kill two birds with one stone. I first said :
My advice to every Conservative is to vote as his intelligence and conscience dictates.


Wilfrid Laurier: Good.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend approves of that. Then I thought I would get a little bit of good doctrine in, which would open the eyes, possibly, of some who had never seen a statement from me before as to what my views were with reference to this Laurier government. I said :
The Laurier administration is so extravagant, corrupt and lacking in principle, that I would vote every time to turn it out, and so give an opportunity to replace it by a better.
Now I have no apology to make for that telegram. I thank the ' Herald ' for giving me a little peek-in into the political sheets of the province of Quebec.
But my hon. friend was also exercised over a speech that I delivered in Toronto, in which I said that Bourassa had good stuff in him. Now I have that speech, and I think it would not be wrong for me to read an extract or two from it. I do not believe the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has read all that speech, he picked out only what suited him.


An hon. MEMBER.: Read it.


George Eulas Foster: If lion, gentlemen want me to read the whole document through from beginning to end I can do it.


An hon. MEMBER.: You had better translate it for us.


George Eulas Foster: I can do that too
Mr. Foster said he was not out to justify the weapons that the Nationalists used in the Drummond-Arthabaska campaign, but they were the same weapons that Sir Wilfrid had used in Quebec prior to and after 1896. When the Conservative government of that day proposed to vote $3,000,000 to equip the Canadian militia with modern rifles and efficient field artillery, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the then Wilfrid Laurier, went into Quebec and used the identical arguments that the Nationalists have used during the past few weeks.
Will the Minister of Marine and Fisheries deny that? Will my right hon. friend deny that these arguments were used, that he profited by them, and that he never disowned them?
Mr. Brodeur said at that time that Canada owed England nothing, and the government had no business spending the people's money for armaments which would involve the country in what they called the ' vortex of militarism.' I am not here to defend those methods. They were dastardly in 1896, and they are no less dastardly in 1910. The trouble in the province of Quebec, Mr. Foster asserted, was that Laurier had been a dictator for the last decarle, there has been no discussion of public questions. The cry was, ' vote for Laurier, and if you wont vote for Laurier you are only fit for the dung hill.' Such a condition was intolerable in a great province. That caused a revolt, and now the people had reversed the autocratic, one-man tyranny of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a free translation.


George Eulas Foster: That is as reported in the Toronto ' World '.
Describing the issue in Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr. Foster said Henri Bourassa and Armand Lavergne came into public life as the proteges of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. There was good stuff in Bourassa

' There was good stuff in Bourassa '.
-he was grounded in Liberal ideas, but in the course of time he found it impossible to stand by the methods of the new Liberalism,
[DOT] with its graft and alienation of the public estate. Then Mr. Bourassa was ejected by Sir Wilfrid.
So much with reference to that. I think I have before said that whether any other good result or not comes out of the election in Drummond-Arthabaska, this good effect I think has come from it, that which I mentioned in my remarks in Toronto, namely, that the autocratic power of the premier, founded on his race largely, has been broken. Am I right or wrong-I 18
appeal to the members of the province of Quebec-that for the last ten years there has not been freedom of public discussion in the province of Quebec? Public questions have been subordinated to the duty of supporting the man, the position he occupied, the pride that was felt in his continuing to occupy that position. The fact that he dominated Quebec has been the main point at issue, and it has prevented public discussion from having its full and perfect freedom in the province of Quebec. That is lifted ; and after this, in the province of Quebec, on the hustings, public questions will be discussed, and the one-man power and the one-man idea will be less dominant. That is a benefit to Canada as a whole. I do not believe there was a constituency in the province of Quebec, and may be not a constituency in the Dominion of Canada outside of Quebec, in which that same menacing, disabling argument was not used. It was used in my own constituency. Why send Mr. Foster to parliament? Don't you know that Sir Wilfrid Laurier will win because he will sweep Quebec, he holds it in his fist. You may vote Mr. Foster in, but Sir Wilfrid Laurier will be in a majority, and why should you put a man in to warm an opposition seat? That same argument went everywhere through this Dominion of Canada and in numberless counties the candidate put upon his card that he was a candidate of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in order to win votes.


Mr. TOLMIE.: Proud of Laurier.


George Eulas Foster: I say it is not for the best public life, it is not for free public discussion, it is not for a proper judgment and conclusion, it is not for the benefit of the administration of any country that such means should be adopted. As I said before, the appeal to the conscience and intelligence is the appeal that should be made; that appeal was submerged under the implied threat: Vote as you like, anywhere in this Dominion, you will be in opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier is going to win, he owns Quebec.
Coming to the naval question, my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. R. Smith), wrestled stoutly and seemed to have a great deal of trouble with these resolutions. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), had also a great deal of trouble with them. I sympathized with both of them while they were struggling with them, but my sympathy was not as strong as it would otherwise have been when I recollected that they were making their own troubles. I recalled there were none so blind as those who would not see, and that if these gentlemen would just sit down and look at these resolutions as they were worded, they would not find very much difficulty with refer-

547

ence to them. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), declared that this only indicated the changes that Mr. Borden, the leader of the opposition, was continually making. My right hon. friend spoke,of the somersaults of the leader of the opposition that were so quick that it was almost impossible to count them. The last man in creation to bring up the subject of frequent changes and lightning changes should be my right hon. friend who leads thi3 government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He was treading on very dangerous ground when he undertook to base an argument on change and mutability in my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), and the Prime Minister declared that there was no crisis in 1909 and 1910. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) said that his was simply an idea resident in the mind of Mr. Blatchford, and a production of the yellow press. The right hon. gentleman declared that there was no emergency and that he knew there was no emergency at that time.


Wilfrid Laurier: He thought.


George Eulas Foster: No, I think the words were still stronger. He said:-
Well, we knew there was no emergency and so we voted against the contribution propounded by the opposition.
Both these gentlemen were complimentary to the resolution as I introduced it, and to the speech with which I supported it. I am very thankful to them for this expression. After nearly two years' time, I stand by my own resolution, I stand by every word I uttered in support of that resolution. I go further, I stand by the joint resolution of 1909.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
has thrown over every one of them. There, in short and sharp distinction, is the difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves. We do not feel that we are at liberty to pick and choose out of that resolution, the House passed it, it was to that extent an order of the House. The House ordered the whole of it and loyalty to the opinion of the House dictated that the whole of it, principle as well_a3 terms and conditions should be carried out. Am I wrong in that? There is not an hon. gentleman who will deny that that is fair and just. What were those terms and conditions? It was to be a Canadian service.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, yes, I am glad you agree with me in that. Before I take that up, the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith), scored, the leader of the opposition because he was in favour of an emergency contribution in money. Do either of them contend that that is in opposition to the resolution of 1909?


Mr. SMITH. (Nanaimo).: It is in direct opposition to the statements of the leader of the opposition in 1909.


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend answer that simple question, is it in opposition to the letter or spirit of that resolution of 1909, that this parliament should vote an emergency contribution of money?


Ralph Smith: There is absolutely nothing in the resolution of 1909 which will indicate a disposition for a contribution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I wonder if my right hon. friend the Prime Minister agrees to that?


George Eulas Foster: If I had to go through the same question again under similar circumstances and with the knowledge I have now, I would vote in exactly the same way. I stand by these resolutions, I stand by the arguments with which I supported them. There is this difference between the party opposite and myself; I stand for the whole resolution, while hon. gentlemen stand for only a part of it. I demand that the whole resolution be loyally adhered to. The resolution is made up of two parts. There is the principle of the resolution which is a Canadian service.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I said at the time that we were not in favour of a direct contribution, I said that in my speech, and I agree with my hon. friend that there is nothing in the resolution for or against a contribution.


George Eulas Foster: A resolution is interpreted, not only by its own verbiage but by what is recorded in the genesis of that resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: May be my hon. friends do not agree with me, I am sorry for them if they do not. I shall read the resolution which was proposed by the Prime Minister.


George Eulas Foster: Those are the words, that is the expression, a Canadian service.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: But the principle of the resolution has terms and conditions under which its embodiment is to be regulated. I stand by these too. My right hon. friend Mr. FOSTER.
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
2. The House reaffirms the opinion repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the selfgoverning dominions, the payment of any

[DOT] 550
stated contribution to tbe imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: That is the resolution as proposed by the Prime Minister and that resolution was not adopted, and my right hon. friend knows it. Instead of the words, 'any stated contribution' in the Prime Minister's resolution, these words appear in the amended resolution: 'the payment of regular and periodical contributions.'
Now, there is no doubt about that; no amount of casuistry and not quite fair and honest reasoning will ever justify a position other than that which I have taken. What the Prime Minister proposed was that there should be no contributions of any kind.
Some lion. MEMBERS. No.


George Eulas Foster: These hon. gentlemen say 'no,' but I read the words 'any stated contribution' in the Prime Minister's resolution, and what the amended resolution affirms is that regular and periodical contributions would not be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence so far as Canada is concerned. Now, Sir, I ask the Prime Minister if I am not right in saying that that clause 2 of the resolution as passed, estops hon. gentlemen opposite or anybody else from declaring that it is alien to that resolution and forbidden by it that there should be emergency contributions in cash. I go further and I say that there is another clause in the resolution which was passed, which reads:-
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and the honour of the empire. *
I say that this clause 4 absolutely binds this parliament and this House, so far as a resolution can bind, to make an emergency contribution to the defence of the empire if there is no other contribution that you have, or, even if you have any other it gives you the right and the liberty to make it. I make this still stronger by what fell from my right hon. friend in his speech the day before yesterday when he said that the leader of the opposition proposed a contribution of $25,000,000 as an emergency contribution, and here are the words of the Prime Minister :-
We knew that there was no emergency and so we voted against the contribution proposed by the opposition.
What does that mean? Does it not mean that they voted against an emergency con-184
tribution because they did not believe there was an emergency, which implies that if the Prime Minister believed there was an emergency he and his party would feel themselves at liberty to vote for an emergency contribution.
Now, I take clause 4 and I say it goes further than that; I say it binds this parliament in a case of emergency, if there is nothing else to be done, to come to the aid of the defence of the empire by monetary contribution. I ask my right hon. friend what he meant when he said, that if vital trouble threatened Great Britain, Canada would rush to the assistance of Great Britain. I put this case to him: Suppose to-day the contingency arose that it became suddenly and certainly known that war was imminent between Germany and Great Britain, suppose it was so stated by the British government; suppose it was made clear to the cognizance of the Prime Minister; suppose that that state of things existed, how does the Prime Minister propose to aid the empire in the terms of clause 4 of that resolution? He has no ships, he has no men; he cannot refuse to do anything because that resolution pledges him to do all that can be done, and the only resource he would now have in his power would be to propose a parliamentary vote in aid of a service in defence of the empire. So I say that clause 2 stops the mouth of the man who says that that resolution of parliament denies an emergency contribution, and I say that clause 4 of the resolution makes it absolutely necessary that you must make a contribution, (if you keep faith with parliament and with that resolution), if you have nothing else to give; or, if having given whatever else you have to give you think the danger so great that still greater resources of Canada should be given for the benefit of the empire, and to protect and maintain us as a part of that empire.
Well, Sir, what are the terms and conditions of that resolution? There is to be a Canadian service. That does not mean, and it did not mean at that time, that a Canadian service to be a Canadian service had to be built in this country; that every ship had to be constructed in Canada, and manned with Canadians. That was not what was meant by a Canadian service. If every vessel were built in the ship yards of Great Britain, under the direct supervision of the admiralty, it would be a Canadian service, and it could be a Canadian service if every man on board of it was an Englishman and not a Canadian. It is to-day, our hon. friends opposite say, a Canadian service, and yet almost every man that you have on board that service is not a Canadian, because we have no Canadians yet who are drilled up and ready to take their places there. If my hon. friend will do me the justice to read my speech he will see

that was what was foreshadowed by me. I said that at first the Canadian service would have to be built in Great Britain, because we had not the facilities to build it here, and that it had to be manned by British officers and sailors until we had educated and prepared- oux own men for that service. That did not make it any the less a Canadian service. Do you mean to say that the Australian unit is not an Australian service because its vessels have been built in Great Britain and have been manned for the most part by British officers and British sailors?
Now, Sir, the terms of that resolution were that you were to establish a speedy Canadian service. Have you made a speedy Canadian service? Two years have passed since then, and show me even the bones of your Canadian service in the line of giving aid to the empire in case of stress and war. Therefore, the term ' speedy ' has not been carried out as it has been carried out by Australia and by New Zealand. But there was more than that:-


Mr. PATERSON.: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but what is referred to in the resolution is speedy ' organization,' and not completion.


George Eulas Foster: Ah, the speedy organization of the Canadian service, was it?


William Paterson: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: If a man is hungry and wants his breakfast he wants a little more than speedy organization to get it; he wants it cooked and placed on the table.


William Paterson: That is what you voted for


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson), does a man of his age and wisdom stand up in this House to night and try to get clear of that on this quibble that all we meant was a speedy organization? The service might not come for twenty years, so long as we had a speedy organization. Was that all the hon. gentleman wanted-the speedy organization-for your patronage, for your officials, for your officers, for your contingencies? Is that all the Minister of Customs wanted? It seems so, from what he says.


William Paterson: It seems that is all you wanted, for you voted for it.


George Eulas Foster: All the hon. gentleman wanted was the organization and the salaries going with it; he did not care whether we had the service or not. That was the position of my hon. friend.


William Paterson: What was your position when you voted for it?


George Eulas Foster: Mine was what it is tonight-not that we should simply get to-Mr. FOSTER.
gether a lot of officials and pay their salaries, but that we should have the speedy organization of the service to bring out the service.


William Paterson: The speedy commencement.


George Eulas Foster: Organization is commencement, is it? Well, I leave my hon. friend to his own cogitations, and the public's; both of them will be severe enough, I think. In the second place, this was to be in cooperation with the imperial navy. That was as much a part of the resolution as was the speedy organization of the service. Is this organization going on in cooperation with the imperial navy? Just the opposite. Localization is the distinctive feature of this service as it is proposed. Segregation is a second feature of it. Antagonism is another feature of it, and a very possible one. It is not in co-operation with the imperial navy; it is separate, distinct, segregated, antagonistic to the imperial navy, and it has been shown in this House how it may lead to very grave danger. It was to be in close relation to the imperial navy. Is it? The close bond of connection with the imperial navy has been entirely cut. It is distinct from it. What is proposed is unsuitable to fit in with the British navy. There is no unit to be inter-changable. There is no sufficient body to make an adequate war practice possible, and consequently it is not in close relation to the imperial navy. Again, it was to be along lines sugegsted by the Admiralty in 1907. What were those? I am not^going to quote what was stated by the Admiralty. All this House knows that the lines laid down by the Admiralty in 1907 amongst other things had these two great characteristics: that it was to be under the control of the Admiralty in time of war. My right hon. friend will not deny that, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not deny that. Read Lord Selborne's memorandum, read every memorandum that has been issued by the Admiralty since, and you will find that they take the ground that the Admiralty, the supreme controlling force must in time of war direct the situation of the vessels and conduct the battle so that victory may be won. Giving up everything else, they declare that they cannot give up that. They are against the localization of navies, and are absolutely in favour of one supreme control in time of war. Is that not a part of the resolution? Has that part been carried out?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Lord Selborne was not at the conference of 1907, and I do not remember that Lord Tweedmouth used those words.


George Eulas Foster: Lord Tweedmouth used [DOT] those very words Lord Selborne in 1902

used those very words, and Lord Tweed-mouth in 1907 used exactly the same words. Does my hon. friend deny it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far as I remember, Lord Tweedmouth never said it.


George Eulas Foster: Lord Tweedmouth's memorandum says:
We welcome you, and we ask you to take some leading part in making more complete than it is at present the naval defence of the empire. I wish to recognize all that our cousins over the sea have done in consequence of decisions of former conferences. I know that you gave to the government and to the Admiralty, with a free and unstinting hand, the heln that you thought you could manage to give. Gentlemen, I have only one reservation to make, and in making it I ask that, as we have proved ourselves successful in the past, you should put your trust in us now. The only reservation that the Admiralty desire to make is, that they claim to have the charge of these strategical questions which are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the naval forces of the country and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist attack and to defend the empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the dominions beyond the seae. We thoroughly recognize that we are responsible for that defence. We want you to help us in that defence. We want you to give us all the assistance you can, but we do not come to you as beggarswe gladly take all that you can give us, but at the same time, if you are not inclined to give us the help that we hope to have from you, we acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the King's dominions across the seas to. the best of our ability.
No one but the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the man who has the supreme control and charge of this great service in this country, would have questioned that for a single moment in this House. Well, Sir, I come to another and still more important point. There was the vital fire which warmed this whole resolution, and what was it? It is expressed here, and I will read it:
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 securitv of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
That was the overruling consideration; that was the vital warmth and fire which made the whole thing living and strong. Have my right hon. friend and his party, in making these proposals and organizing for carrying them out, done it in full sympathy with that view, that it is essential to the commerce and the safety of the empire and the peace of the world that the British imperial fleet shall be supreme? If
they have not, they have failed to carry out that resolution. I know of no nobler form of expression, I know of no nobler and higher sentiment than is contained in these few words: In full sympathy-with what? With the absolute necessity of a British fleet to maintain commerce, to maintain the peace and safety of the empire, and to maintain the peace of the world. See what that means and what it calls for. British commerce encircles the globe. There is not a league of water which is not traversed by some toiler of the sea in the multitudinous and tremendous commerce that is being carried on within the empire and under its aegis. What does that commerce mean? It means the development, the comfort, the progress and the uplifting of the world. That commerce goes into every corner of the globe, bearing with it social, political and national life, the higher civilization, and everything that follows in the wake of great diffusive and peaceful intercourse. When this plan of a Canadian service was originated, that was the dominant idea and that was the great object to be sought by those who originated it. Take the other object, the safety of the empire, what does that mean? An empire which girdles the globe under which innumerable millions of people are enjoying the benefits of British supremacy and depending upon British ad-were exercised at any previous time in the ministration. Mighty trusts, such as never were exercised at any previous time in the world's history, are being worked out by the empire in India, Egypt and other parts of the world. The safety of the empire-contrast that for a single moment with the possible crash and fall of the empire and the chaos into which the world would be plunged by such a calamity. The peace of the world -what does that mean? It means that, under its benign influence, the human race, free from war's alarms blooms and fructifies in every department of life and endeavour, as does nature's growth under the distilled dews, the warm rains, and the grateful heat of summer suns.
That idea is a noble one. No man had the right to endorse the resolution without having his mind embued with sympathy for its great object. That is the reason we parted company with the right hon. gentleman. We stood for that resolution, we stand for it yet, and loyally we abide by it. We do not want a mangled abortion. What we want is the whole resolution carried out on the terms and conditions on which this House declared it should be carried out. What do you propose? You propose a Canadian naval service. Yes, but you deny and violate every one of the conditions that the resolution threw about that service. Your very scheme undermines the spirit and the letter of that resolution. The spirit was broad, effective, patriotic and imperial in its best sense. Your action has been nar-

row, ineffective, unpatriotic, anti-imperial. The resolution recognized what the empire meant to us-our commerce, security and progress. It recognized what the navy meant to the empire-its bulwark and defence and our obligation and privilege to strengthen that bulwark and defence. What strength to bulwark and defence can this proposition give which has been submitted to parliament by the hon. gentlemen opposite? Your service shrivelled into an instrument of minimum use to Canada, practically valueless to the empire-ineffectual, costly and dangerous. By it the defence of the country, the defence of the empire has been obscured by petty and incidental party advantages which are expected to spring from it, by consideration of locality and section, and these smaller considerations which should have no weight in the proper carrying out of the larger scheme. By a process of inversion you have made what should be the first object a secondary one. How different has it been in the other dominions. New Zealand has her Dreadnought already under way. No one hears ny New Zealand such strife as has been raised here and which has humiliated Canada. Australia has been loyal to the spirit of that resolution though she had no hand in framing and passing it. To-day two Australian destroyers built in Britain, are in her own ports, and the third one, made in Great Britain, is now being put together in Australia. And in June, 1912, the Australian unit will be completed and in Australian waters, ready for service for the protection of that colony and the defence of the empire. Let me point this out, that in the whole debate, in all the newspaper controversy in Australia, never has a single voice been raised against the aim, the unity of purpose, the ultimate object of the Australian navy unit. That navy stands by the islands of Australia and patrols her shores in time of peace. In time of war it goes undoubtedly to the defence of the empire. Take South Africa. To-day South Africa, a young country, with immense burdens and small population and revenue, gives a half million dollars per year as her contribution out and out to the defence of the empire and sends it to the British Admiralty for that purpose. There you have the three sister dominions, without quibbling, in a straightforward manner, ranging themselves, not suspiciously, but loyally, and openly by the side of the British government and the imperial power and quickly and heartily providing an adequate contribution to the defence of the empire and their own protection.


Ralph Smith: I would ask my hon. friend if there is anything in the resolution he has quoted or the speeches in its behalf declaring the advisability of submit-Mr. FOSTER.
ting the Canadian naval programme to the people of Canada?


George Eulas Foster: I shall give my hon. friend his answer in the order in which I propose to deal with that point in my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: When I say that I will answer this question in the order in which it comes , I am quite sure that my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) will agree with me in taking that position and will wait for his answer. I did not at once answer my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. C. A. Wilson), who put a question in the middle of a sentence. But I said I would answer him, and I did answer according to my lights and my convictions.
Now, there are two conceptions of the service that is due from Canada and by Canada. We have the conception of the Minister of Marine. I make bold to say that we could not expect a very high conception of the service due by Canada to the empire from that hon. gentleman. If we consider his participation in the campaign of 1896 we could hardly expect him to have a high conception of the service he was to be instrumental in forming for the Dominion. And, if we take into account his action in 1904 in relation to the cartoon of which mention has been made here, we should expect still less of him. In the conference of 1907, how did he stand? I read last year, when the hon. gentleman was not here, part of a speech made by him in that conference. As he is here now, I desire to read it again. Standing in that conference of 1907, representing Canada before the delegates of the empire and making excuse for lack of past action and for no further action, he spoke these words:-
We have on the Great Lakes (large seas, properly speaking) American states bordering these Great Lakes, and they are having navies of their own now. I think that three states bordering on the three great' lakes, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois are spending not less than $15,000,000 themselves for keeping up a navy on these lakes, and are drilling their men on the shore of the lakes. Besides they have some ships which are not on-because it would be against the conclusions of the treaty-but built in order to be prepared in case of emergency. As far as Canada is concerned, one of the first duties we shall have to look after is our protection in connection with the Great Lakes. I may say that the wars we have had since 1763, since Canada has become part of the British Empire, came from the United States. We had an invasion in 1775, we had an invasion in 1812, and we had the Fenian raids in the 60s. All those invasions came from the United States. So we have to look specially to protect ourselves in that direction, and I may say we have been doing it as far as the Great Lakes are concerned, not to a very large extent it is true, but to the extent of spending a sum of money

which is quite important for a country of i the size of ours.	<
I would like to ask the Minister of Ma- j rine: Did he consider then that he was ( making a truthful representation to the j delegates of the empire? If he did not, why did he make it? If he did, and it was truth- . ful, what has he done since to carry out ' what he said was Canada's duty in protect- ; ing her borders upon the Great Lakes? _ I tell the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that his words were an absolute misrepresentation of Canada's ease before the delegates of the empire-I mean ' misrepresentation ' in the original sense, a representation that is not right. Why did the minister make it? To deceive the empire? Will he stand by his statement now? Will he say that it is the duty of Canada, and has been for two years, to make provision to protect herself on the Great Lakes? Will he say that he has stood by that duty and implemented his own words? The hon. gentleman stands in the face of the empire in relation to that statement much as he stood in the face of this country on that cartoon business of 1904. The delegates of the empire, listening to the words of the Minister of Marine as explaining the position of Canada, could not. possibly come to a right conclusion as to Canada's real position. Was the minister trying to frame an excuse foT Canada? But, if an excuse is to be offered it should at least have some foundation _ in fact-this had no foundation in fact._ Think of a representative of Canada declaring that we cannot do what the representatives of the empire would like us to do, because, forsooth, we have first the duty of defending ourselves on the lakes; that invasions have always come from the United States; that we fear them still; therefore, our first duty is to fortify ourselves along the line of the Great Lakes. Is the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) proud of his colleague who would make a statement like that? Yet, the Prime Minister sat there and heard the statement, and there is no record that he raised his voice to mitigate or modify it. So,
I say, we cannot expect much from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bro-deur). But that hon. gentleman comes down to this House in this year, 1910, and give us reasons why we should have a navy. And what is that reason? He says that Great Britain has withdrawn her ships from Canada, and now there is not a single ship left to protect Canada, and therefore we have to provide for our own protection and defence. Is that a fair statement coming from a Canadian minister and directed against the power of Britain? I Tead to this House and the minister heard it-but he had heard it before in the conference of 1907-that, after all the quibbling and excuses for the determination to do nothing for the empire, Lord Tweedmouth stood forward and said: Do much, or do little, whatever you do, we still acknowledge that the King's dominions are to be protected by us and we propose to do it. Yet the teaching of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, here and in the province of Quebec, is that we are forced to have a fleet because Britain has withdrawn her protection from Canada. And he gives as his second reason why we must have a fleet the statement that we must protect our commerce. Why? Because, he gives us to understand, our commerce is left unprotected by Britain to-day. Both of these statements he made in this House; both of them he made in Quebec; both of them he will continue to make, and both of them are absolutely without foundation. I am surprised, Sir, that a Canadian minister will try to spread that impression in a British country. Does he not know, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that every vessel that floats the English flag, that every vessel within the empire to-day, is under the certain protection of the British fleet? Does the British fleet have to hover about every smack, and every schooner, and every vessel in order to afford it protection? The British fleet has been existent for centuries. It has so permeated this world with its energy, and power, and the watchfulness of the flag, that no matter whether this fleet is in the North Sea or the Mediterranean, commerce everywhere the wide world over is protected by the power and majesty of that fleet. Does the sun have to divide itself up into bits to put a little of its light and heat alongside every planet in the universe, in order to warm the universe? No, Sir, the central sun is there, compact and powerful, in one body, and it strikes with its rays every part of the universe of which it is the centre. What libel more mean, what libel more dastardly, than to try to teach the people here or elsewhere that the British government, has withdrawn its protection from us, therefore we are obliged to have a navy of our own?
But there is one thing that rejoiced the Minister:	It is another proof of our autonomy, and therefore we build a fleet. We organize a fleet in order to prove our autonomy. Why, he says: Now, we can have war vessels of our own, we don't have to ask Great Britain to allow us. We have got our naval autonomy, and this is an evidence of it. There is the conception of my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; I leave it with this House to . say if it is a worthy conception. Oh, but .. there is another. In reply to us on this , side of the House, he denied that he had : signed any document by which the control : of this fleet in time of war should be in the ? British Admiralty. The British govern-[DOT] ment said that he had, the British govern-r ment said that the colonies acknowledged - that. My hon. friend said, I have never

signed the document, it cannot be found. Is that his repudiation of it? So he and the Prime Minister stand together. They say: The needs of the empire have nothing to do with us, we will confine ourselves to Canada. We may come to the aid of the empire in need or we may not; but we hold absolutely to cutting that connection, and acknowledging no bond or tie. That is what both of them said. It is well for us to remember what they say, and to keep it in mind.	'	.
Now what is the Prime Minister's conception? Not much broader. The Prime Minister went down to the city of Montreal to speak to a monster meeting to pave the. way for his instructional campaign in the province of Quebec. There he gave the reason for the formation of the Canadian service. What was it? He said that in 1902 the British government had demanded of him and his colleagues at the conference that they should contribute, that they should recruit, equip and maintain a reserve force.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not demanded, requested.


George Eulas Foster: Had requested. He used the French word ' demander ' which means to request, but is a strong form of request.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no.


George Eulas Foster: But I tell you exactly what the impression was, whether it was meant or not. The impression was that Great Britain, in 1902, put it up to Canada that she should recruit and maintain a reserve force always to be at the disposal of the War Office in London, and had put it up to the Canadian delegates that they should contribute an annual sum for the maintenance of the British fleet. Those two things, I have them under my hand, my hon. friend will not deny them. With reference to the first he said to his audience:	There, gentlemen, was the
entrance into the maelstrom of militarism, and that I opposed with all my force. To the second he said:	To
that I gave a categorical refusal. I stood between Canada and the demand of the British government, I stood between Canada and the proposed invasion of the autonomy of Canada. I, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, stood there as your defender. Now, Sir, whatever the word ' demander ' may mean,
I say he would have been frank if he had said: These suggestions were made at the conference, but they were made by delegates at that conference, of which the British government was one; and before those delegates were conferred with at all, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain addressed the conference and said in effect to the assembled delegates:	We call you here to lay
before you the condition of affairs. The


George Eulas Foster: empire is wide, its burdens are heavy, we must maintain its defence. We do not come to you as beggars, but we ask you to take these things into consideration, and if you feel that you can in any way help, we ask you to help; but if you don't, we will do it. Recollect, we dont come to demand or to beg. Did my right hon. friend add that in his speech in Montreal? If he had, he would have told the men who were to read it, the hundreds of thousands in Quebec, who were to read it, that all that was asked was proposed by the delegates. At the same time he might have said: My countrymen, 1 must be frank enough to tell you that Great Britain, on the very threshold of that conference, stated to us: We force you in nothing, we do not beg from you, we do not categorically demand, we do not command you to do_ anything. There is the situation, help us if you can; but if you cannot, it lies with yourselves. Does not my right hon. friend think that would have been a truer representation of the case than the one he made? He went on and said: You ask my reasons why we formed a navy. There are two: First, we are richer, and more populous than in 1902 and therefore we are better able to support a navy. Secondly, since 1902 we have become a nation, and all great nations must prepare for their own defence. There he stopped. The imperial idea never seemed to have entered his brain. If it did, he smothered it there, and he put forth what I have stated as the sole reason for a Canadian navy. That representation would have been much more true if he had said something in sympathy with that navy upon which the British Empire, and the commerce, and the peace of the world depend, which was, as I said before, the vital point.
Well, Sir, let me hurry on. I will not follow, as I had designed to do, my hon. friend in some of his arguments. But there is one thing I think I may fairly say. Judging from the speech of my hon. friend the day before yesterday, judging from his statement in 1909 when he declared that he stood absolutely by the position of 1902, judging from the memorandum of 1902, the Prime Minister, so far as he goes, holds to this and this -alone : A Canadian naval service, built in Canada, manned by Canadians, confined absolutely to Canada. Now as then, he stands by the policy of 1902 : We may allow that fleet to aid Great Britain if we consider Great Britain's war is just and that we ought to help. Could not France do the same, could not Russia do the same, could not any country under an absolutely different form of government do the same? There is where my hon. friend's policy puts Canada not a part of the empire, but standing outside the empire, absolutely indepencf ent ; folding his arms he says just as

France or Italy or Germany even would say, when war arises, we will help Great Britain or we will not as we see fit. But he had informed the House and the country again and again that in the past there had been wars, in which, if he had a fleet and had been premier, he would not have allowed that fleet to take part, he had informed us, he had informed Great Britain and her enemies as well, that in any war that took place where the supremacy of Great Britain was at stake, one of the great overseas dominions had pledged herself that she would not rush into battle for the British Empire. That is the position of my right hon. friend. What does he rest it on? On the cry of autonomy and he quarrelled with me because I stated at one time that I thought that word was overworked-and I say yet I think it is overworked. What do all his fine sentiments about what responsible government had done for Canada, for Australia, for New Zealand and South Africa to do with the present occasion? He declared that responsible government and autonomy was the basis of the empire as well as the foundation of the development and success of all these overseas dominions. Did any one deny it? Does any one doubt it? Who denies autonomy to Canada to-day? Where is it threatened? My right hon. friend is like a belated knight who, after the battle is all over, the victory won and the results gathered in comes with all his fine trappings upon the field of battle and finding no enemy to fight still goes through all the motions, sets his lance at rest, digs his spurs into his charger's side, makes his passes, flourishes his sword, rushes upon an imaginary enemy and then straightening himself up on horseback, rides off and cries : What a champion I am, what a victory I have won. Does my right hon. friend pay the small compliment to the other overseas dominions that they are any less loyal to the rights and to the autonomy of their country than he is? Will he say that Australians have not as keen an appreciation of responsible government as we have, that New Zealanders, that his friend Botha in South Africa, the leader of the National, that is the Boer forces, and the leader of the Dutch party to-day in South Africa-that he is not as keen on defending the rights of his country as Canada is or could be. Well, New Zealand has paid her money and built her Dreadnought, pretty nearly. Australia has pledged her money and has built part and is building the rest of her unit, and Botha himself has forwarded to the British Admiralty his contribution of $500,000 towards the maintenance of a British navy. Not a word of autonomy, no suspicion of England. My right hon. friend is doing
what? Sowing the seeds of suspicion against Great Britain.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no! Hear, hear!	.


George Eulas Foster: Sowing the seeds of suspicion against Great Britain. His other teaching has brought fruit in the young disciples who have turned his own weapons against him. He is commencing now-no not commencing, he has been doing it for years, to teach the men of Canada; beware of Great Britain, your autonomous rights are in danger, beware, beware, do not let us have anything in common with the empire, it is not to be trusted ; our sister colonies, our mother land, keep on guard against them. That is the teaching of the right hon. gentleman from first to last. It is bad teaching, it will produce bad fruit. My right hon. friend may think he has something to gain from it, I do not think he has.
Now I come to my last point. The right hon. gentleman said : Let us come now to rock bottom. His rock bottom did not go very low, it consisted in trying to extract a ray of sunshine out of a dish of cucumbers that the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) had placed before him. He was not very successful in extracting the sunshine.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: He said : Let us go to rock bottom. Let us ask ourselves as a parliament here to-night/ what is the use, what are we getting, what are we to have? My right hon., friend and his Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for my right hon friend stood right by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in that respect, said in so many words : Great Britain put it up to us to undertake our own defence and relieve the British taxpayer of that burden, and that we have to do and propose to do. That was in his speech on Thursday. That carries out exactly the teaching of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. You are teaching the people of Canada that Great Britain has refused and that her taxpayers have refused to aid in the defence of Canada and that, therefore, we are now bound to take that up. No other meaning can be taken from the words, they were not qualified in the least. What does my right hon. friend then undertake? He undertakes to protect the Dominion of Canada in its commerce on the seas, on its coast line, in its affairs everywhere ; this government proposes to furnish the defence and I suppose adequate defence. My hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) the other night said he would like to see the member for Vancouver or any member

from this side go over to British Columbia and have a few questions put to him. I would like to go over to British Columbia and after the questions had been put to me or before, to put just one single question to British Columbia in this wise : British Columbia a mighty province, rich beyond our estimation or powers of estimation, sparsely populated, out on the far Pacific coast, with your commerce looking Bacificward, yonder beyond are the Chinese, a vast mass of old eastern people awakening to life, there are the Japanese crowding out from their borders, ready to overflow, and on the testimony of the Prime Minister probably going to overflow soon upon the shores of British Columbia. And, my question to British Columbians would be this: British Columbians, in whom, under these circumstances would you rather place your trust-in the British fleet or in the Rainbow; in the declaration of Lord Tweedmouth on behalf of the British government, that their fleet was there to protect the dominions the wide-world over, or, take Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier and say: Oh, we are with you; away with the British fleet, we will take Sir Wilfrid Laurier's promise of protection and we will sleep sound in our beds under the service he proposes. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said two things the other night; first, he declared there was no danger on the east. That is what we always said. If there is no danger on the east we need nothing to protect us there, or, if we are fully protected against danger from the east by other considerations why do you divide the small fleet that you propose and place more than one-half of it on the eastern side of Canada, when in the same breath you declare that all the danger is in the west? I would be recreant to my duty he said if I did not point out there is a danger in the west from the Japanese, from the possible China of a decade to come, may be from Russia. May I ask my right hon. friend how he proposes-leaving Great Britain out of account as he has done-to make provision for protection against that danger? Does he not know that a false security is worse than none? Does he believe that his divided portion of the fleet (consisting when it is all built of one or two or three vessels and not a single one of them a fighting vessel), is adequate protection for British Columbia against eastern peril. Does he? Does he or does the country think for a moment of what it means when,-Britain having been relegated to one side and scouted Tor her protection,-he and his Minister of Marine propose to provide the protection that Canada needs in these perilous times and the perilous times of the future. Could you protect your western coasts by your militia, if Japan were ever Mr. FOSTER.
tb declare war? Do you not know my right hon. friend and does not this House know that the only protection for the western coasts against that peril is a sea-wall in the shape of a fleet? If that sea-wall in the shape of a fleet is not there, 100,000 or 200,000 armed, seasoned warriors, the best in the world, could be landed on our western shores, and our poor militia-well as they would fight and brave as they undoubtedly are-would be swept like autumn leaves before the wind. Is your fleet, my right hon. friend, a sufficient sea-wall? Do you know the fleet that Japan has? Are we secure against the threatened peril unless our fleet is at least equal to the fleet of Japan? Do you propose to make it equal? Do you know what it will cost if you attempt to make it equal? Sir, Canada is not sufficiently protected if you simply protect it against this possible western enemy. You have to protect against any possible combination, you have to protect against the United States as well. May war never take place between two nations that have so much in common, but history has proven over and over again that community of race and community of language and community of trade is no bar against the angry sudden passions that result in destructive and bloody war. Nor is civilization. There was civilization in Germany and France in 1870, the highest grade of civilization, and yet in a moment war broke out, devastating, bloody and costly. If Canada is to be protected by herself you have to face providing adequate protection by sea and adequate protection bv land as well.
Now, Sir, as against that I say there is a better way. What is that better way? It is to trust the British Empire. It is_ to rely on the empire fleet; it is to furnish our part of that fleet according to our means; it is to co-operate with it for home protection and for empire protection as well. Here we have the greatest, mightiest fleet in the world, almost double that of the two next greatest naval nations, ready to defend every foot of the empire's soil, and yet,-think of the absurdity of it- men in Canada like the Minister of Marine, will arise and sav:	that is not for
us; it does not protect us, and then throw it absolutely to one side and say: let us go in for our own adequate protection. Sir, I say, trust the empire, rely on the empire fleet, furnish our own part of that fleet according to our ability. You may rest assured that the British Empire will not ask for an overburdening part. They have not asked for a single ship, they have not asked for a single man, they have not asked for a single penny, and as Lord Rosebery said, they will not until the last man and the last penny is gone. What rhyme or reason is there in a disconnected two-parts protection in this country? Australia has its protection when its unit is built

and it lies on its shores, (except in time of war), protected even from these North Borneo pirates that the Minister of Marine fears; but in time of war the Australian fleet becomes part of the empire's fleet. Times of war are not frequent. When has the empire's fleet been last called out to match itself against the fleet of any other great power? Not since the Crimean war. Periods of war are temporary and occasional and periods of peace are long and continuous. In the periods of peace Australia's unit will gladden the eyes of Australia within her own waters and in times of peace, the contribution of Canada if made in that way, would gladden the sight of Canadians in Canadian waters. But, when the battle is set and the challenge made, and the security of the empire threatened, then the Canadian fleet and the Australian fleet would be there where the battle is fought and not back in the harbours and rivers of the overseas dominions waiting to see what was going to happen.
On these grounds, Sir, I propose to vote for the amendment proposed by my hon. friend. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) asked me whether in my speech there was any suggestion of submitting this thing to the people before any action was taken. To the best of my knowledge, that question was not dealt with by me in that speech; I do not recollect it. I could not be positive; I might have alluded to it; but I certainly did not make a feature of it. Neither was it alluded to by any man in this parliament when the resolution of 1909 was passed. Why net? Because the 1909 resolution was a resolution which indicated Canada's contribution, in as speedy a way as possible, in the emergency which at that time we believed existed; and, Sir, if my right hon. friend and his government had done as Australia did, loyally carried out the spirit of that resolution in relation to, in co-operation with, according to the lines suggested by, the admiralty, and in full sympathy with the idea of the fleet as the bulwark of the safety of the empire, of commerce, and of the peace of the world, this parliament would have had no such question before it as is before it to-night. .Why have we this question? Because the right hon. gentleman cho'se to violate every term and condition of that resolution, and undertook to put in place of what was contemplated in that speech as a contribution to the strength of the empire, a dilatory, ineffective, costly and useless piece of machinery. And it is because he persists in doing that, and that we are not able in this House to induce him to do otherwise, that we appeal, as every constitutional party has to appeal, to the people.
My right hon. friend used an argument in his speech which elicited tremendous applause from his followers. They seemed to
think it was a great argument. Addressing himself to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), he said:
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 a German shell, or killed by a Russian bullet or Japanese shot, would 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. Bor" den) were satisfied, as he has alleged on the floor of this House, and as his friends have alleged here and elsewhere, that this policy is not only ill-advised, 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.
Mr. Speaker, do you take in that argument? It does seem to me that if in a school debate a fourth-form boy were to use an argument of that kind, his leader would give him a complete woolling for it. The leader of the oppostion must not move to refer a thing to the people if he thinks it bad. What he is to do is to get up and say:	'We will have none of it; out with
it.' When.the right hon. leader of the government, with a big majority at his back, says, ' We will have all of it, in with it, on with it,' what is left to the leader of the opposition to do? To appeal to his master and your master and the master of all of us. The right hon. gentleman proposes that we, being opposed to this thing, shall say, ' We will have none of it, out with it, down with it.' My right hon. friend must be a revolutionist . It is only by a revolution that you can correct things in that way. But we are living under a constitutional government; we have constitutional practice; and under constitutional government, the only alternative left to an opposition, when it puts its views strongly before the government and they are voted down, is to say, appeal to the people and let them decide. Will my right hon. friend do it? I do not know, or rather I think I do know. He will not now. He will have to later. Let me tell my right hon. friend that this question is not settled by this vote to-night. It is not settled by the arguments pro and con here; it is not settled even by the Drummond and Arthabaska election, though that is a good pointer; but it has to be settled by the people at large, and I now say to my right hon. friend, when you propose an abortion like this, when you propose an inefficient, costly, useless organization, without a unit, without a fighting vessel, with a divided force upon the two sides of this continent, to cost more in first cost and more in keep than a complete unit would

have cost-when you propose that, you have to justify, it before the people of Canada. All we can do is to try to argue with you, and if you will not submit to the arguments, which are irrefragable and convincing, and if hon. gentlemen do not propose to break their ranks-they have reasons for that-if you will not give way to argument here and now, the time will come when you will give way to argument upon the electoral hustings of this country. I say to my right hon. friend, if you have the courage of your convictions, if you want to get the people's voice upon this matter, if you think your plan is the best and the people will stand by it, there is one way by which you can find out. To-day we are in confusion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: To-day we are in a humiliating position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: To-day we no longer hold up our heads in the empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: And the reason we do not is because, when parliament decided upon a certain course, and unanimously adopted that course


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: The government, with a strong majority at its back, chose to violate every condition of that resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear, and oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: So as to foist upon the people, instead of the pure article, a counterfeit, which will give no aid to the empire, and no real defence to the country itself. If my right hon. friend desires to settle all this confusion into which he has plunged this country, if he desires^ to settle that confusion which is found in his own ranks, there is a simple way by which he can do it and that is: Vote this amendment, take your supplies, and then dissolve this parliament and appeal to the people.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House had the opportunity of listening to a most unique deliverance. An hon. gentleman, with a long parliamentary experience, was endeavouring-if I may indulge in language somewhat similar to that which he so frequently uses -to perform in an artistic way the feat of swallowing himself. And I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the House felt that he found the task more difficult Mr. FOSTER.
than on any previous occasion-though it is a feat which the hon. member has performed more than once in his previous career. He very fittingly gave the key to the situation of his party in me closing words of his peroration. 'We are in trouble,' said he. 'We are in confusion, we cannot hold up our heads.' With the unerring accuracy of long experience, he rightly diagnosed the condition of his party. I do not know whether he had heard of the meeting of the Borden Club last night in Toronto, the club which bears the name of his leader. At that club an address of the most significant character was delivered, one which it is just as well to read to the House, particularly because it is extremely apt in view of the peroration of mv hon. friend (Mr. Foster). Thi3 address was given by Mr. W. D. Earngey to the Borden Club.
' I don't believe in Nationalism,' said Mr. W. D. Earngey at the annual meeting of the Borden Club last night. ' I am a Tory, but had I been down in Drummond and Artha-baska I'd have voted for the Laurier candidate. Nationalism should be nipped in the bud. I feel sore that the Whip and other prominent men of the Tory party

-including my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
-sent a telegram of congratulation to Mr. Gilbert on his election, but they had not the nerve or the grit to applaud him on his introduction into the House. I think that is weak Toryism, weak Nationalism, weak Canadianism. And I think the Conservative party has weakened itself by making professions of loyalty.
My hon. friend's keen judgment as a political physician-for his long experience in politics entitles him to be ranked as a doctor-as to the condition of his party, that it is in trouble and confusion and unable to hold up its head, is verified, not merely by the situation of the moment, but by the situation of the party at all times during the past year. What was the situation of the Conservative party when the House adjourned some six months ago? It was blazoned forth all over the country that, immediately after the session, a convention would be called to formulate a policy for the party. Hon. gentlemen opposite had got tired of using their old shibboleths. There were people teaching one theory in one part of the country and others denying it in another part of the country. The occasion demanded that there should be a getting together of the members of the Conservative party in order that they might find out where they stood. But they never met, and the lack of policy, which was conceded, the lack of unity, which everybody witnessed, at the conclusion of the last session of parliament, exists to-day in accentuated form. Then, the leader proposed to inaugurate a tour in the province of Ontario. But the farmers were busy with the crops and could

not go out to hear him. So the meetings were broken off and we were told that they were to be resumed in the fall. Then those in control came to the conclusion that the farmers were more interested in fall fairs than in Conservative politics. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was not included in that tour. A new lieutenant was selected to accompany him. The hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) was to be the new Moses who was to lead the Conservative party out of the trouble, the confusion, the condition in which they were unable to hold up their heads. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) sat down under his apple trees at Apohaqui-


George Eulas Foster: They were plum trees.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let us say that there was a diversity of fruit and that the greatest peach sat under the apple tree. From his Cave of Adullam he watched the curious peregrinations of his friends throughout the country, and saw the absolute failure on the part of the people to pay the slightest attention to their arguments and proposals. He awaited the time when the House would open and once more he would be seated as his leader's deskmate and be ready to inaugurate the Conservative policy. In the meantime, all those who were interested in athletics, and more particularly in pugilism, were wondering as to Die fate of a gentleman bv the name of Jeffries and whether he could ' come back ' or not. And since then the public have been wondering whether my hon. friend from North Toronto was going to ' come back ' or not. We have had the first round of the duel to-day. The hon. gentleman's lungs seem to be in good order, and his arms work as vigorously as usual; but there seems to be no force in his blows. Every hon. member of this House, whether he sits behind my hon. friend, or whether he sits on this side, rendered the verdict, when the House rose at six o'clock, that if Jeffries-Foster is coming back he has got the worst of the first round.
My hon. friend realizes keenly the fact that there is trouble and confusion and that he cannot hold up his head. And why? Because he finds that, whereas he once preached in favour of a sturdy navy, and in favour of a compact which was acceded to by men of all political faiths two years ago, under which Canada agreed to come toward, and, by a united people and with a determined policy, do her duty to the empire, now, in some way, whether through the influence of the new lieutenant or not, there has been an understanding arrived at with the anti-imperialists of the province of Quebec. And so it is that, though talking as he did this afternoon and declaring that he stood by every word of what he said in 1909, he knows in his heart that when, he votes, as he intends to do, he will vote against everything he then declared for. He said that, had Canada done as Australia did, we should never have had this question before this parliament. I shall deal with the accuracy of his statement as to the position of Australia later on. But he knows that were it not for the fact that an election took place in Drummond . and Arthabaska, and that his leader is weak enough to fancy that there will be some comfort for the Conservative party in the result there, we should never have had this amendment foT which hon. gentlemen are to be asked to vote. What is the evidence of that understanding, which is quite as patent to the member for North Toronto as it is to any other member in this House? Immediately behind his leader sits the first lieutenant, from the province of Quebec, of the Conservative party, and although he preached a policy of anti-imperialism a month ago, although he told the people of his province-and he admits it-that conscription was to be the policy of the Laurier government.


Mr. MONK.: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I never made that admission.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can turn up the ' Hansard '; if not, some of my friends will, where my hon. friend said to the people of Drummond-Arthabaska that conscription was the natural corollary of the Navy Bill. My hon. friend won't deny that, he admits it. I need not read it, because it is conceded.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend has just stated in the last instance what I did say, that conscription must necessarily follow.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend, in seeking to make these fine distinctions, is simply following up this alleged policy of his. He advocates a policy so vague that nobody can understand what it means unless it means anti-imperialism and anti-Canadianism. My hon. friend may make these narrow distinctions, but a man who goes into a constituency and tells the people that the effect of the navy legislation of this government means that conscription must follow, is certainly stating what is untrue.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It has followed in Australia.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, of course my hon. friend from North Toronto does not want conscription, he does not believe it is necessary; therefore, we have this strange condition of affairs, these two lieutenants of the leader of the opposition sitting in juxtaposition, one behind him and the other alongside of him, one preaching imperialism in Ontario in order to make this know-nothing do-nothing policy of the leader of the Conservative party palatable in the English provinces, and the other stating what is inaccurate in regard to con-

scription in order to catch votes in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend who sits behind the leader of the opposition, had he a seat in the English parliament, holding the views which he does hold, in antagonism to his party, would not if he was out of touch with them be found retaining the seat which he holds by virtue of the fact that he is lieutenant of the leader of the opposition; he would proceed to the cross benches, he would ask you to find a seat where his position w-ould indicate that he was not acting in accordance with either political party. But my hon. friend still sits there, and the work goes on.
Now let us see what the attitude of our friends of the National party is. The National party in Canada, or the anti-imperialistic party I prefer to call them-because as a matter of fact those of us who are proud of our country, who realize that even to-day, after 43 years of our national life, it is a humiliating thing that we should be found here engaged in a discussion of questions of sectionalism and of race-I say those of us Canadians who are proud of the fact that Canada is a nation within the British Empire, claim the right and title of nationalists from the fact of being Canadians. But those gentlemen are not nationalists, they are anti-imperialists, and their anti-imperialism began in 1900 when, under the leadership of Mr. Bouras-sa, they adopted the attitude that Canada should not assist in any foreign wars, no matter in what dire necessity the empire mi^ht be. Then they followed up that policy in regard to the autonomy Bills for the new northwest provinces, when the leader of the House was characterized by gentlemen who opposed that policy as having forfeited everything which his race and his creed in the province of Quebec had a right to claim from him in regard to that legislation. In addition to that, they advocated a narrow immigration policy, a policy which, if it was followed out, would leave our great northwest with a very sparse population indeed, and would close this Canada of ours, to all people from foreign lands who might wish to come here and unite with us in building up a great nation. If these anti-imperialists views prevailed, no people from foreign lands would come here to find a home. Following out this line in opposition to any participation in the wars of the empire, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, after waiting for the compact, rushed into a coalition with Mr. Bourassa and assumed his present attitude on the naval question. How does my hon. friend from North Toronto, with his imperialist tendency, with all the declamations which he summoned to his aid this afternoon in behalf of the extreme position he has taken up, how can he sit calm and tight, and send telegrams of congratulation to those anti-imperialists to this faction, Mr. MACDONALD.
which oppose the upbuilding of a Canadian nationality?


George Eulas Foster: I rise to correct my hon. friend who, I am sure, does not want to misrepresent me. I sent no telegram of congratulation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, I suppose my hon. friend takes the position that he would not send a telegram of congratulation.


George Eulas Foster: I am simply correcting a very gross mistake of my hon. friend, and I wish my statement to be accepted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is quite right, I should have referred to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who sent a telegram to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: The member for Toronto said there is good stuff in Bourassa.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, because he is an anti-imperialist, there is good stuff in him. He would not tell the House whether he regrets that he did not send a telegram of congratulation or not; but since he has seen this deliverance of the Borden Club in Toronto, I suppose he would hesitate about it.


George Eulas Foster: I am not in a telling
humour.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to know if there is anybody in this House who can diagnose what kind of humour the hon. member for Toronto is in. Now, let us see where our friends the anti-imperialists stand upon this question. Do they say they want no navy in this country, or do they not? I have heard their policy variously interpreted. My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) says that the anti-imperialists want a Canadian navy, a navy that will have nothing to do with the empire, no matter in what stress or storm she may one day find herself. I do not know whether that is their position, or whether their position is that they -want no navy at all. I am aware that Mr. Lavergne goes to Toronto and says that he is willing to support a navy. But who can tell the vagaries of these gentlemen who claim to be anti-imperialists wheu they are running an election in certain districts in the province of Quebec? They do not know themselves.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend should be
able to speak authoritatively about vagari. s.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, my hon. friend has addressed this House once or twice in regard to this policy, and if anybody else but himself can tell where he stands on this question, I would like to know it. He is sitting cheek by jowl with this imperialist for North Toronto. His appeals-to prejudice, his threats of conscription, are absolutely without foundation, although they

seem to be his chief stock in trade in discussing the naval question. The fact is, these gentlemen who are aligning themselves with the member for North Toronto are trying to build up a party in the province of Quebec, not inspired by Canadian aims, but resting upon a narrow race _and religious basis, with the view of wringing from one or other of the great political parties in this country things which are unfair, which are anti-Canadian, and which would not tend to the upbuilding of a strong Canadian nation. Sir, it is in conjunction with these people that my hon. friends of the opposition are acting to-day. We see the effect of that conjunction in the attitude to-day of the leader of the opposition on the navy, who advocates that nothing should be done. Had there been no amendment by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, there would have been no amendment by the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition had discussed the address, he had closed his remarks with reference to the navy, but when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), came along and moved his amendment, then, in order to, if possible, take in all those various elements who are opposed to the navy, whether imperialists or anti-imperialists, we find this amendment and the evidence which exists beyond all doubt as to the association of the opposition with these anti-imperialists in this House. Who is it that rushes to the defence of the hon. gentleman like the member for Champlain	(Mr. Blondin),
when he indulges in breaches of order? Who, but his leader, the leader of the opposition in this House, who apparently, fancies that possibly by dividing his forces some time in the .future he may be a conqueror. It is as well for this House and this country to understand the unholy coalition that exists to-day amongst these warring elements of the Conservative party. What is the evidence of this? Instead of having an imperialistic navy, such a navy as that proposed by the hon. the leader of the opposition on every hustings, a navy working at all times under the direct control of the imperial authorities, my hon. friend has got down to the position to-day that he does not want a navy at all. Some time in the long and dim and distant future when the ideal of imperial federation is realized forsooth, will he have a navy then? No. He will talk about it and he will go to parliament about it and then he will go to the people about it. That is not where my hon. friend was in 1909. He filled page after page of ' Hansard ' talking of the weary Titan and the burden he had borne all the years. To-night he says we will have no navy at all, and will give no assistance to Great Britain until imperial federation is brought about. Of course this evidence of an understanding is so apparent that my hon. friend's friends in the country
got on to it, as witness the statement in the Borden Club last night in Toronto, and then in that good Conservative paper, the Toronto ' News,' day before yesterday, under the heading ' Steady,' Here is a correspondent who says:-
All my life I have found public men go too far to catch a temporary wave of opinion.
That is what my hon. friends aTe doing.
I have become so certain that this will always he done that I have begun to think it not worth while protesting. . . . Nothing is more clear than that in the whole history of our politics playing to Quebec never served the interests of an opposition.
And that is what these gentlemen are doing, playing to the reactionary, anti-imperialist element in Quebec, preaching imperialism everywhere else, trying to delude themselves into the belief that by offering resolutions in the House and talking differently outside, they may hold their support in this country.
What further is the evidence that my hon. friends have deserted all the traditions of their party? Who first proposed the participation of Canada in naval defence? Away back in 1866, Sir John A. Macdonald at the time of the meeting of the representatives of the different provinces to lay down the terms of confederation, moved the resolution which is incorporated in the British North America Act to-day under which power was given to this parliament to provide for a militia and naval service in this country. That was followed by Sir George Etienne Cartier, who in 1868, by the Militia Act provided for the permanent militia in Canada. So we come along the intervening years with suggestions here and there, mainly from hon. gentlemen op.-posite and their leaders, as to the duty which Canada owed in this respect and the necessity of acting in her own interest. Until, in 1909, my hon. friend who spoke this evening brought forward his resolution, to which assent was given by many gentle-mien who have taken a curious position since. My hon. friend from North Grey, (Mr. Middlebro), for instance said in 1909:-
The question is asked: Is the resolution before us specific enough? Does it go far enough? I am not going to discuss that question further than to say that personally I think the time has arrived for Canada to take a decided stand. It will not do for us simply to put resolutions at conferences; it will not do for us simply to say by resolution that we are willing to do so and so. That resolution has been practically before the country since 1902 or 1903 and nothing has been done in reference to the navy. It is true that something has been done in reference to taking over the two fortifications of Halifax and Esquimalt, but absolutely nothing has been done in reference to a contribution to the assistance of the navy as far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned.

It is not enough to say to-day that we will stand absolutely in the position we took in 1902 at the Colonial conference; it is onr duty to assert that while that is our principle yet the time has come to show the mother land that we are prepared to back up our sympathy by some actual effort.
My hon. friend will vote to-nigiht in favour of a resolution that Canada shall do nothing until we have imperial federation.


Mr. MIDDLEBEO.: The reason I am proposing to do nothing to-night is because the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not carried out the unanimous resolution of 1909.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend after all his eloquent address of two years ago admits that to-night he has come to the conclusion that nothing should be done at all.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman has not fairly interpreted what I said. My statement was that because the premier had not carried out the resolution which we passed unanimously in this House, the matter comes back to this House and is once more at issue and I am going to have the issue go before the people.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, my hon. friend is an illustration of the hon. gentlemen who think that by voting for a resolution which means nothing, they can get away from the policy which was announced, by and which is the policy of his leader, and if he follows it-and I do not know exactly whom my hon. frien'ds on the other side are following now

but if the policy of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden) is followed, there will be nothing done about a navy until imperial federation is attained. Then there is my genial friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). My hon. friend talked about tin-pot navies. He said:
Now carrying out the idea first involved in naval defence for Canada, I do not see any reasons why we should not immediately institute some system of naval defence along the lines of torpedo boats, or torpedo destroyers, and destroyer cruisers, which would be invaluable to us in case of war. A great many members suggest or imply that it would be impossible for us to build these at home-
And I quite agree with the hon. member for North Simcoe in the argument that he made here that when we build ships whether big or small, for a navy in Canada, we should build them in Canada, yet the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) tonight found fault with the government because they were going to build these ships in Canada. He said this resolution of 1909 did not mean that the ships were to be built in Canada. The hon. member for North Simcoe went further. He said:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As I pointed out we should immediately assume the position of establishing a local defence of our own. Our local defence should consist of torpedo boats and destroyers, and they could convoy our merchant ships, in case of war, to England and save them from the attacks of cruisers.
Then said my hon. friend, and I assume he was speaking for the hon. gentlemen who sit with him:
I think we are all presumed to be at one on that question.


Mr. CUEEIE (Simcoe).: The hon. gentleman will not find a single line of my remarks opposed to submitting this question to the people.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, like a good many others of the gentlemen who sit around him, would like to escape by that back door. But my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) talked for an hour and he did not say one word about submitting the question to the people.


Morley Currie: I do not wish to obstruct the beautiful flow of oratory of the hon. member for Pictou, but what I say is that the question of a general policy is altogether different from going into this matter in a small way. I did not expect that the expenditure would be so great as $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 a year, but I presume that a member of this House is always entitled to carry out to its logical conclusion any position he takes on any quesuon.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 

power: that that protection must be either borne by ourselves or by ourselves in conjunction with Great Britain and in co-operation with the mother country. I think these conclusions are logically deducible from the argument I have already used.
Let me say again, my hon. friend now asserts that everything shall be postponed until imperial confederation is attained.
But my hon. friend told us that he did not think it was a good idea to have these ships built in Canada or that we should have a Canadian navy. I read with a great deal of admiration the address of my hon. friend of 1909; but I was more disappointed than lean find words to say, to find that my hon. friend had deserted the position he had taken with such ability in 1909, and I was surprised to find, in the -bold assertion he made to the House that he had not gone back on a single word he had then uttered, that he did not realize the attitude in which his leader's resolution was placing him. But perhaps I am mistaken ; I am sure I am, for I am sure no man in this House realizes better than my hon. friend from North Toronto, the ignominous position in which he is placed by the resolution of his leader. This is what my hon. friend said :
We are absolutely bare of the skill, the experience, the training and the power necessary to put one single war vessel on a proper footing; but-and it is but the beginning of a circle-the first Canadian owned vessel, built and equipped in Britain, and sent out to defend our coasts would become the nucleus and the training ground of Canadian stokers, Canadian sailors, and Canadian officers, and by and by perhaps, of a Canadian admiral on the Canadian coast. How much time would he taken in completing that circle none of us can say, but if we begin the circumscription of it and follow it fairly and faithfully, the time must come when we get a complete circle and have an imperial adjunct to the British navy for the defence of Canada and the defence of the empire, in which Canada has some of her body, her hones, her blood, and her mental power.
My hon. friend knows that these words grate very harshly upon the ears of the hon. gentleman who sits behind him :
First would come the dock-yard, which would be of sufficient size to enable us to _ repair the smaller vessels and may be in time build the smaller class of vessels that we need at first, to be implemented by co-operation between Canada and Great Britain in the shape of a dock-yard sufficient to dock any lame vessel of the British navy that might happen to limp to our coast and require refitting and repairs. And so, in that progressive, gradual way coming up to the fulfilment of this idea, a defensive force in Canada which would be an auxiliary in the case of an outbreak of actual hostilities, which would he sufficient for the ordinary surveillance of our coasts and which would he, in time of war, sufficient to work in conjunction with the main portion of Mr. MACDONALD.
the fleet that would be sent to that part of our country that was menaced.
That is what was said by the hon. member for North Toronto, and in face of the fact that this government is carrying out that policy to the last iota in all respects, I would ask my hon. friend to tell me what part of the plan laid down in these sentences this government is departing from. Have we not got the preliminary ships from England? Is not the ' Niobe ' in Halifax, and the ' Rainbow ' in Vancouver? With Englishmen as officers, it is true, but with three times as many young men offering for examination as naval cadets as could be received in these vessels. Have we not made provisions for a naval college to be maintained in Halifax, where instruction will go on this winter? Is provision not being made for the construction of dockyards, where the lame ducks of the British navy and these other vessels can dock? with all the preliminaries which my hon. friend outlined proceeding along these lines at the hands of this government, my hon. friend wants the country to stop the whole thing, to shut up the naval college, to tell these young Canadians who have gone up for examination as naval cadets, we do not want you at all, go back to your homes, to send' the ships back to England, and then to wait for imperial federation to come.
My hon. friend was not satisfied with having a unanimous resolution passed. On the 12th of April, 1909, so keen and hot was he for action to be taken, that he queried the government in this House as to what was going to be done to implement the resolution. He was told by the right hon. leader of the House that this government proposed to send to England the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Militia and Defence to treat with the home authorities with regard to the subject. My hon. friend appeared to he satisfied with that, because he said nothing about it ; and his attitude continued to be the same until last year, when, with the change of attitude on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, my hon. friend swung round on this question to a certain degree. He did not want a Canadian navy at all. He did not want Canada to go on and build dockyards, naval colleges and shipyards, as he said they should do in 1909. In a long har-rangue in this House last winter, he attacked the right hon. leader of the government as a separationist, and, by distortions of various extracts which he read, he asked the House to believe that the government were lacking in their duty and were disloyal to the empire because they had not gone on and made arrangements under which everything we had in Canada would be placed at the disposal of the

British Empire. He talked vigorously about the windmills of autonomy against which the right hon. leader of the House was tilting-the rag baby of autonomy, he called it. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier was in the House when my hon. friend made the speech of last year or not. He certainly was not in the House to-day, when my hon. friend from North Toronto declared vigorously that the cry of autonomy was being overworked. Now, if there is anybody in this country who is overworking the cry of autonomy, it is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier who sits immediately -behind him. What did my hon. friend say about that? He said this :
It is a rag baby. Autonomy was born and grew to manhood and has been a man in this country for forty or fifty years. This is but a make-believe-a rag baby.
Yet it was this rag baby of autonomy that was overworked in Drummond and Arthabaska, which according to my hon. friend misled the electors and won the election. Then he proceeded to blame the government because we had not done as he said Australia had done, and provided for the construction of a unit. My hon. friend has attempted to lead the House to believe that Australia has done something that we have not done. My hon. friend asserted this afternoon that had Canada done what Australia has done, this resolution would have never -been before the House. My hon. friend must know that we have done exactly what Australia has done-that our autonomy has been maintained under this government's policy just as Australia maintains its autonomy, that the Defence Act of Australia expressly provides that the ships belonging to Australia shall not leave the home station either in peace or war without the consent of the Governor in Council. If my hon. friend did not know that, now that he has learned the fact, I presume he will support the government, because he told us this afternoon that had we done what Australia was. doing, he would not be found opposing the resolution.


George Eulas Foster: Do not assume too much.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I could not expect my hon. friend, knowing him as I do, to come right over to us, but we all know that he is in a very uncomfortable position. He told us clearly this afternoon what his feelings are regarding the confusions that exist and further that he does not know where to turn to escape the embarrassing and disastrous conditions which exist around him.
In his well known speech of 1909 my hon. friend, who is given to being classical, used these words which, so far as one can judge the meaning of the English language, must 194
rather shock the ears of those who listened to his speech this afternoon. Let me quote what the hon. gentleman said:
The old mother speaking to her assembled sons, those whom she had borne in pain and nurtured with care, and weloomed to the old home again, and told them in no beggar's tones just the difficulties of the old homestead, and the troubles, and trials -and burdens. There was the mute appeal of -the weary Titan whose very muscle was corded, and whose every bone was set to the strain, under the mighty and constantly increasing burden of the defence of the empire. That mute appeal, looking into the faces of the sons returned.
Just fancy the old mother making a mute appeal, such as my hon. friend has described, looking into the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite to-day, and just fancy the answer they are giving to that appeal.
There were forty millions of British taxpayers responding to the appeal of the old mother, to the mute appeal of the weary Titan, paying their hard earned taxes year after year in increasing quantity to keep the homestead intact, and to keep the empire free from the marauder.
That mute appeal gets a very unsympathetic answer from hon. gentlemen opposite. They tell the old Titanic mother, that, so far as they are concerned, she may be destroyed, and they will not turn a hand to help her. And my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who spoke these words I have just quoted, is now prepared to vote that nothing shall be done. Let me again quote my hon. friend. He closed with these words:
I ask him if, after he has put this policy of his into execution, and the quick years pass by and nothing comes of benefit or help, and if some day Armageddon breaks out on the North sea or elsewhere.
What if Armageddon should break out, and the nolicy of these hon. gentlemen were adopted. While they were sitting down waiting for imperial federation, Armageddon might arrive and there would be no more British Empire.	,
And the fate of the empire and of Canada hangs in the balance, and if-which God forbid-the scales should lower on Britain's side and the conqueror should take her place on the sea, where will my right hon. friend go' for consolation in that time? I would not like to be in his place.
There are a good many who would not like to-day to be in the place of the hon. member for North Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: I know that quite well. They would sooner be on that side.


Mr. MACDONALD (reading):: I tell you that -besides simply doing your duty, you take the most effective means of meeting the emergency, for it is an emer-

gencv, by strengthening the fleet of the British Empire. Here is Canada with her $100,000,000 of revenue, Canada with all that she has and that has been given her and kept for her by the hard working taxpayers of the British Isles, how is it that we can for a moment refuse to play the manly part, the Canadian part and the imperial part, and go to the defence of the empire and ourselves?
If the hon. gentleman were responsive to any appeal that might be made to him and were I gifted with his eloquence, I would like to transpose that appeal and ask him whether he is going to wait patiently for imperial federation or give an active and effective response to his own language of two years ago. But my hon. friend occupies a difficult position which the House well understands, and the circuitous methods he adopted this afternoon in his endeavours to square himself with the resolution of his leader, were interesting and instructive. I am bound to say that few hon. gentlemen could have done the thing so dexterously, and even though he did not show that facility he usually displays, and even though he did not accomplish the feat, still he made a very game attempt'at it.
However he told us boldly that we were estopped from saying that Canada should not contribute because of some phrase in the resolution which he interpreted with a good deal of casuistry to imply that this House stood for contribution. Yet, on the former occasion to which I have alluded, he spoke to the extent of over four pages of ' Hansard ' to argue that contributions were a bad policy.
This afternoon he told us that he was opposed to the proposition of the government because the ships are to be built in Canada. I do not know what the junior member for Halifax would say to that. He and the chief organ of the opposition in that city have been busy bewailing the fact that Halifax has been overlooked and in urging that Halifax is the one place in the whole empire where the ships ought to be built. No doubt my hon. friend from St. John has an equally praiseworthy ambition; and I do not envy my hon. friend when he goes back to St. John and tell the people there that, as far as his vote could do it, he effectively took from them any possibility of building these ships until imperial federation is accomplished.


Mr. DANIEL.: No doubt the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will vote that they should all be built in Courtenay bay.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But unfortunately he will not be able to count on the assistance of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I hope they will be built
before imperial federation comes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know whether my hon. friend from North Toronto Mr. MACDONALD.
has very much taste for fruit or vegetables of a certain kind, but I do think that the expression he used in describing the resolution of his leader (Mr. Borden), when he called it a dish of cucumbers, was certainly a very unique one. There are many hon. gentlemen so constituted that this vegetable does not agree with them, and I am afraid that my hon. friend from North Toronto is one of these. Judging by his remark, he evidently experienced considerable nausea in swallowing this resolution of his leader, and found it a very unpalatable dish.
My hon. friend was very much annoyed over some article that appeared in the year 1900 in some newspaper, and what appeared particularly to annoy him was that it referred to the leaders of the Conservative party as being big and fat. Can it be that he was consumed with jealousy because he could not come within that category.
He said that we had no right to assume that England had withdrawn her ships from Canada. But my hon. friend knows that England handed over to Canada the yards at Halifax and Esquimalt, and that these yards have since been maintained by us. My hon. friend was quibbling. He was attempting to make some point against the right hon. the Prime Minister, and wanted to indicate that the Prime Minister was misleading the province of Quebec when he made the statement that England had withdrawn her ships from this country. But my right hon. friend simply told the people of Quebec that for the last five or six years there had been no English ships at our stations in Halifax and Esquimalt, and that the control of these yards had been assumed by the Canadian government. Which would you rather have, my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) asked, the British fleet or the ' Rainbow? ' Well, is there anything the matter with the ' Rainbow? ' Will any hon. gentleman say, on his responsibility as a member of this House that the ' Rainbow ' is not thoroughly first-class in every respect? That, for her size, she is not in every way suitable for full service?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but those who do have never seen any ships, and it is to those who never saw ships and is to men who never saw them and who know nothing about them that the hon. gentleman must appeal.
Hon. members opposite think they have a great asset in this resolution, because they hope to go into the country districts far from the sea and mislead the people with their fairy tales about a ' tin-pot navy. But I venture to say that my hon. friend from North Toronto will not state in his place in parliament that the ' Rainbow ' is not a thoroughly good vessel in every way and up to date, for he knows she comes to us from

England with a certificate from the imperial authorities as to her capacity that is beyond all question. It was very well for the hon. gentleman, in his speech this afternoon, to give us warnings about China, and Russia, and Japan and the United States. But I venture to say that if he had done as he would like to do he would have expressed his views in a separate resolution. He may declare this menace is at our doors, that at any moment China, Russia, Japan, or even the United States may menace our Pacific coast; and then he may turn round and vote, following his leader, that that condition may exist, yet that nothing should be done until imperial federation comes to pass. Were it not for the fear the hon. member has of the hon. member of Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) he would have moved a resolution of his own. He knows, when he puts the question : ' Which will you have, the ' Rainbow ' or the British fleet?' that he is begging the question. He knows that to-day, as at all times in the past, the fleet of Britain is ready to protect the shores of Canada. He knows, too, that the policy of the Canadian government to-day, the policy which he himself outlined two years ago, was to have here on the Atlantic and on the Pacific auxiliary fleets which would work with the fleet of Great Britain in times of dangeT.


Samuel Hughes: Is that what you said in Drummond and Arthabaska?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) is not too enthusiastic about this proposition that nothing should be done until imperial federation comes. Perhaps we might as well get along without having any special differences with him, understanding, as we do quite well, his position in regard to this matter.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), when listening this afternoon to his lieutenant-the lieutenant whom he did not take with him on his tour last summer [DOT]-must have wondered where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was going to land- unless the whole thing was discussed beforehand, and there are very strong evidences that it was. But if my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) was waiting for the hon. member for North Toronto to declare his position he must have gone through a bad two hours and a half-for it took mv hon. friend (Mr. Foster) two hours and a half to thread his way through the maze of contradictions which it was necessary for him to pass in order to land at the point where he could support the resolution of his leader in spite of his own utterances of two years ago. Of course, the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) was in an even worse position than his lieutenant. He declared against contributions two years ago and in favour of a Canadian navy to be
built in Canada, and insisted upon the right hon. leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) amending his resolution so as to provide for the construction of the navy immediately. He went to England and there reiterated the policy which he had declared to this House. He came to his own constituency in the city of Halifax and declared that on. this question there should be no division, that a compact had been formed, and that on that compact he was going to stand, and that there was no reason why the people of Halifax and of the maritime provinces generally should not look forward at an early day, as a result of that policy, to the construction of ships to be begun once more along our coasts. He has had to make a marvellous lot of the same kind of gyrations as his lieutenant in order to be able to land behind the Nationalist policy, as he did two days ago. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) was supported in the position he took by the former leader of his party. He had not the good or bad fortune, as the case may be, in his early days to be a follower of Sir Charles Tupper; before he went astray, he was opposed to Sir Charles. Yet, Sir Charles Tupper felt that he had a right to admonish this gentleman when he had assumed the position of leader and had formed a compact on which men of all nationalities in this country had agreed to stand as to our future policy in the naval service. Sir Charles Tupper was here when this confederation was born; he was present when Sir John Macdonald moved the resolution by which this parliament was empowered to provide for the naval service. He always held strong views on Canada's attitude on the question, and maintained that attitude as long as he was in public life. He wrote my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) this letter:-	-
I am glad to learn that you have resolved to maintain the patriotic attitude that the Conservative party assumed last session.
A few years ago, when Canada was struggling to open up for British settlement the great granary of the world, some people raised the question of a Canadian contribution to the imperial navy, I joined issue with them and was sustained by the press and public opinion.
The demand will soon be made by some that Canada should contribute to the imperial navy in proportion to population, I regard as preposterous and dangerous. I read with pleasure the resolution passed unanimously by the House of Commons which pledged parliament to proceed vigorously with the construction of the Canadian navy and to support England in every emergency. ... I cannot understand the demand for Dreadnoughts in the face of the fact that the admiralty and the British government have determined that it was not the be6t mode of maintaining the security of the empire, and arranged with Canada and Australia (the latter of whom had offered one or two Dread-

noughts) for the construction of local navies to keep open the trade routes in case of war.
It may be that hon. gentlemen who sit behind the leader of the opposition and who have spoken in this debate, know more about the views of the English Admiralty than does Sir Charles Tupper; it may be that t^iese gentlemen are so officially versed in naval warfare that they are able to dispute the opinion of the English Admiralty as given here authoritatively by the former leader of the Conservative party; it may be, but I doubt it. Then the leader of the opposition had this additional admonition :-
I cannot avoid thinking, says Sir Charles Tupper, that a fearful responsibility will rest upon those who disturb or destroy the compact entered into on this vitally important question.
And yet the leader of the opposition immediately proceeds to break the compact. True, he kept the faith in January of last year, he kept it until the second reading of the Naval Bill, and then the anti-imperialist gentlemen from Quebec got in their work, and this compromise resolution, which broke the compact, which threw this apple of discord among various sections of the people of this country is introduced, and for the consequences, my hon. friend is responsible, and he alone is responsible. By departing from the compact of 1909, in order if possible to line up behind him his friends from Quebec, he acted contrary to the mature judgment of those who concluded that Canada was doing the right thing, because, in putting in this clause about the contribution, he flouted the views and judgment of his predecessor, the man who had been in public life for overy forty years, the man who had been engaged in the settlement of confederation, and of all the great projects which have been associated with his name. My hon. friend broke the edmpact, and he must take the responsibility. If appeals are made by anti-imperialists in the county of Drummond-Ar-thabaska, if the fires of discord and disunion are lighted in this country, my hon. friend himself must take the responsibility for it. He is neglecting the warning which his predecessor gave liim when he said that a fearful responsibility would rest upon the man who broke the compact. As my hon. friend from North Toronto has said, I heard him use the expression once, the leader of the opposition got on a toboggan slide, and the descent was very easy from standing for a contribution last year, and in a half-hearted way for a reference to the people, and he has now burst up the compact altogether this year, and where has he landed? He has landed in a position where he declares nothing whatever shall be done, but he says if a crisis should arise then we will think about it. My hon. friend says Mr. MACDONALD.
further that as to a settled policy it will be time enough to consider it when we get imperial federation. Last year my hon. friend and some of those who sit behind him were shocked with the position of the member for Jacques Cartier. The member for North Toronto, in the absence of the 'member for Jacques Cartier last year, inveighed against those people who were talking about the rag baby of autonomy, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier used these words:-
Are we going to be in the position that the whole foreign policy of the empire is going to be framed and formed and carried out by a cabinet of men in Downing Street absolutely controlled and elected by the electorate of the British Isles, that we, British subjects like themselves, are going to be placed upon a different footing, that we are to be responsible for everything while having no voice in the conduct of anything?
Now that language sounded very harsh last year, it grated upon the ears of a good many hon. gentlemen. I doubt not that the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) was much disturbed by language of that kind. In his speech this year he certainly gave no adhesion to any such utterances as the member for Jacques Cartier made last year. But how easy was the descent of my hon. friend the leader of the Conservative party from the high pinnacle of two years ago, so easy and so sudden that on the 24th of November last, this is what he said in propounding the policy of the Conservative party:-
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? I do not think that would be a tolerable condition, I do not think the people of Canada would for one moment submit to such a condition. Should members of this House, representative men, representing 220 constituencies of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, no one of them have the same voice with regard to those enormous imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British Isles has at this moment ?
That sounds strange coming from the leader of the Liberal Conservative party, as they delight to call themselves; it is in very strange contrast to the policy of the hon. member for North Toronto this afternoon. When the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) the other day wound up an eloquent peroration by quoting from Tennyson about one flag, one fleet, one King, one Throne, these words are strangely lacking in apositiveness with the proposition of the leader of the Con-; servative party, that not a dollar will be

given for an imperial navy, or any navy, until a citizen of Canada has as much right as a citizen of Great Britain to say what is going to be done with it first. Yet that is the position of the Conservative party to-day. My hon. friend asked the House to express regret that there is no indication whatever in the speech of His Excellency of an intention to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada, a resolution which, let me say, my hon. friend would never have moved had it not been that the member for Jacques Cartier had moved one previously. The leader of the opposition seemed to be somewhat annoyed at the fact that, in the province of Quebec, he was spoken of as the vicar of Laurier, but seems to be quite ready to accept the position in which he will be known hereafter as the vicar of Bourassa. What is my hon. friend going to say to his constituents in the city of Halifax, after what he told them two years ago? He said that he had made a compact that would lift above the realm of party politics the whole naval question, and that his constituents could hope for a time when the ships would be constructed there? What is he going to say to them to-day? What'is' he going to say about Mr. McBride, the premier of British Columbia, who does not hold these views as to a Canadian navy which are now advocated by the leader of the opposition, but who stands by what his leader said a year ago, not by what his leader says to-day; who stands by what the member for North Toronto said two years ago, and not by what he says to-day; who "does not stand with the anti-imperalists like the member for Jacques Cartier? This is the language that the premier of British Columbia put upon a piece of silver plate which the people of that province, out of their public treasury, presented to the * Rainbow,' the first ship of the Canadian navy to reach their shores:
Presented by the people of British Columbia to His Majesty's Canadian steamship 'Rainbow,' in welcome recognition of this being the first ship of the Canadian navy on the Pacific, and the loyal belief that the ' Rainbow ' will successfully fulfil her part in strengthing the naval defence of the empire.
That was the language of the government of the Hon. Richard McBride, Conservative premier of British Columbia, That is not what the leader of the opposition said, that is not what the member for North Toronto said, that is not following the policy of the member for Jacques Cartier. Then the strange thing is that all the while these gentlemen are professing great devotion to the mother country, telling us w'hat should be done for her, and who pretend that this navy does not adequately represent our position in the
empire, does not give to the empire the service which we should give. Sir, my hon. friends will search in vain the files of the English newspapers, or other documents, for utterances of English public men during the last year to find from either Liberal or Conservative a single statement of disapproval of the attitude of this government in regard to the naval policy. It may be that these gentlemen know better than the statesmen of the old land what is best for the relations between Canada and the empire. It may he that these Solons who change their ^pinions every six months on this question, who break compacts which their venerable leaders declare are in the best interests of. the country, it may be that these men are better judges than the statesmen of England, but I think the people of this country, when they see through their littlei tinsel game, will realize how utterly inadequate they are to frame policies or to take positions which make for the permanence of Canada or of the empire. What was the statement made in regard to the position of this country and the empire three weeks ago, by the Hon. Alfred Lyttelton, Secretary for the Colonies, in the late Conservative government? Speaking at Birmingham University upon the position and condition of the chief British Dominions and their relation to the mother country, Mr. Lyttelton said:-
The sense of nationality in the dominions bad urged upon them the paramount duty of providing their defence against foreign attack, and it was no exaggeration to say that a scheme had now been launched for an imperial navy capable of indefinite expansion, subject always to the right of each to approve or disapprove entering or not entering upon war.
And that was received with applause by the cultured audience who were present at that university.


Ralph Smith: In Birmingham?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In Birmingham, the home of Joseph Chamberlain, the head of the movement for tariff reform, and surely Mr. Lyttelton knows as much about the utility of a scheme of this kind as does the leader of the opposition or his lieutenants. The inevitable result of the attitude adopted by my hon. friends has been shown by the appeals to sectionalism and the appeals against English interests in this country that were made in Drummond and Arthabaska. The understanding, if not the formal alliance, between the leader of the opposition and his chief lieutenant from Quebec, the leader in this House at least, if not outside, of the anti-imperialists, is one which has produced the decadence in the Conservative party that is discernible in the House; but in addition to that it is once more raising the flames

of sectionalism in this country. This is not the first time, however, that my hon. friends have indulged in these tactics. The first appearance of Nationalism occurred in 1900 when the leader of this House and this government for the first time in all our history gave aid to the mother country by sending a contingent to South Africa. Some hon. gentlemen on a back seat said the other day that the government were forced to send them. That is not what the antiimperialist allies of the leader of the opposition said in the province of Quebec. We heard something this afternoon about a pamphlet, some very special pleading by which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) tried to show that somebody connected with the Liberal party had done something in the way of appealing to sectionalism. Every one recollects, it was only a few hours ago when my hon. friend's tactics were exposed, and when he was attempting to read in French a pamphlet which contained the incendiary and sectional articles written by the Conservative press in Ontario. My hon. friends will remember that in 1900 the famous pamphlet No. 6 was circulated by the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. That was the year in which the issue was as to the participation of Canada in the war in South Africa. I have here a pamphlet issued at that time. Here are the headlines: Imperial federation. Laurier approves of it, Tupper condemns it.
The South African war. Sir Wilfrid Laurier declares that we will take part in other British wars if needed.
The Manitoba School question. The Con-serwative leaders and the French Canadians, Sir Charles Tupper and the hon. Mr. Foster.
The same gentleman who sits here now, who read this pamphlet this afternoon. These gentlemen are no tyros at this game of sectionalism, they are old hands at it, and because they are their alliance and their common interest is more easily detected perhaps than it was before. Talking about appeals to sectionalism, talking about appeals to certain people in Quebec in regard to England, let us see what these gentlemen put forth in 1900. Speaking of the imperial federation scheme for which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is waiting, this publication says:
Imperialism.
The first utterance of imperialism were made in London by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Then it was that he put the Canadian soldiers at the service of the English.
Canada to do honour to the Prime Minister had sent to England the very cream of the tioops to act as a bodyguard. A splendid detachment of mounted police, a battalion composed of the elite of our militia, were sent to London and aroused the enthusiasm of the old metropolis. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dazzled by the applause of which he was the object, then committed the fatal mistake to give vent Mr. MACDONALD.
to words which were binding us to the war destinies of Great Britain.
Then and there was sealed the pact now stained with Canadian blood which flowed at Paardeberg, Belmont, Mafeking, Faber Farm and in many other encounters.
On the 18th of June, 1897, at a banquet held at the imperial institute, after a military review before Lord Lansdowne, Secretary of War, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in a moment of enthusiasm, put all the Canadian troops at the disposal of the empire.
As a worthy descendant of French blood, he chose the anniversary of Waterloo to make the offer. According to a cablegram dated London, June 18, 1897, to the ' Globe,' on Lord Lansdowne, asking if, in case of just conflicts, the colonies would be willing to help England, and Sir Wilfrid is said to have replied as follows:
Lord Lansdowne has mentioned that a day may come when the empire might be threatened. This date, anniversary of the battle of W aterloo.	*
Here was the appeal for condemnation by Ms own compatriots in the province of Quebec because he spoke on that date,
reminds us that at all times England has proved itself able to win its own wars, but should a day come when it should be in danger, then let the bugle blow and rallying fires be lighted on the hills and in the colonies, and though we may not be able to do very much, we shall give all the help within our means.
With that preamble there is a long story in a style somewhat similar to what was employed in Drummond and Arthabaska, appeals to the people of Quebec to condemn Laurier because he stood for imperial federation, because he had sent the sons of Canada to South Africa and because he had sold out the rights of his co-religionists and his race in that province on the Manitoba school question. These gentlemen are no tyros at this game. What took place then in 1904? My hon. friends were playing the game the other way. They attempted an appeal to the sons of old Caledonia, of the race from which my hon. friend from Bruce (Mr. Tolmie) and myself have sprung; we were told that because Lord Dundonald had not been treated properly every Scotchman in Canada who had a drop of blood in his veins should rise in protest. Mr. Speaker, the sons of the men who come from old Scotland, have for many centuries been close allies and friends with the men who come from sunny France. Their history and ours runs side by side, and it might be well to recall the significant fact which perhaps is sometimes forgotten, that in Scotland to-day they have retained a memorial of our relationship with the French in the laws of Scotland which are based upon the code laws of France and the Roman law.
And just as the Scotchmen of Canada spurned the appeal which was made to

their race in 1904, and just as the French Canadians in 1900 spurned the appeal that was made to them, so this isolated little bit of pleasure that these gentlemen on the other side of the House now have, will be found to be but the presage of a great gloom which will come on them when the issue is truly realized by the people of Canada. In 1904, what had the Liberal party to contend with in this country? My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) pretended to be shocked over the fact that appeals were made in Protestant constituencies in Canada to vote against the Liberal party because their leader was a French Canadian and a Roman Catholic. There is not a Liberal member in this House who lives in a Protestant constituency who does not know that to be true. In four federal elections in which I have taken part that insidious canvass was made by organized Conservative representatives in that Protestant constituency which I have the honour to represent. Last election 'The Duty of the Hour' was circulated wherever it was thought it would alienate a Liberal from his party* or influence a man in a Protestant constituency.


Morley Currie: Circulated by the Liberal party.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has all he can do to square himself on this question of the navy without making any further interruptions. He said it was circulated by the Liberal party; let me tell him I have in my possession copies of the 'The Duty of the Hour' that were circulated in my county and which came from the Conservative organization. At the same time in the province of Quebec appeals were being made in all quarters by the anti-imperialists and by the Conservatives to vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier because on the Northwest Autonomy Bills he had sold away the rights of his co-religionists and fellow countrymen of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what do these two amendments which we have before the House mean in clear cold English as a contribution to the settlement of this naval policy. I say they have no significance whatever; they are not put forward seriously. The two hon. gentlemen who proposed these amendments forget that this whole question was settled by this House of Commons fresh from the people. In that compact made in 1909, to which every gentleman in this House of every shade of politics gave assent, there was marked a great step forward in the line of Canadian unity, and in the settlement of a question which was of vast import to Canada and the empire. And, Sir, the sole issue before this House and before the people of Canada to-day is: shall that
compact be observed? The Liberal government of Canada has gone on and respected that compact. By arrangement with the admiralty they have carried out a scheme which protects Canadian interests, preserves our autonomy, and in all respects fulfils our duty to the empire. The question now is whether or not we shall be manful and square about that. Shall we swallow our words of two years ago; shall all the words of patriotism which these gentlemen opposite gave to the House be wiped out, or, shall we stand true and loyal to the policy that was then decided on, a policy that received the approval of England; a policy that has no opposition to-day except from the anti-imperialists in thik country. The issue here is whether or not the Canadian people are to remain united. The leader of the opposition, deceived by the glamour of a little bickering due to local complications in a country in Quebec thinks perchance that by throwing himself into the hands of the re-actionaries of that province he possibly can win success. But in 1900, when the appeal was made in regard to the South African war, Mr. Bourassa was as eloquent then as he is to-day and although he had carried La-belle in a by-election the neople of Canada when they understood the question votdd on behalf of Canadian unity and the .Liberal party. So in 1904, although Robitaille carried Quebec county as a Nationalist, and although gentlemen opposite thought that one swallow made a summer just as they do to-day, this swallow will turn out to be all alone and the people of all Canada, understanding the solemn compact made between all classes of the people in this country in 1909, will stand by it and support this government. And, we of the Liberal party stand prepared to respect that compact made in 1909. We stand against sectionalism, we stand against this anti-imperialism which is but a cloak for anti-Canadianism. Racial appeals may be made and no doubt they will be made, but, Sir, they will fail. In 1900, the right hon. the Prime Minister, under circumstances almost similar to those which exist to-day, spoke in this House of Commons on March 13th with regard to the issue raised on the South African war, and these are his noble words: -
If there is anything to which I have devoted my political life it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country. My friends can desert me, they can remove their confidence from me, they can withdraw the trust they have placed in my hands, but never shall I deviate from that line of policy.
Whatever may be the consequences, whether loss of prestige, loss of popularity or loss of power. I feel that I am in the right and I know that a time will come when every man will render me full justice on that score.

And for the last ten years, in the light of that declaration the Canadian people have followed him. Men of all classes have realized that unless we have amity and unity and concert of action amongst Canadians of all races, Canada will never reach her high destiny, and knowing that the Liberal party stands for that amity and unity, they have returned to power Sir Wilfrid Laurier its great leader. Just as in 1900 with these ringing words of the Prime Minister going to the people, Canada stood by this government, so when the next appeal is made, Canadians will rally around the party which stands for everything that is highest in our national life.


Mr.   F.@: D' MONK (Jacques Cartier). I must apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for entering once more into this debate, and were it not that I feel it a duty incumbent upon me I should refrain. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, realizing that at this protracted stage of the discussion it is the duty of every one to avoid anything in the shape of mere declamation and balderdash. There are two incidents to which I must refer. When my right hon. friend addressed the House upon this question I ventured, in my long experience of the toleration of the right hon. gentleman, to put him a question in regard to those who on his behalf during the election contest in Drum-mond-Arthabaska raised up their voices in hostility to the mother country and in favour of independence.
My right hon. friend gave me, at that time, the answer he saw fit to give. But in order to establish that my question was pertinent, I obtained evidence and read to the House at a later stage an affidavit of the gentleman who, upon the occasion of the meeting in question, represented the opposition forces, and after having translated that affidavit to the House I tabled it. Since then my hon. friend the member for Richmond (Mr. Tobin) has read affidavits to the House, one of which he communicated to me; but I do not know that he has tabled those affidavits. They should be tabled in order that what they disclose may be appreciated by the House. I have had offers of further evidence on that subject, but I thought the incident was about closed. Nevertheless, I have here an affidavit which I have received and which I will communicate to the House and then table. I will translate it, but I think it should be entered in the original language, as it is a sworn statement. It emanates from Mr. Henri Creneau, with whose family my hon. friend is well acquainted, and it reads as follows:-
1.	That I saw in the ' Hansard ' of the House of Commons, unrevised edition, a solemn declaration made in Ottawa on the 22nd of November, 1910, by Mr. Paul Emil Lamarche, of Montreal, and read in the Chamber on the 22nd of November, 1910, and Mr. MACDONALD.	.
that the allegation contained in the said declaration was true.	. .
2.	That I was present myself at the joint meeting held on the 30th day of October, 1910, at the village of Kingsey Falls, and that I perfectly heard the words pronounced by the notary, Mr. Begin, of Windsor Mills, in favour of the candidate, Mr. Perrault.
3.	That during his speech I took notes, which I have still in my possession, and I extract from those notes what follows: Mr. Begin said that in order to attain our independence we must have a navy in order to facilitate our becoming independent. He insisted on independence. He said that without a navy we shall not become an independent nation; it may be necessary in order to conquer our independence. The extracts from my notes represent exactly the subjects on which Mr. Begin spoke at some length.
5. The said Begin at the said meeting, speaking in favour of the Navy Bill, made the following argument:	That the basis of
all nationality to-day, independent nationality, is a navy. Who pretends that we will not have some difficulty with England? From this double point of view a navy is absolutely necessary, and without a navy it is impossible for us to conquer our independence. That the following speaker was Mr. Lamarche, of Montreal, who severely attacked Mr. Begin for having pronounced those words, which he qualified as anti-patriotic. That the said Begin was the ministerial, organizer in the parish of Kingsey Falls. That he remained five days, spent the election day at the village of Kingsey Falls, and left after the polling was closed.
(Signed)



HENRI CREPEAU.

[Stage Direction]
I think it my duty to table this affidavit in order that the members may see what contrary evidence is given, if they deem the matter of some importance.
Mr. TALBOT.: What about the words that the navy should be used to pound England?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see there has been a contradiction of that expression, but the affidavits I file in order to show that there was ground for my statement.
Mv hon. friend has referred at some length to a pamphlet which was circulated, and from which I believe he read to the House some objectionable statements. As I said before, I have never seen that pamphlet, though I have heard of it, and I stated that though I knew what had been done by the committee in charge of the election in every detail, I was perfectly sure that such a pamphlet had never been printed under the direction of that committee. I do not wish to prolong this incident; but as my hon. friend mentioned it, it may have some importance. I would make this offer in all honesty to my right hon. friend. If he deems the matter important, I would hail with great pleasure the nomination of a small committee of this House to investigate this matter, because I am perfectly

convinced that it will bring some surprise to members of this House., and they will find that that pamphlet, although not emanating authoritatively from our hon. friends opposite, was printed and circulated by a gentleman who has never been known as a Conservative, but has been known as a strong supporter of the Liberal party.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is his name?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no knowledge of his name.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my right hon. friend accept my proposal of a committee? I feel confident this will not be done;


Wilfrid Laurier: No, because I feel confident that before many days are over I shall be able to give the name to my hon. friend.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my right hon. friend gives the name I believe he will give the name of a very old-time friend of his own. Now, reference has been made in this discussion to resolutions which were passed at all meetings which were held during the course of the summer for the discussion of this very important question. 1 wish to say a word as to that. We found ourselves, when we began the discussion of this question in our province, in a somewhat singular position. The press is a very great power and a very useful agent undoubtedly; but it is not always true and sincere to its mission. We found a large number of so-called Conservative papers denouncing us as disloyal men, who were making in the province of Quebec an unfair and anti-British campaign. It was open to these gentlemen to attend our meetings and hear what was said and to make a report of them. They did not apparently do so; but in what little attention they paid to those singularly large and representative gatherings of both parties they referred to them as anti-British meetings having for their object to segregate the province of Quebec from the other provinces, and at which arguments were advanced which could not be defended in any other province of this country. That, I think, hon. members will admit was a very serious disadvantage. Papers supporting my right hon. friend also denounced our work in the province of Quebec, and we have heard it denounced in this House as being the result of a clandestine and secret understanding between the Conservatives of the other provinces, the leader of the party, and ourselves-with what view, Mr. Speaker, upon a question of this magnitude and national importance? With the object of deceiving the electors in all the provinces; in our own province against the Prime Minister and the Liberal party, because they were too British; in the other provinces
in order to show that my right hon. friend and his party were lacking in frankness and honesty, and that their policy had for its object hostility to Great Britain in some shape or form. That was the charge made against us. We had entered into that arrangement with regard to our meetings. No account was given of these meetings in the province of Quebec, in fact since I have had the honour of speaking in this House or outside-and I have spoken many times in this House and out of it-I have never found that these newspapers have attempted to rebut our arguments or done anything except heap this kind of invective and abuse upon those who submitted the views and policies we did in the province of Quebec, and which not long ago obtained so signal and important a ratification from the electors. Under these circumstances we deemed it absolutely necessary to define our position and clearly stated, and we were innocent enough to suppose that our statement would be received in the spirit in which it was made and would at any rate make our position clear to the country. But we sadly misunderstood the disposition of the newspapers, and it leads one to ask really what can be the motive which led a part of the Canadian press to act so unfairly. Let me read the resolution which was submitted to every meeting because I deem it necessary that it should appear on the records of the House :
We, citizens of Canada, loyal subjects of His Majesty King George V., declare ourselves ready to defend with our blood the soil of our country and the rights of the British Crown in Canada, as our fathers did in 1776 against the British subjects of His Majesty, in 1812 against the armies of the American republic, and as we did in 1885 against our fellow-citizens in rebellion.
Firm in our belief in the greatness and efficiency of the principles of decentralization and self-government which have been, for half a century, solemnly proclaimed and acknowledged by both the authorities of Great Britain and Canada, we are opposed to any new policy, the result of which would be to draw us into distant wars, foreign to Canada, so long, at least, as the self-governing colonies of the empire shall not enjoy with the mother country, and upon an equal footing, the sovereign power and authority which controls the imperial army and navy, treaties of peace and alliance, foreign relations and the government of India and of the Crown colonies.
We sincerely believe that such a policy of centralization and apparent imperial unity, in the accomplishment of which the new naval law is but an initial step, will generate within the empire misunderstanding, rivalries and conflicts which will threaten the peace and unity of the numerous countries and peoples of all races that are now so proud of their loyalty to the British Crown.
Having never been in the past a case of conflict for Great Britain and the empire, we

believe that a policy of peace and of moral and material development is necessary to Canada to her growth and her unity, and, thereby, to the glory and safety of the empire.
Free citizens of a democratic country, we claim the right to express openly our sentiment upon this question, as well as upon any other that may affect the fate and the interests of Canada.
We acknowledge the right of the majority of the Canadian people to determine a new course in our relations with the other parts of the empire, provided such a step is taken in full knowledge of its consequences.
But we protest against any attempt to withdraw such a ponderous problem from the free consideration of the Canadian people at large, and of any of its various groups.
We disavow the declarations made in Toronto in December last by Hon. Alexandre Taschereau, provincial Minister of Public Works, by which he fallaciously contended that the people of Quebec are ready to accept blindly any policy of naval defence for the empire, and we blame the members of the government and of the legislature of this province, who by their vote sanctioned the declarations on the 2nd of June last.
We blame the federal government and the majority in parliament who have imposed on Canada the new navy legislation, thrown our country in the vortex of militarism, erstwhile so emphatically denounced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, threatened the peace of Canada and misappropriated for the construction of murderous weapons and the preparation of bloody wars millions destined to the development of our agriculture and means of transportation.
We censure as well the attitude of Mr. Borden and those of his followers who have urged the adoption of a no less nefarious policy.
We maintain that parliament had no right thus to pledge the future of Canada to a policy which has never been submitted to the people, upon whom shall fall the tribute of blood and the load of military taxation.
We approve unreservedly of the courageous and straightforward conduct of Mr. Monk and the few members of parliament who, faithful to their trust, have demonstrated the dangers of that policy, and claimed for the people of Canada the right to express their will before their representatives bind them to such heavy obligations.
We deemed it necessary to enunciate this policy, and we have stood by it since on every occasion. Our discussions have never gone beyond the bounds herein indicated, and I would like to know what any member of parliament can find in the resolution to which he can take exception. What_ is there in it which cannot, with propriety and frankness, be discussed in any province of this great Dominion? Well, there was practically no notice taken of this statement. Let me just give the House an instance of the unfairness with which the press have treated us for reasons which one can only surmise but cannot easily be determined. At one of our meeting as reported by the Montreal ' Gazette ', Mr. MONK.
we were charged with having stated to an audience of some 20,000 people in Montreal that a war between Germany and England would leave us in this country absolutely indifferent and totally disinterested. I do not think that there, is, I hope there is not, in this country, any man who entertains such feelings. My attention having been called to the question, I took the liberty of writing to the Montreal ' Gazette ' the following correction :
Sir,-In this morning's issue, I find the following:-
The two features of Mr. Monk's address were: an absolute declaration that if England and Germany came into conflict, Canada would not be in any way interested, except in the fact that if the present Naval Bill were put into force her ships and her men would have to participate.
Please permit me to correct this, as I made no such statement, Speaking of questions in which Canada had no direct interest, I gave as an instance the recent difficulties alleged to have arisen between England and Germany regarding Ottoman concessions and the right of exit upon the Persian gulf, and I stated that the nature and extent of these concessions did not affect us. Kindly make this correction and oblige.



F. D. MONK.

[Stage Direction]
Montreal, October 21, 1910.
The following day every one of the Toronto papers contained that erroneous report of what I had said. I have some friends in that large city and I wrote at once to the ' Mail and Empire ' asking them to reproduce this letter which had appeared in the ' Gazette ' As far as 1 am aware my request was not entertained and to this day I have not seen any corrections nor was my letter even acknowledged. This goes far to disprove some of the statements made in this debate to the effect that there is a regular arrangement J>y which we are to do one thing in the province of Quebec while the rest of the Conservative party in other provinces fulfil the opposite role.
_ It seems to me there is a fundamental injustice in the idea-taking the programme which I have just showed-that men in the province of Quebec or in other provinces should not be free to discuss every side and feature of the great change in our relations with the empire which has been contemplated during the last three or four years and which has been set in motion by the deliberations held and arrangements arrived at in the conference on defence in July and August, 1909. What is the result of the theory advanced on all hands by the school of imperialists to which my hon. friend the member for Pictou is so proud to belong? What is the result of the declaration that this question is not to- be discussed?-and members of this House, no doubt, remember
€01

that, last year, that demand was put forth by the members of the school of my hon. friend from Pictou; they declared that it was disloyal of this country to discuss or to present to the people of Canada the different phases of that question. Does this not seem to you, Mr. Speaker, to be a denial of the principle which lies at the very root of the liberties of the British subject? Why should, we be estopped from discussing a political change of this nature-one that is new to us and has never been pronounced upon or even discussed by the Canadian people? What is there disloyal, what is there contrary to the principles of our institutions, in the discussion of that question by the people who alone are entitled to settle it? I will tell my hon. friend what is one result of this course. If that school persists in its fanatical affirmations, the result must, necessarily be to arouse, even among the most loyal subjects of His Majesty a feeling of dissatisfaction and distrust. It is inevitable. You cannot continually pour invective upon people whose intentions are pure and in regard to whose loyalty there can be no question without creating among these people a feeling of disaffection. And I say that those who incessantly hurl these reproaches against us are to-day the worst enemies of the British Empire and of the proper relation that should exist between different parts of the empire. It seems to me that these gentlemen entirely overlook the situation of the great selfgoverning colonies. Some of them are in good faith, and some are not. Some are ignorant; and many place their scheme of [DOT]imperial federation before-and far before -the great liberties which have been granted to us in these dependencies and do not seem to understand the importance of these liberties and the position which these great dependencies occupy to-day. I had occasion, speaking during the campaign in Quebec, to show the very different position that is taken in England in regard to the Tights on this question of the free British subjects who live in the dependencies. I quoted a definition of these dependencies made by the right hon. Joseph Chamberlain himself at the opening of one of the conferences, that of 1897. He said:
My Lord Mayor-the Throne is the only constitutional connecting link between the colonies and ourselves. In all else these great *self-governing dependencies are as independent as we are.
And Sir Erskine May, an authority whose value nobody will question, writing in 186lj referred to the position of the great dependencies at that date. Nothing that he wrote then has lost its value since, with the accretion that has taken place in our importance in the last half century:
But another principle was about to be established in Canada, which still further enlarged the power of colonial assemblies and diminished the influence of the mother country, This principle is known as the doctrine of
responsible government	And in
1847 responsible government was fully established under Lord Elgin. From that time the Governor General selected his advisers from that party which was able to command a majority of the Legislative Assembly and accepted the policy recommended by them.
And elsewhere:
By the adoption of this principle, a colonial constitution has become the very image and reflection of parliamentary government in England. The governor, like the sovereign whom he represents, holds himself aloof from and superior to parties and governs through constitutional advisors, who have acquired an ascendency in the legislature. He leaves contending parties to fight out their own battles:, and, by admitting the stronger party to his councils, brings the executive authority into harmony with popular sentiments.
And as the recognition of this doctrine in England has practically transferred the supreme authority of the state from the Crown to parliament and the people, so in the colonies has it wrested from the governor and from the parent state the direction of colonial affairs. England ventured to tax her colonies and lost them; she endeavoured to rule them from Downing street and provoked disaffection and revolt. At last she gave freedom and found national sympathy and contentment. But, in the meantime, her colonial dependencies have grown into affiliated states. The tie which binds them to her is one of sentiment rather than authority. In short, their dependence as become little more than nominal, except for purposes of military defence.
And again:
Parliament has recently pronounced it to be just that the colonies which enjoy self-government should undertake the responsibility and cost of their own military defence. To carry this policy into effect must be the work of time. But whenever it may be effected, the last material bond of connection will have been severed and colonial states, acknowledging the honorary sovereignty of England and fully armed for self-defence, as well against herself as othere, will have grown out of the dependencies of the English Empire.
If I quote these authorities it is because I deem it important to show how, even in 1861. Sir Erskine May, the first authority in England, considered our situation. He was not deemed disloyal, he was not deemed to be anti-British; and although long after confederation he published another edition of his book after he had been raised to the peerage, he did not find it necessary to revise his opinions. Therefore, I say that this school of ultra-Loyalists that you find here pronounce the word with a stronger accent, they give a deep guttural sound which I imagine can only be acquired by constant practice, and they seem to consider that all those who do not share their views are necessarily heretics. They remind me of the old Scotch woman who
[Stage Direction]
at last gave up going to church upon the ground that the whole congregation were going to perdition. When her minister interviewed her, and told her she must not be so pessimistic, and after all we would all be saved, Why, says he, your good brother Sandy and yourself will be saved. Well, says the old lady, I am not so certain about Sandy. She was under the impression that the only person who would be saved was herself, and all others would perish. _She reminds me of that in-tolerent school who, contrary to the generally accepted principle in England, will not admit that this question is one which must be discussed freely, if it is to receive a satisfactory solution throughout the whole length and breadth of the British Empire.
A word now in respect to the attack which my right hon. friend made upon me in the course of this debate. My right hon. friend, if he will pardon me for saying so, has developed a singular habit, namely, that when he wants to bear down his adversary he prepares carefully all the incidents and modes of his attack, and if he will allow me to say so, he pauses at several stages of the attack before hejjrives home the last blow, and arrives at the climax amid the cheers of his supporters. But when you carefully examine the effects of the blow you find that there is after all very little in it. So it happened that when my right hon. friend taxed me with a wrongful statement as regards the order in council of February 10, 1909. I did state Sir, and I repeat here, that since the very beginning there has been deception and clandestinity in the progress of this policy, and in the efforts to make that policy acceptable throughout the country. They began in a panic, which everybody in this country and throughout the empire admits to-day was nothing but a panic. That policy has been followed throughout. Well, I did give as an evidence of that the order in council of February 10,. 1909, an order in council of the utmost importance, settling a matter which in my humble opinion the government in council has no right to settle, but which properly belongs to parliament. It cannot be validly decided by any other authority in this country. I said that that order in council passed secretly-I did not attack the oath of secrecy which the councilmen took, I said it had been passed secretly and improperly at a time when parliament was in session, and that it was long afterwards that the members of parliament became aware of the vast importance of what had been regulated by that order in council. My right hon. friend stated that the things decided upon in the order in council had been adopted at the imperial conference in 1907 he stated that that order in council had been brought down to the House scarcely a month after it had been passed. Mr. Mr. MONK.
Speaker, it is necessary to give a word or two of explanation. I have that order in council here, it is voluminous, as the House will see, and much of it is printed matter. What did our delegates decide at the conference of 1907, after a long discussion? It is all here, members who have the patience to go through this amount of printed matter which is extracted from the conference of 1907, will see to what extent there was a discussion-upon what? Upon that third resolution, the object of which was to recognize the principle that there should be an imperial general staff. They^ did not go beyond. There should be an imperial general staff authorized to advise upon military matters throughout the empire. There was a long discussion. I am prepared to quote from it, but it is easy to substantiate my statement. The Minister of Militia and Defence took an important part in that discussion. He was very anxious, when it was proposed, to have similarity of arms throughout the empire, to maintain here the factory of the Ross rifle. My right hon. friend made several lengthy observations as to what should be the mission of that imperial council, as to the framing of the words of the resolution. But finally, after a discussion which covered about forty pages of closely printed matter, which can be seen in the report, of that conference, it was agreed that there should be an imperial general staff. Well, the imperial general staff set to work and they evolved a plan, a plan of many details. -Most of them are found complete in the report of the general defence conference for 1909. That plan with its details was communicated to this government. We had it here with a despatch from the War Office in England, through the Colonial office, and we were asked to approve of these details suggested by the Imperial General Staff. What do they cover, Sir? You will find it on page 2 of the printed return, which was printed long after the report _ was brought down, and as it is to-day, it is incomplete. It is contained in a communication from the War Office to the Under Secretary of State of the Colonial office. The main point in this statement, so far as it relates to the subject now under discussion, may be summarized as follows:-
(1)	The necessity for the maintenance of sea supremacy, which alone can assure any military co-operation at all.
(2)	The desirability of a certain broad plan
of military organization for the empire, but not a rigid model making no allowance for local difficulties. .	.	.	.	.
(3)	A conception of combination m which the armed forces of the empire would be organized in two parts; the first part having local defence as its function, the second designed for the service of the empire as a whole.
Follow a large number of pages which cover the details of the plan, uniformity

of arms and various other details suggested by the War Office. I shall simply remark in respect to these details that they constitute an entire innovation in our military system as it existed and in my opinion they call for intervention of parliament. My hon. friend and his government have no right by an order in council passed while parliament was sitting to assent to all these details without first obtaining the sanction of parliament. They had no right to do so, and it was clandestine, it was secret, it was wrong. That was my contention and I claim that contention was well founded. The House will find that in the communications by which we accept the whole of that detailed plan, on a suggestion from the War Office, that we should share in the expense of maintaining the general staff college at Camberley, there is an undertaking by our own government to pay our share in the maintenance of that staff college. I did not think that the Cabinet, the Privy Council, which is after all only the best and the most important committee of parliament has a right to take upon itself when parliament was sitting, without consulting parliament and obtaining its assent to accept the whole of this plan and communicate its acceptance. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of parliamentary government ; our undertaking to pay a portion of the expense of the maintenance of the staff college at Camberley without the assent of parliament was irregular, wrongful and unjustifiable. It is true that for reasons which I do not know my hon. friend from Bellecbasse (Mr. Talbot) shortly after this order in council had been passed, moved for a return which brought it before the House. It was printed long afterwards in part but where does that destroy the contention contained in my affirmation that this was another proof of the secret and underhand manner in which this question, all important, so vitally essential to ourselves, was being treated by this government. The right hon. gentleman will find on one occasion in a discussion which took place on the conference of 1907 over this very resolution, that Sir Frederick Borden, in answer to an inquiry says : It is true we have done that, but we have not spoken much about it. Why not, what reason is there for this concealment and others which have been manifest? No reason whatever, and therefore I say that my statement barring perhaps the affirmation that it was kept from our knowledge for a long time, an affirmation which is technically guarded by the fact that it was brought down on an order of the House, not willingly by the government, not communicated voluntarily to the House,
but brought down in answer to an order of the House, a short time after it was passed, in every other respect my contention was well founded.
It seems to me that in this matter of imperial defence we have singularly departed from the principle that parliament alone has jurisdiction in the matter of defence, whether upon the naval or the military side. Let hon. members take the trouble to look over last year's Navy Bill and they will find such an enactment as this :
Section 9. The Governor in Council may organize and maintain a permanent naval force.
To what extent? No limitation. Is the Governor in Council to have power to organize any number of men or is the power of the government in that respect circumscribed? You will not find any such enactment in the law in England or Germany or any country in Europe. A short time ago in Germany they had to increase the army by 10,000 men but they could not do it without the consent of the Reichstag. In Russia they cannot increase the military or naval forces without the consent of the Duma :
Another section says :
There shall be an institution for the purpose of imparting a complete education in all branches of naval science and tactics.
2. Such institution shall be known as the Naval College of Canada, and shall be located at such place as the Governor in Council mar determine.
This is an entirely new form of legislation and I take exception to it. Parliament may, if it likes, surrender its right of absolute control ; it is another thing for the government, for the Privy Council, and Cabinet, without the sanction of par-* liament, to give its' adhesion to all the details of a military scheme without the sanction of the House of Commons, which is in session at the time, or to undertake to give the money, to pledge the credit of the country for the support of an institution such as Camberly, without even having the decency and respect for the usages of parliament to come down and get the authority of parliament to do so.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) stated that he was prepared to accept the condition which falls to the lot of the man who has been a long time in public life, and he referred to the desertion of himself by a portion of the electorate of the province of Quebec. In so far as my right hon. friend gave his experience as an old politician, and referred to the well known axiom that the Tarpeian rock is very near the Capitol, I listened to his observations with much interest. But when my right hon. friend states to the
[Stage Direction]
House and to the country that those who have opposed his policy in respect to this particular matter are young men, and when he says that the desertion to which he refers is due to the fact that he is a moderate >man, I most respectfully join issue with my right hon. friend. Young men? Does my right hon. friend call me a young man?
Wilfrid Laurier: You never deserted me, you were never with me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I only wish that my right hon. friend possessed the magical wand which would enable him to restore to me the fragrant flower of youth, but I must confess to being nothing else but what the magazines call a man of a certain age. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that there are men without number in the province of Quebec who have supported him for years and years, but who cannot support him longer. Many of them presided at the meetings we held, some of them were older men than we are. Surely my right hon. friend does not call Mr. Bour-assa a young man. The men who worked with us in this contest in Drummond-Arth-abaska were all in the prime of life with the exception of a few young men, who no doubt rendered important service. The right hon. gentleman is altogether in the wrong when he says that the men who engaged in this contest are men who have a grievance against Great Britain or are revolutionary in their ideas. Surely the right hon. gentleman knows that that statement is absolutely unfounded. Surely he knows that the contest was engaged in by men in the province of Quebec who are absolutely satisfied with British rule. I may say to the House that you could noti find in the province of Quebec, upon a plebiscite, any man who would declare himself as dissatisfied with our present re-, lations to the mother country and to the empire, or who would wish them to be changed in any direction whatever. Every one knows that it is one of the glories of living under the British flag that there may be free discussion on every public question which arises. Our loyalty in this * country is sometimes a subject of merriment to Englishmen who come to Canada, and who know with what absolute freedom any public question is discussed by the electorate of England, and, how in all its phases such a question is gone into by every man, woman aijd child who wishes to talk about it. I deem it my duty, Sir,' to say to my right hon. friend another thing. From the words which fell from the right hon. gentleman's lips one would suppose that the people of the good old province of Quebec are in their nature fickle and changeable. That is not so. Does my right hon. friend think that in no respect what-Mr. MONK.
ever he has afforded occasion in our province for disappointment. I might refer the right hon. gentleman to a matter about which we may now speak calmly, for it has now passed into history. How did the right hon. gentleman arrive in power? We all know that he attained power andi wrecked the Conservative government of 1896 by declaring in every shape and form throughout the province of Quebec that the Conservative government would never last, that he would restore to the minority in Manitoba the rights which they have under the constitution and about which there is no doubt, whatever may be the reasons of convenience which are invoked against granting them. That promise, that pledge was made by my right hon. friend, and it is upon that pledge largely that he attained power. The right hon gentleman seems to say that he is a moderate man and that it is because of his moderation he has received a check in the province of Quebec. Was he moderate when he made that solemn promise which I repeat was largely the cause of his return to power in 1896? Did he redeem that promise on the basis of which the people of Quebec gave him their confidence? He did not. There was a flare up, there was a procession, there was a demonstration when the right hon. gentleman attained power; we had Mr. Greenway down in the province of Quebec and he was cheered and feted and wined and dined, but that promise has remained unfulfilled to this day; it has become a dead letter. What does the right hon. gentleman think of that? Does he call it moderation. We are counV selled to be moderate in all things, but there can be no moderation displayed in the repudiation of promises and pledges solemnly made. A public man in this country must be moderate in the conduct of public affairs, but, upon the application of principles and upon the redemption of promises there is no room for moderation A few years since when the new provinces in the west were constituted, what happened? There was what might bet considered a legitimately founded opinion in the province of Quebec on the question of education in these provinces, and the right hon. gentleman placed before this parliament a law in which the rights of the minority in these two provinces were fully secured, and he declared that it was a just and a moderate and a fair law, and that he would persevere in it. But did he? A revolt arose among the right hon. gentleman's friends, and the right hon. gentleman surrendered, and he became a moderate man once more, and he failed to redeem his pledge. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman on sober reflection will admit that there are few electorates more calm and more dispassionate and more

just than the people of the province of Quebec. I have known a number of English speaking judges who have sat in our courts in that province for a score of years, and they uniformly declare that for the trial of a complicated case they would prefer to have above all others a jury of French Canadians, and French Canadian farmers especially. We have an instance of the dispassionate view which the electors of Quebec take on public matters in the case of the late Hon. Mr. Mercier, whom I knew somewhat intimately after his fairweather friends had abandoned him. No man in any period of our history possibly enjoyed the popularity that Mr. Mercier did in the province of Quebec. He was beloved to his dying day, and yet when the electorate of that province discovered he had failed to redeem his pledges and that there were shortcomings in his policy, they did not hesitate for a moment to put him out of power.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That was not the reason.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the reason?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You know the reason.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I shall be very glad to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) state the (reason. The people of Quebec were disappointed in Mr. Mercier, and disaster followed his government with astonishing rapidity. If we follow the history of the Prime Minister in connection with this naval question we will see how many times the right hon. gentleman has varied his policy. Let us leave aside his pledge about killing protection and many other such of which he is so often reminded; they are but transitory, but take his policy upon this very naval question. Though how many avatars has my right hon. friend gone; he has gone through as many as Vishnu in the Hindoo mythology. At the first imperial conference of 1902 he refused to adhere to the policy which he gave effect to last year. In 1907 he told the House what his attitude was, and I have here the report of that conference, and I find that he absolutely refused that participation to which he has since consented. Last year my right hon. friend took a different position. It is impossible to escape from the conclusion which any man who reads the report of the Conference of Defence of 1909 must necessarily come to on that subject. We must, under .the agreement of that conference, participate, both in military matters and in naval matters. Why has not the military side as well as the naval side been submitted to parliament? Why have we not been asked to give our adhesion on both these branches of the question? My right hon. friend, the moment the election took place in Drummond 20
and Arthabacka, completely shifted his position. Read his speeches before the election and afterwards. He has now returned to the original position. We are to have a navy to defend our coasts, and he leaves absolutely aside the policy _ of last year. Does my right hon. friend think that in the province of Quebec those who witness these changes, men who take an interest in these questions, have not some cause of distrust in my right hon. friend? We have had in Montreal for about a year a weekly paper published by friends of my right hon. friend. Does my right hon. friend read it? Does he see in that paper the complaints, the grievances, which do not come from our side, but which belong to the disorganization and discontent which exists within his own ranks, for which the paper blames my right hon. friend because he has himself countenanced within his party the creation of faction, because he has placed confidence in men who have not the confidence of his party, nor of his province? Does my right hon. friend see that? How then can he come to the House and lay on the province of Quebec the charge of fickleness, of inconsistency, when there are other and far different causes for the change which has come over the public opinion of that province with regard to himself and his party? Members of this House might be under the impression, after all that has been said here, that, the constituency of Drummond and Arthabaska is composed of men who are swayed by prejudices, who went through the election under the control of passionate excitement, of racial and religious cries. I can assure the House that there is no justification whatever for such an impression. They are calm, cool men; they have weighed the matter fully and in spite of every allurement, and without any temptation of an unfair nature on our side, they gave their verdict. Let me read to the House an article in one of those small, modest country newspapers which do not circulate outside of the constituency. It is certainly not affiliated with the Conservative party. It is supposed to be an independent paper, and, according to my information, it circulates largely among men belonging to the Liberal faith.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the paper?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the ^Gazette ' of Arthabaska.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do my hon. friends pretend that I am wrong in my statement?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a Conservative paper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it a fact that it is maintained by Mr. Decourval?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Did he not oppose the government candidate in the last election?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let us not quarrel about these details. Let us see how these poor, ignorant people speak about the result of the election:
The defeat of Drummond and Arthabaska has hurt Sir Wilfrid to the quick. We understand the thing, and as far as he is personally concerned, he is fully entitled to our sympathy.
Under similar circumstances the unfortunate first offenders have twenty-four hours in which to damn their judges. Prime Ministers extend the time to forty-eight hours without finding anything to say. Everybody knows that the pretended equality of citizens before the law is but a myth.
But if the first offenders and the prime ministers have the right to damn their judges in a delay more or less long, we must not forget that it is a right of tolerance, and that in exercising it, one is not permitted to pass beyond bounds of recrimination.
Sir Wilfrid forgot this rule when he said in the House to those who judged him, knowing himself all the circumstances: ' There are sometimes defeats which are mure honourable than victories. The election of Drummond and Arthabaska has not been won by His Majesty's loyal opposition, bat i,y His Majesty's disloyal opposition.
These words are unfortunate as well as inexact. When a man glorifies himself on being the greatest man of his race, lie cannot bring down this race to the stature of wasps without losing some of his owr, stature; and when one is so much concerned with the consideration due to other races, is it not true to say that in the kingdom of the blind, shortsighted men are kings ? Sir Wilfrid has been neither diplomatic nor true in the circumstances.
No, Sir Wilfrid, His Majesty's opposition has not been disloyal in Drummond and Arthabaska. The electors who have judged your naval policy are all good British subjects; only they have not forgotten that thev are also Canadian citizens, and as such, following the example of the Macdonalds, the Blakes, the Tuppers and the Lauriers of other days, they have believed that it is necessary to think first of the interests of the people of the country and afterwards of those of the mother country.
It is properly a case of national egotism; but this is certainly not disloyalty.
. If Sir Wilfrid wishes to know" absolutely to what one must attribute this check that seems so hurtful to his pride, we will tell him what it is.
It is not, as the Prime Minister thinks, that the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska are absolutely ignorant of the policy of the government on this question of the navy. Only those who have voted confidence in Mr. Laurier do not know the first word respecting the naval policy.
The first reason for this check is that the sovereign people believe that parliament has not the right to engage Canada in a naval policy quite new without having first obtained the assent of the people.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: some of them purporting-I say 'purporting' advisedly-to be the organs of our own party, that ihere had been a difficulty of any nature whatever between myself and the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. R. L. Borden) upon that question. Surely, although politics in this country, as we all admit and say, have fallen very low and are now in a degraded condition in many respects, it is possible for men who entered parliament together and who have known each other for long years to differ honourably upon questions of this importance without being taxed on that account with entertaining toward each other any feeling other than that of perfect esteem and respect. The leader, in presenting his motion, stated that he adhered to the views he expressed last year on this great question. It would seem that this adherence is manifested in the terms which he has seen fit to use in this amendment. The amendment reiterates the desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire, and upon this preliminary declaration, it seems to say that it narrows the consultation of the people to the naval policy of Canada. That is, the naval policy, as I understand it, laid down by the government and endorsed by parliament at its last session. That is what I understand by that amendment- consultation with the people upon the naval policy of Canada as it stands, at present. The amendment which we had offered seems to me broader, seems to me more comprehensive. It calls for the opinion of the electorate, not upon the government's scheme only, but upon the whole issue of our participation in imperial armaments, the complex question to be solved by the opinion of Canadian freemen. If the people are to have the right to be consulted, it would seem just, in our opinion, to submit the whole subject to their decision, and not a particular mode of naval assistance. Therefore, though the amendments tend in the same direction, the limitation of the amendment to the amendment, in my opinion, makes it less preferable than the other.
I regret to have taken up so much time, but I deemed it necessary, under the circumstances, to go into some explanations.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I regret very much at this late stage of the debate to have to delay the vote of this House on the amendments to the address in answer to the speech from the Throne; but, if I may crave the indulgence of the House for a short time, let me, first, offer my congratulations to the right hon. the Prime Minister, on the occasion of his sixty-ninth birthday, and 1 desire to wish our distinguished leader very many happy returns of this


Frederick Debartzch Monk: anniversary, in the interest of his family, his party and his country. Let me further extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the,address to His Excellency; they have proved equal to the occasion and discharged their duty in such a brilliant manner that they are fully entitled to the encomiums lavished on them.
I have a correction to make here to the statement of my hon. friend from Quebec county (Mr. Turcotte) in reference to the Montcalm election. He stated that the government had been beaten in Montcalm. I beg my hon. friend's pardon; the government was not defeated in Montcalm, but was victorious. In reality, I was not in the field as an opponent of the Liberal government, but was running in that constituency as their supporter; 1 did support them and I secured a triumph for their policy. Our opponents were conspicuous by their absence. I was running as a Liberal, I was returned as such, and should there remain any doubt in that respect, it would be dispelled by the fact that I was introduced to this House by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and one of his colleagues. The newspaper ' Le Devoir ' whose chief editor is Mr. Henri Bourassa, devotes its time and its space to personal remarks about me, its columns are filled with insults, abuse, slanders and calumnies directed against me and every body; but take my word for it, these people never forget me. Would you like to know some of the epithets applied to us? Slaves, time-servers, cronching ninnies, bribed, corrupt, place-hunters, valets, traitors, conspirators, heartless wretches, poltroons, cowards, &c. And to wind up the children of these members of parliament who voted in favour of the Navy Act shall curse their fathers for having passed that infamous piece of legislation.
Such is the language of that important paper, entrusted with the task of educating and enlightening public opinion. Such is the treatment meted out to those who do not share all the views of Mr. Henri Bou-rass
I attended the meetings held at St. Eus-tache, Grand Mere, Farnham, Montreal, and particularly at Chertsey, a parish in the county I represent here; these gentlemen who style themslves Nationalists, had chosen that parish, which is the Conservative stronghold in my constituency, presuming that Lafortune would 'keep in; but, to their great surprise, I was there. They were four against me and felt sure that I was going to be crushed by so many foes. But, you may take my word for it, at the close of the meeting, they laughed on the wrong side of the mouth.
At those meetings, Mr. Borden, the leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Lord Grey are held up and denounced as conspirators. Such is the language found in the mouths of these gen-

tlemen. I challenge them to deny my statement. I would like to see them challenging the statement I make here that they, did charge with conspiracy the three statesmen I have just mentioned.
If we are to believe them, the lion. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) and the hon. the Postmaser General (Mr. Lemieux) shared their views against the navy; but Lord Grey's whip was there to bring them into line and they bowed and cringed before the whip, because Lord Grey had promised these two gentlemen knighthoods.
Such are the reasons given by the Nationalists to fool the public into believing that Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Brodeur cringe before Lord Grey, because they expect knighthoods from him.
If the Nationalists are to be believed, His Excellency Lord Grey, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the leader of the opposition are conspirators who are straining every nerve and endeavouring by fair or foul means to secure the adoption of imperialism, in order the better to serve the interests of the mother country, England.
Such is their language. But let me ask them:	Who is your leader? Our leader,
they say, it stands to reason that in Quebec, it is Monk, and in Ontario, it is Borden. Don't you know that with only one leader, we cannot beat Laurier, but with Monk in Quebec and Borden in Ontario, we may succeed in doing it.
Mr. Borden, they say, shall not long hold the leadership; we are going to shelve him. We are tired of his leadership, because he is salaried by the government. He is paid a salary by the government to support Mr. Laurier's policy.
Now I would be glad if Mr. Borden were here and could listen to those men saying that he is being paid to give his support to the Liberal leader's policy.
They cry out: ' It is our duty to give our support to men like Mr. Honors Mercier.' Now that Mr. Mercier is dead, he is extolled to the skies by those men. They forget that it was their outrages, their slanders that killed him. Did they not brand him as a thief, a boodler? Did they not institute and carry on proceedings in a criminal court against him, and did they not strain every nerve to secure his conviction? And now that he is dead, behold! they begin to sing his praises. Is if not rank hypocrisy? My hon. friend from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Monk) who is my representative as well, because I live in his county, allow me to be insulted in that newspaper ' Le Devoir,' to which he contributes editorials. As a gentleman, should Mr. Monk not wake up and silence once for all those blackguards upon whom their choice has fallen to contest the Drummond and Arthabaska county? Was it a Conservative? By no means, they selected a Liberal who endorsed the general policy of the government, minus the Naval Bill. They did not dare to choose a Conservative. At every one of their meetings, they took good care to parade their candidate as a Liberal. Such Liberals I am in dread of. He endorses the general policy of the government with the exception _ of the Naval Policy. Why? He styled himself a Liberal, in order the better to win the Liberal vote.
He was well aware that the conservatives would support him anyhow. These are liberals of the Bourassa stamp. The latter, as well, represented himself as being a liberal, having a deep admiration for the right honourable gentleman. Of such liberals the number is always too great. To be a true liberal one should follow in the footsteps of D. A. Lafortune. If the member for Drummond and Arthabaska is a liberal, he should have asked to be introduced by two Liberal members. I ran in the Montcalm division against a Liberal candidate, but after I had won the victory on a Liberal platform, I did not select two Conservatives to introduce me to the House. I came in led by the Prime Minister, the leader of my country and of my party.
Where is the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville) seated? Along with us, although he is opposed to the navy.
I would have liked the member for Drummond and Arthabaska to act likewise, since he terms himself a Liberal.
Mr. Bourassa says we are humbugs. He calls me a clown and an ill-bred individhal. He points to us as comedians and compares the leader of the government to the comet. How gentle, how courteous. He even goes as far as to say: It is that sorry fellow (meaning me) who is the representative of the Crown in Montreal. Yes, for the last four years, I have the honour of being the representative of the attorney general in Montreal, and I only hope that Mr. Bourassa is not jealous on that account, he who has been studying law for fifteen years past without succeeding in getting admittance to the Bar. He managed to get through a Bill allowing him to study law, but he is still a student at law, and will remain so until he dies.
In order, Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of that gentleman's good breeding, I may state that he wrote in his paper that ' Lawyer D. A. Lafortune was not at the Letellier Club last evening, having attended the horse show and being engaged in conversation with jockeys and government colts.' Now, is that not gentlemanly? If Mr. Bourassa read what is printed in his paper, lie would blush for shame. On that very evening I addressed two thousand electors of St. Mary's division, represented by our friend Mr. Martin. And'Le Devoir' calls these electors jockeys and government
6)9

colts. And it is such a paper that is distributed in the colleges, and in the convents; for it is a fact that 'Le Devoir' has access to colleges and convents. It is a shame that those who are entrusted with educating our children and bringing them up properly should allow them to read that paper.
That paper states that Mr. Lafortune was elected as an independent, but that Mr. Laurier's whip brought him into line. I an independent! when for thirty years back I have been fighting the battles of the party, to brand me as an independent! No, I am not of such a stamp, and I would not play the hypocrite for the sake of getting the Conservative vote. I stated to the Conservatives in Montcalm: When you vote for D. A. Lafortune, you vote for a Liberal. If you defeat me, you will be defeating a Liberal. Those are the colours under which I entered this House, and I shall leave it flying those same colours.
The member for Hochelaga, my good friend (Mr. Rivet), was present at a large meeting at Rawdon. He ventured to insinuate that the fight was between a government supporter and an independent candidate. I stopped him right there, and as a gentleman that he is, he took it back, saying:	I took him for an independent, he
said, but I see he is more of a Liberal than I am myself.
In the course of this debate, Sir, reference has been made to many things which occurred during the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska. Now, do you know what these gentlemen have done? They had special constables sworn in whom they had sent to Drummond and Arthabaska for the purpose ostensibly of maintaining order, while in fact they were employed as enumerators. These men visited the homes of the people, inquiring how many children, how many boys there were in the family. That occurred three or four days before polling day. They applied to the clerk of the court where I have the honour to be the representative of the Crown and had these men sworn in to carry on that dirty work. I would like to see these people contradict me. They will continue insulting me in their paper, but that does not affect me, the mud slinging will fall back into their faces.
Mr. Bourassa writes things without realizing their meaning. I read through the desperate article he wrote on polling day.
I was sorry to find what insulting terms he used therein in reference to the Prime Minister. You know, Sir, how he wound up that article: The great man's glory sinks in the. . . .dirt. If it were not for the presence of ladies in the gallery, I would mention the exact word. Well let the ladies close their ears, I shall say the word: The great man's glory sinks 'in dung. How beautiful. And such things will be given Mr. LAFORTUNE.
to read to young girls, college boys, in priests' houses, in respectable homes in Montreal. It is high time a stop be put to it, or else people will think the man is losing his head.
I admit that in the heat of debate, as stated by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, a moment ago, one may lose his temper and say things which should not be said; but when a man goes to the length of signing such stuff, it is no wonder that people should become anxious over his future doings. And by the way what has become of him?
He claims that members do not vote independently ; that they are after patronage. Mr. Lafortune is seeking a judgeship; so is Mr. Ethier. We are trying to get some kind of appointment. Now, what do you think he would do, if only he had the chance? Did he not endeavour to be appointed Speaker of this House? He did. When did he begin waging war on his oldtime leader? Now, if 1 had a word of reproach to say to the Prime Minister, it would be this: You have been too generous towards him, that is how he proposes to repay you presently.
And while we are dealing with office seekers, I may state that there is not a single family in the Dominion which has benefited by so many appointments: judgeships, prothonotaryships, clerkships, positions of deputy clerks, surveyors, assistant engineers, and what not? There is not a single family which has been so much taken care of as his own. And he speaks of office seekers. Well, he should try and gobble up the whole pudding and that would settle the business.
When questioned as to what he did with the money he received from the government when a member of that international commission, he is content with answering: That is none of your business. He never would settle that account. He denounces dishonesty, patronage seekers, boodlers and the like. He should have enough fairness to let us know how he spent that money. But he refuses to give any information as to that.
If we are to believe him, he is the champion and has the monopoly of honesty, honour, devotedness and disinterestedness. Everything in his make up is abnegation. What was the price paid for his treason? Why has he abandoned the Liberal party? What amount, or what kind of reward did he get? Several secret meetings have taken place between himself and the Conservatives. The price to be paid for his cooperation was discussed; the question of the ways and means to be adopted and of the policy to be followed was a matter of debate. In the first place, he said, I lay down this condition, that I shall have a newspaper, of which I shall be the chief editor, and my salary must be $5,000. How

disinterested! Now sliould I be mistaken as" to the exact figure, I pray the representative of ' Le Devoir ' to state the price in to-morrow's issue. That is the kind of disinterestedness you will find in that man. First a newspaper in his own name, then the editorship of that paper with $5,000 of a salary, which, as I am told, was exacted even previous to the issuing of the paper. Such is his disinterestedness. And it is that man who calls us office seekers. As for him, he works solely for the love of God. That is his contention, but who will take stock in such a statement?
There is no end to his harassing and slandering the right lion, gentleman. Why? Would you like to know? I will tell you: he wished to occupy the speaker's chair, which, Sir, you occupy so worthily. In this he failed, and since then he is in a rage and insults everybody. But he will never get there.
At the outset, Mr. Bourassa opened fire on those who were in office in Quebec. He called Mr. Prevost a thief, a boodler, a perjurer, as well as Mr. Turgeon, while still proclaiming his deep admiration for Mr. Laurier. As regards the latter gentleman, he had not a word to say, only praise to lavish on him. He wished to play a part in Quebec, and with that in view, he resigned his seat here to run for the local house in Quebec. He made a stand against Mr. Turgeon, but we defeated him in Belle-chasse by over 800 of a majority. Later on, he was elected accidentally in St. Hyacin-the, though actually defeated by 40 or 50 votes, a deputy returning officer having omitted to initial the bulletins, these had to be put aside. That is how his election came about by one vote. In St. James Division, Mr. Gouin felt so sure of victory, that he did not look after his candidature in that division, running at the same time in Port-neuf where he was elected by an overwhelming majority. Mr. Bourassa, as representative of St. James, proceeded to Quebec, intended on annihilating his opponents. He was bound to prove that Mr. Turgeon and ' Brainless John,' as he then called Mr. Prevost, were thieves. Having failed to do so, he now is making preparations to come back to Ottawa. It appears he intends to run for the Dominion House. However, he has not got there yet; there is something in store for him if he tries. He would revile and slander us, and keep on saying that the right hon. gentleman is about" to go down in the mud.
He proceeded to Belgium to get evidence in support of his charges against Mr. Turgeon, incontrovertible evidence.^ People expected that he would succeed in procuring such evidence in Belgium and that he would-you know how cocksure he always is-reduce Mr. Turgeon to atoms. Now he failed to produce one tittle of evidence in support of his slanderous charges. Did he
not brand Mr. Prevost a perjurer, did he not point out to him as a counterfeiter and a thief? He even insinuated that Mr. Prevost travelled in company with young lady secretaries. He did not dare say so in plain words, he only insinuated immoral conduct on his part. To-day he is cheek by jowl with that same Mr. Jean Prevost whom he slandered and reviled formerly. They are both of a kind. I believe Mr. Prevost is an honest man, as for the other he is a public liar. He insinuated in Bellechasse that he had the support of Mr. Laurier. He spoke in that sense in every locality, so much so that our friends did not know what to think of it. A telegram was sent to the Prime Minister who wired at once that Mr. Turgeon had the full support of the Liberal party. Mr. Bourassa had given to understand that he had the moral support of the Prime Minister. He did not even stop at that. He stated that if he had so wished, he would have Ion" a"o become a member of Mr. Laurier s cabinet He made a similar statement m regard to Mr. Gouin, but was emphatically contradicted. There is nothing beyond that gentleman's reach; any vagary of his imagination at once assumes for him an air of reality. Can you understand such a make up? I for one, am unable to do so. His wrath, his fits of passion, his thirst for vengeance are the result of his failure to reach his ends. He will never forgive the Prime Minister for having preferred to him the Hon. Mr. Brodeur and the Hon. Mr. Lemieux. That meant his utter downfall. What! Prefer Brodeur and Lemieux to Henri Bourassa! Why that is shameful, incredible, preposterous. And from then on, you may be sure that he made it rough for the Prime Minister and all the rest of us; you may be sure that he made things uncomfortable for us.
At Farham he said: I am a Liberal, that is the way he would fly the Liberal colours in order to deceive the people and mislead the youth of the country. He is an envious and jealous fellow. Envy is a combination of jealousy and sorrow brought about by the discovery of the other fellow s superiority. It is a painful feeling, an rritating pain, a feeling both of hatred md anxiety at witnessing the happiness, he success, the welfare enjoyed by others. Snvy, like a flame, blackens whatever lasses overhead and which it cannot destroy. Envy is inspired by egotism, by selfish aims, by offended conceit. Envy, oeing unable to rise to the level of worth, mdeavours to get even by dragging down its rivals. Such is the man, you cannot fail to recognize him.
Our opponents propose that we have recourse to a plebiscite, in order to find out whether the government should incur that expenditure on the navy. Why did they not make the suggestion at the time the

resolution was introduced on March 29, 1909. Was a plebiscite resorted to at the time confederation was established? Not at all, the word was not yet known at the time. Was there a plebiscite suggested in connection with the Northwest Territories, or in connection with the Pacific scandal, or the canals, or the school question over which you have been weeping for so long? Did you suggest a plebiscite in connection with the Tay canal, with the famous Curran bridge, or with the Connolly-Me-Greevy scandal ? Did you suggest a plebiscite in connection with the traitors' nest which was exposed by Sir Mackenzie Bowell, or in _ connection with the altering of electoral lists and the gerrymandering of constituencies?
On the_ other hand, we have insisted on a plebiscite in 1896, and we licked and defeated you;^ and in 1900, 1904 and 1908 as well. And if Mr. Laurier bids us to defeat you all in 1912, we shall do so. Take care what answer the plebiscite gives you in
In the speech from the Throne, there is a reference to a treaty of reciprocity with the United States. I represent a thoroughly agricultural constituency, and I would rejoice in the interest of my electors to see such a treaty negotiated, if as a result duties were reduced on our exports of farm products. The exportation of hay especially would be greatly benefited thereby.
On the other hand I would feel gratified if our government would do something in favour of the exposition which is to be held in Montreal, and I suggest that a handsome amount be voted towards that end.
Then, I would like that something be done towards the building of the Georgian Bay canal.^ 1 trust the government will consider it their duty to ask the House for a vote in this connection. I hope the government will take the question up in the near future and that we shall be called upon to discuss it in the course of this session.
The member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) referred to gifts, to the presentation of an automobile to the Prime Minister. Let me say to the member for Terrebonne that such references are mean in themselves. I know a good many who would not be as generous as the right hon. gentleman, who protects even opponents of his. That is how he is repaid for it. That is the treatment meted out to him. Refrain from referring to such things, and you will have a better name for generosity.
Mr. Tarte's name has also been mentioned. That man never sailed under false colours. He did fight at times with us, but it would have been more becoming on the part of the member for Terrebonne not to recall his memory. You have no respect for the living, but you should at least abstain from reviling the dead.
The name of Mr. Borden, leader of the Mr. LA FORTUNE.
opposition, has been mentioned. The member for_ Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) deprecates his policy; but as I say this, I notice he smiles, which goes to show that he is not very much in earnest. He also deprecates the policy advocated by my own party. He thinks there is something funny in that, since he laughs. But nobody will be deceived by the member for Jacques Cartier. It is hoped that with Mr. Monk as leader of the party in Quebec, and Mr. Borden as leader of the same party in the other provinces, it will be an easy matter to overthrow the Prime Minister. But you are not the stuff to defeat him. How could such a policy be defined? You sound one note here to-day and to-morrow it will be quite another tune. And do you know what is the explanation? These gentlemen term that ' going through evolutions.' These gentlemen are performing evolutions, but their object is always to defeat Laurier.
Reference has been made to fanaticism. What did the late chief of the Conservative party do, I mean Tupper? Did he not say, one day, during the election of 1896 in Regina: 'How could you prefer a French Canadian such as Laurier to one who is English like yourselves? ' And later, when he came down to Montreal and these words were brought home to him, he also 'evolved.' I was speaking in a large hall, he said, and tiles on the roof not being very firmly set, there was some noise in the hall, and I was misunderstood.
On June 22, 1896, Laurier appealed to his fellow citizens of the province of Quebec to only return one of his candidates out of two and that it would be sufficient to make him Prime Minister of Canada. He was not aware that the cry of warning had had its effect and that the French Canadians were about to feply in proper fashion to the fanatical appeal which I have just mentioned by throwing in the face of Tupper a majority of 30 in favour of Laurier. wnen-ever a disposition is shown to run down people of the province of Quebec, you will find us ready to resent aspersions.
Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon for having spoken at such length, but I judyed tnat it was incumbent on me to vindicate myself and to show in their true light tnose who write such insults and obloquy as I have mentioned. I have a request to make to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier who is my representative, since I have a vote in his constituency: Why do you not put a stop to the insults printed in that newspaper? Why do you allow one of your fellow citizens to be reviled in such a way?
I protest against these infamous sayings published in ' Le Devoir '; it is incumbent on you to protect us. If you do not do so, I say you are not acting right.


Mr. ARTHUR GILBERT (Drummond and Arthabaska).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, allow' me to beseech the indulgence of the

House so that I may find it an easier matter to get through my maiden speech. My intention is to be courteous towards all, to utter only loyal words as regards Canada and the empire. At the same time I do not wish to deviate from the stand taken during the campaign, or to break faith with those who returned me.
I was selected as candidate, I agreed tq run, and was returned for Drummond and Arthabaska as a protest against the refusal of the government to grant a plebiscite, to protest also against the refusal of the government to take heed of petitions forwarded by the people, and especially from the people of Drummond and Arthabaska.
In Drummand and Arthabaska, we love our country, and we believe that in regard to a question of such importance as that of the navy-a new departure-the people should be consulted. In the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, we have full faith in the wisdom of the province of Quebec as well as in the wisdom of the province of Ontario and of every province in the Dominion. When we suggest that an appeal be made to the people, we do so as regards all the provinces in the Dominion, in behalf of all those living on Canadian soil. We are opposed to the Naval Bill believing that there is in the provisions of that Bill certain things inimical to our autonomy. In the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, we are anxious to preserve that autonomy which has been secured to us through the efforts of all our public men since confederation; we are anxious to preserve it for the benefit of all those who live in the land, for the benefit of Frenchspeaking Canadians, as well as for the benefit of English-speaking Canadians, in a word for the benefit of all those who breathe Canadian air.
In Drummond and Arthabaska, we are anxious to develop the resources of the country, we are anxious that things be so arranged that the Canadian people may have a fair return for any expenditure they make. Let us suppose I am the owner of some property and I put some one on the property to develop it and take care of it. Well, all I can require that man to do is to prevent any trespassing on that property and to enjoy any returns he gets from it. As long as I am confident that he is ready to defend it at the price of his life, I cannot exact any more from him. It is in such manner that I propose fulfilling my duty towards Canada.
When selected to run in that election, the farmers in the constituency were among those who requested me to accept the candidature, so that the farming community might have one more representative in this Parliament. I appealed to the farmers for their vote; when in sympathy with the farming community, one may boast of being in sympathy with all classes of society, for
on that class rests the welfare of the country as a whole.
I was returned to protest against the Naval Bill and to declare in favour of an appeal to the people.
Such was the position I took during the campaign. I have explained it to the electors as they wanted me to do. I wished to be the people's servant. During the campaign I said I was a Liberal. In fact, I am a Liberal, but I do not consider myself bound to- this party such as the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafor-tune) claims to be. He is a lawyer. I was twenty-one years old and I did not know how to write, but I understand that a Liberal is a free man, and I will have lost everything on the day I will have no right to think, to believe or to act.
I will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) because I think it is more generous and would allow Canadian people to give their own opinion on this Naval Bill and militia question.
Hon. Mr. FISHER (Minister of Agriculture. (Translation.) Before going over the subject now in discussion, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Gilbert) for his maiden speech to-day in this House. I do not approve of his politics on which he has just pronounced himself, nor do I share his views on the subject, but being myself an old member of this House, I wish him personally a hearty welcome.
I would not have undertaken to speak at this late stage of the debate were it not that there are one or two things in the speech of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) which deserve some notice, and ought to be corrected. Before, however, dealing with those matters, I wish to draw attention to the reference which he made to a pamphlet published in the Drummond-Arthabaska election, and which, if I remember rightly, was said to have been published by Liberals. When speaking a few minutes ago the hon. member referred to a certain journal called ' La Gazette d'Arthabaska ' as a Liberal newspaper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I said I thought it was an independent paper.


Mr. FISHER.: My information is that the pamphlet was printed in the office of that newspaper, and that, perhaps, is the foundation of the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite that this pamphlet was put out by Liberals in that contest.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier referred to his dispute, if I may call it such, with the Prime Minister in regard to the passage of a certain order in council. I will not go over the subject, as it has been dealt with by the Prime Minister himself. But if my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has

accomplished anything he has shown the House that the said order in council was passed on the 10th of February, that an order for a return was passed on the 22nd of February, and that the return came down and was made public, and within the knowledge of the hon. gentleman, on the 5th of March. Now, in the earlier part of this debate, the hon. gentleman said that this fact was not made public until long after. We find, however, that the ' long after ' is 25 days, between the 10th of February, when the order in council was passed, and the 5th of March following. One would have supposed, in hearing the hon. gentleman, that months had passed, that a long time had passed. But we find, as a matter of fact, that the publication of that order in council was made just as soon as, in the ordinary routine, it could have reasonably been made. But the hon. member is making a direct accusation of what is not fair, or just, or right ^gainst the Prime Minister. He accuses the Prime Minister of having deceived the people by suppressing certain information-and to that I will refer a little later. But he goes on in regard to this particular occurrence, and states that this order in council was passed during a session of parliament, and that it ought to have been made public and that parliament ought to have acted upon it. My hon. friend knows very well, if he knows anything of constitutional government, that the passage of such an order in council is an act of the executive, that the executive takes full responsibility thereof, and is responsible to parliament for any action arising out of it.
But what is that document, and in what way did it commit this country? It was a despatch in answer to a communication from the imperial authorities, and that communication was a consequence of the imperial conference at which certain conclusions were reached. The action of that imperial conference is well known It took place two years before, and this was but the necessary sequence to the resolutions and conclusions of that conference. The hon. member says that the order in council settled the matter-I took down his words-' The order in council settled the matter.' Now, Mr. Speaker, if that order in council implied any action on the part of the Dominion of Canada, it implied action which must necessarily be carried out by a vote of this House of Commons, by the expenditure of public money, which no order in council could accomplish, but which could only be accomplished after the House had voted the necessary supply to carry that action through. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that any action in regard to the general staff, any arrangement by which the Militia Department of this Dominion could accomplisn what was outlined in that order, must be carried out after the necessary subventions had been Mr. FISHER.
voted, after parliament had discussed the question and had taken action thereupon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will allow me-does my hon. friend say that an order in council could bind the country to share in the expense of the maintenance of the general staff, particularly when parliament was in session?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I mean to say that the order in council would not bind; I said that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was it a proper matter to deal with by order in council?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly. The hon. gentleman must know that council discusses these matters.	-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It cannot pledge the credit jf the country.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is just what I am saying, it cannot pledge the credit of the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But it did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was the view of the Prime Minister, that was the representation of the representatives of Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the minister state why the proposals of the War Office were not placed before parliament for discussion and approval?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are, and they were. They were brought down within 25 days of the date of the action.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: After the action?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why not before?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was a mere continuance of a principle laid down years before, a principle which had been known to the public at large, and this was only a detail of which the executive took the control and responsibility, and within a few weeks the information was given to parliament. Why did not the hon. gentleman when the information was laid before parliament, if he objects to it, get up and move a resolution of censure on the government?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is my hon. friend joking? Does he suppose a member of parliament
saw this return? He knows that return was never used or handled until it went to the printer and was half printed. I did not say it was not laid on the table, I said no one saw it until it whs partly printed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is an old member. He knows perfectly well that every member of parliament has access to every return laid on the table. He now knows, if he did not know before, and I am willing to give him the credit that he did not know, that he spoke without proper information, when he accused my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) of misrepresentation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not accuse the Prime Minister of misrepresentation. I said he had not proceeded in the proper way to lay this matter before the proper authority.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no, he accused him of misrepresentation and deception of the people of the country. That is the gravamen of his offence, and he appears to have done that without knowledge of the fact that this information was before the public; yet he is the member for Jacques Cartier, an old and experienced member of the House, having had a return laid on the table, he now says that because he did not know it had been printed, he did not know anything about it.
I shall quote one or two words from the second part of the despatch, where I find:
This important question (of the principle of colonial self-government) appears to be adequately provided for in the latter portion of the penultimate paragraph of page 8 of the present memorandum, in which it is stated that the whole control of the chief of the local section of the General Staff by his own government must be accepted from the outset.
My hon. friend has also discussed the use of the Staff College at Camberley. This memorandum appears to contemplate the possibility of the Staff College at Camberley, which must for some years to come be the central school for the training of higher officers, becoming congested should a large number of officers from overseas be sent there, and the suggestion is made that there should be decentralization by the establishment of similar colleges in the overseas dominions. The Minister of Militia says:
In view of the improbability of any large increase of the Canadian Permanent Forces for some years to come, it is unlikely that the Dominion would for a considerable period, be able to spare more than four officers of that force at any one time for a Staff College training. If this be so, then it would not be worth while for the Dominion to establish a Staff College of its own, and it would be preferable, subject to War Office concurrence, to continue to send these officers to the Staff College, Camberley, following the existing arrangement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend does not read the part of the order in council *where we undertake to share in the expenditure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Would my hon. friend tell me what particular page and clause (it is? My hon. friend knows the document thoroughly. At any rate I give my hon. friend credit for knowing that we could not make a subscription to the Camberley college without a vote of parliament.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Well, my hon. friend has full opportunity of discussing it wdien that item of the Estimates is presented to parliament, he can then take the sense of the House upon it and if his opinions obtain and are those that animate the mass of the people the government would be defeated, the government would have to go out upon the question and my hon. friend Would come in.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend, I admit, is perfectly right in the principle he lays down. What I questioned was the propriety of promising by order in council, without authority of parliament, to contribute to the support of the college at Camberley.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The order in council could not commit the country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The order in council might commit the government, but could not commit the country. The people of the country and the members of parliament have an opportunity and must have an opportunity of turning the government out if they do not approve of their action.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No doubt about that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: And the opportunity must necessarily come before one single cent of Canadian money, could be spent on the college at Camberley, or any one of the objects outlined in this memorandum.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In other words, we would have to vote non-confidence in the government before that was set aside.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Would that be such a hard thing for the hon. gentleman?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would be hard?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: After the engagement taken by the order in council.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend could bring himself up to that point without great difficulty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am better than my hon. friend thinks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know that he and some hon. gentlemen ride up to the fence with great courage and vim, spurring their horses with great activity, but when they get to the fence they sometimes funk it, and I am inclined to think that if he did not himself funk the fence a great many men around him would funk it and would not be prepared to say that Canada should not spend anything in regard to this plan of contribution to the college for the general staff.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend I think is unfair. What I argued was that the plan was an important one with details and we should have been consulted before the government accepted it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot agree to my hon. friend's doctrine, but that was not really the question at issue between my hon. friend and the Prime Minister ; the question at issue was that the hon. gentleman had laid before the people of Quebec especially in many recent speeches a statement that the Prime Minister had created a misconception in the minds of the people and that he had suppressed facts which the people ought to have known. I have proved conclusively by the dates I have given that that accusation falls absolutely to the ground. I am not very surprised at the hon. gentleman's action in this regard. I do not accuse him of deliberate misrepresentation of the Prime Minister, I rather accuse him of not having known the facts which to-day he does know.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) said that he was subject to dreams, and I am not at all sure that some of his'statements to-night are not made of the stuff that dreams are made of.. The hon. gentleman talked a good deal about the unfair accusations made against him and others in connection with the Drummond-Arthabaska election, and while I do not know much about the statements made by gentlemen on one side or tin other in that campaign, I do know that if the statement made a while ago by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) about the Prime Minister is a fair specimen of the representations made to the people of Drummond-Arthabaska I do not wonder that the electors were deceived and led astray. I know my French Canadian citizens very well; I know their history. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) said they were not fickle, and they are not. They are loyal, patriotic citizens of this country and of this empire. They are a people who oyer and over again have shown themselves inaccessible to prejudiced appeals to their passions, when they have understood the situation and the real truth of the matter. I believe that in the Drummond-Arthabaska election the electors who voted non-confidence in this government on account of its naval

policy did not understand that naval policy and that they voted under a misconception in consequence of statements made to them with regard to that policy which were utterly devoid of truth. I was surprised, I was astonished beyond measure at the remark which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) made in regard to the history of the Prime Minister, and especially in connection with the campaign of 1896. The hon. gentleman exclaimed: How did Laurier arrive in power on that occasion?
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ' Hear, hear/ say hon. gentlemen opposite, but most of them who say * hear, hear ' are so young in political life that they probably do not know much about the matter. However, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) cannot plead ignorance, for it was in that campaign that he took his first plunge into political warfare and was first elected to this House. And on what platform was he elected? He was elected on the platform of the then Tory leaders; that Laurier had betrayed the people of the province of Quebec in connection with the Manitoba school question. Does he not remember very well the prophesies and the hopes and the anticipations that he and his fellow-Conservatives from Sir Charles Tupper down, had in regard to that election of 1896. It was common report throughout Canada that the Tory party was going to sweep Laurier out of existence in the province of Quebec, and why? Because they said he had betrayed his fellow-citizens of the province and had supported an improper school system in Manitoba. We have heard hon. gentlemen opposite charge that the Prime Minister has changed his course, and that he has spoken in one place differently from what he has spoken in another, but the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier knows full well that before the elections of 1896 the Prime Minister went down to his own constituents in the city of Quebec-leader that he was, great leader that he was, great statesman that he was-and in the city of Quebec he told his people that he would leave the school question in Manitoba to be dealt with by the people of Manitoba, because it was a provincial matter, and that he would not support the Remedial Bill to coerce Manitoba, which had been introduced by Sir Charles Tupper 'in the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman took his political life in his hands and he said to his people: You must do what is right for the whole people of Canada, and he appealed to the French Canadian electors of the province of Quebec on the ground of right and justice, and they responded to that appeal on the 20th of June, 1896. And, Sir, the hopes of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and his friends were disappointed, and instead of their getting a large majority in the province of Quebec to save them from defeat, Sir Wilfrid Laurier so demonstrated to his fellow-citizens of that province their duty to the country, in opposition to the fanatical appeals that -were made to them, that the French Canadian people, in opposition to their natural instincts and inclinations to vote in favour of their co-religionists, gave to the Liberal party a splendid majority, which contributed largely to put the right hon. gentleman in power. The hon. member (Mr. Monk) talks about the Prime Minister saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: ' Hear, hear,' say those gentlemen opposite, but they do not know much about the history of the Prime Minister. Surely these gentlemen from the province of Ontario ought to remember another incident in the Life of the right hon. the leader of this government. They will call to memory the equal rights agitation in the province of Ontario, when the people -of Quebec were attacked, when they were accused of subservience to the church, when they were accused of selling to the church the rights of the people of Canada. I can remember, when the present Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Mr. Laurier, -went from here to the city of Toronto, right into the heart of that equal rights agitation, right into the centre of those who were arousing prejudices against the people of Quebec and against the Catholics of the Dominion, and he stood face to face with them there and the audience, which was hostile in the beginning, was so convinced by his eloquence and his arguments and his cogent reasoning, that before the meeting closed he held them in the hollow of his hand and every word he uttered was cheered to the echo as never before.


Samuel Hughes: Was that the time when, quoting from Shakespeare, he told a Toronto audience that no Italian priest should tithe or toll in this fair Dominion, and when he told them in Quebec the exact reverse?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He never told them that.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly he did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) that I heard the right hon. gentleman speak at both places and he uttered exactly the same sentiments at both. And his grand record, and the position which he occupies not only in Canada, but in the empire to-day is because the right hon. gentleman is equal and fair and just to everybody, no matter to what race they may belong. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) spoke about what he called ' our ' party, and I looked at the hon. gentleman

when he used that expression. I would be rather disposed to ask him what he means by 'our party.' Immediately afterwards he spoke about the Tory party and about the leader of the opposition, and one would suppose that by ' our party ' he meant the Conservative party.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If I used that word, I referred to those who made the campaign in favour of autonomy last summer in the province of Quebec.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then my hon. friend means himself, those who sit with him here, and his allies of the Nationalist party. He uses the plural, our party, not mine; therefore there must be two parts to the party, and if one part is composed of those who sit with him and work with him in this House, I can only suppose that when the hon. gentleman alludes to ' our party,' he means the combination of the French Tories of Quebec with the Nationalists of Quebec. Only a little while ago the hon. leader of the opposition told us very distinctly that he and those for whom he spoke had no alliance with the Nationalists. He evidently did not speak for my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, and he ought rather to have said, 'I and some of those on this side^ of the House have no alliance with the Nationalist party.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: _ I think the people understand the position better than my hon. friend.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly, but at the same time when my hon. friend talks to the people all over the country, I think he will find it very hard to make them understand his position.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No danger of that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no danger of his talking all over the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is more than you think.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend will be very apt to come to the ground be-between two stools, on the one hand, the Conservative party, and on the other hand the Nationalist party; and when, as I believe will be the case in the near future, the Nationalist party of to-day follows the other parties which have risen and flitted across the horizon for a short time in the province of Quebec and then disappeared, my hon. friend will lose his allies of the Nationalist party and will not be able to take up again with his allies of the Tory party. However, my hon. friend has chosen his part. He or his ally Mrl Bourassa has had a temporary triumph. I thought it was a little significant, however, that when the other day my hon.. friend from Jacques Cartier and my hon.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: friend from L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) introduced Mr. Gilbert, the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska, into this House, he received rather a cool welcome. My hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) smiles. He was down in Drummond and Arthabaska. My hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Blondin), I think was there also. They helped to elect the hon. member for Drummond and Arthabaska; but when he was introduced to the House, even these ardent friends had not the courage or the good fellowship to give him a welcome. In the many years of experience that I have had in this House I have never before seen a member introduced without one signal of sympathy or of welcome.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am surprised at my hon. friend, with his mighty mind, descending to these details.	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend went there first, and I am following him. Of all these representatives of the people of Canada, I can fairly say, not of their opinion of the personality of the hon. member, but of their opinion of the programme and platform on which he was elected, that there was none so poor to do him honour.
Now, I want to say a word or two in regard to some things in the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). That hon. gentleman said that he stood by his resolution of 1909 and by' every word of the speech which he made on that resolution. I am very glad that he does. I wish he would show it a little more by his actions rather than by his words, because I want to say, in compliment to the hon. member, that there were some things in that speech that I agreed with most thoroughly, and there was a line of argument in it with regard to the advantage of a Canadian navy manned by Canadians and belonging to the people of Canada, which had not been more eloquently or more beautifully expressed by anybody. Since then the hon. member for North Toronto has changed his mind; but I want to read one or two sentences of what he then said, and they are a most eloquent and beautiful expression of the action of the present Liberal government and of what the people of Canada have been doing since that time. I first take, on page 3495 of ' Hansard,' what he said about the objections to a fixed money contribution :
It bears the aspect of hiring somebody else
to do what we ourselves ought to do	
After ten or twelve, or twenty, or thirty years, you will have paid out an immense amount of money. You will have been protected in the meantime; but in Canada itself there will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there will be no preparation of the

soil, or beginning of the growth of the product of defence. Yet some time or other, no one can doubt that with resources and with a population constantly increasing, we must and will have in this country a naval force of our own for our coast and home defence.
The interest that we take in a contribution spent by another is not the interest that I desire for Canada. I want to see something graf-ed on the soil of Canada's nationhood, which takes root and grows and develops until it incites the spirit of defence in this country, leads to a participation in the defence, leads to that quick interest in it, its glories, its duties and its accomplished work, which is after all the one great thing that compensates a people for great expenditures either on land or on sea in the way of defence and of the maintenance of the rights of the country.
That is very good-excellent, eloquent, splendid sentences. He said further:
We must have beginnings; these must at first be small; hut some time, or other, as I have said, our country will have its naval force for the defence of this country if for nothing else. The point with me is as to whether it is not the greater wisdom to sow the seed at once and cultivate its growth, as best we may, in our circumstances and with our resources, until at last we arrive at that stage of expansion which we have reached in other great lines of our country's progress. You will notice that while 1 have tried to discuss the pros and cons in connection with this method, while I have stated reasons in favour of and others against it, my own mind tends rather towards the employment of another form than that of an out and out money contribution.
I agree emphatically with all those words. That has been exactly the action of the government. The government believes all these things. Consequently, it is making one of these small beginnings, and it is going on to greater things as we become able to organize and manage this force. My hon. friend, however, sneers at the efforts of the government. My hon. friend may not himself 'have used the words tin-pot navy, but at all events he has taken comfort out of the use of them by other people. I do not think my hon. friend will say to-day that either the ' Niobe ' or the ' Rainbow ' is a tin-pot vessel. If he does think so he thinks that Great Britain, which sold us these vessels, handed us a gold brick. I can hardly believe that he really holds that opinion. We bought those vessels exactly in pursuance of the policy and course the hon. gentleman himself laid down, but he has since changed his views and taken another course. Now he says that these are tin-pot vessels and that we have been deceived by the English lords of the admiralty. How, then, can the hon. gentleman, if he really holds that view, justify liis policy of sending a contribution of twenty or twenty-five million dollars Canadian money to the mother land to be controlled and expended by
these men, who, he says, have so flagrantly taken us in. The hon. gentleman expressed great disdain of the ' Rainbow,' and he asked if we would rather have the ' Rainbow ' than the British fleet to protect our shores in British Columbia should war break out on the Pacific. Well, we would have just the same protection of the British fleet, if such a war should break out, as if we had not the ' Rainbow.' We would have just the same protection as if we had sent money to Great Britain to pay for a Dreadnought. Even if we had sent money to the British admiralty to build a Dreadnought, does the hon. gentleman say that it would'be stationed on the Pacific coast? He knows perfectly well that the only reason for the sending of money to pay for a Dreadnought was the German scare, and that the intention was not to station her on the Pacific to strengthen the British fleet in the North Sea against aggression by that country. But let me tell my hon. friend that within a year or so when we have two or three Bristols on the Pacific coast we shall have vessels superior to any vessels in the Pacific ocean, with the exception of some of the finest Japanese ships. We shall not then have reason to fear any attack. In that very ' speech to which I have referred the hon. gentleman urged that it would be advisable for us to have some protection on our coasts in case of an attack by some cruiser should a war break out. Well, when we have, as we propose to have, on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts a couple of Bristols, we can rest assured lhat any stray cruiser, I care not from what navy, will be rendered a good account of by our Canadian navy.
The hon. gentleman said that we ought to read the resolution passed in 1909 from its genesis. What was its genesis? I will do him the compliment of saying that it was his own resolution, which he moved, and which was to this effect:-
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 self respect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
When the hon. gentleman moved that resolution he certainly did not contemplate Canada taking any part in helping the empire except by protecting her own coasts. He did not then contemplate anything like a contribution to the imperial navy. That was brought in as an afterthought, and if we are to take this resolution in its final form, from the genesis in the brains of hon. gentlemen opposite, there was nothing imperial in its character, but it was simply for the protection of Canada and Canada alone.

My hon. friend seemed to imply that the final resolution was not to be lived up to, but I have pointed out that we have lived up to the picture which he drew and in which we all concurred and which was embodied in the final resolution. In that final resolution there is the possibility of an emergency, and the hon. gentleman dwelt strongly upon that, though not quite so strongly as did his leader. He asked what were we doing to meet an emergency, how could we help the mother land? But suppose we were to contribute money to build a Dreadnought, you cannot build a vessel of that kind in a day. It would take considerable time to build it. But, he said, the Canadian navy could be stronger than it is and help the empire as well. Well, it would take just the same time to build a Dreadnought for Canada as for the imperial navy. It would take just the same time to develop those ships and have them manned by Canadians. They would have to be manned by British sailors and officered by British officers whether the money was contributed direct to the British navy or expended on a Canadian navy. The conditions are exactly the same and the emergency would be met in exactly the same way.
My hon. friend is a past master in the art of word painting. There is a modern school of painting which reminds me of the hon! gentleman's policy. In his word pictures the technique is magnificent, the strokes are firm and bold, he does not hesitate to lay the colours on most daringly, and mixes them up frequently with violent and extraordinary contrasts. He reminds me of that modern school of painters known as the impressionist school. That is a school which lays down the principle that the artist must transfer to the canvas, not nature as she is, but as the artist thinks she is. The artist must put on canvas what his inner consciousness reveals to him regardless of actual appearances and facts. Accuracy, truth to nature and to fact, are foreign to this school. And my hon. friend, in his glorious word painting-which is very attractive and sounds remarkably well -reminds me very much of that school of artists and painters. He draws beautiful pictures. He works on them with the greatest diligence. They are very elaborate, very painstaking-long drawn out sometimes-but when it comes to the question of whether a picture is true to nature or not, or onlV true to the vivid imagination of the one who draws it, I venture to say that my hon. friend is following the teaching of the impressionist school of painting.


George Eulas Foster: I will look it up.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman may not know much about the impressionist school, but he is a past master in their art and emulates in his own way the great-Mr. FIStlER.
est members of the school. But the hon. gentleman has fallen away from what he started out with in dealing with this question of our naval service. He has changed very much, but in one thing he will never change, and that is in his determination to vote for whatever his leader may put before the House.


Glenlyon Campbell: 
Mr. GRAHAM.: A question on the order paper to that effect will be answered in due time.


Glenlyon Campbell: ' In due time ' he says. ' Due time ' if he knows anything, is now. If he does not know what he should know as Minister of Railways that is all right, I am quite willing to accept his ignorance. I want an answer to this question, because it is only a prelude to other questions that I want to ask him. If this is a government work, I want to ask tlie minister why is this bridge being built on the Canadian Northern railway right-of-way?


George Perry Graham: For the simple reason that it is not.


Glenlyon Campbell: Now I have the minister's answer : ' For the simple reason that it is not.' I want to tell the minister that while he was there, and should know, and does know, he is not" answering that question according to the facts of the case. It is built absolutely on the Canadian Northern railway right-of-way, on plans approved by himself and by the



Railway Commissioners. He can't denyi it, let him deny it if he can.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The minister's statement has to he accepted.


George Perry Graham: My statement is absolutely correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will withdraw nothing.
Some ihon. MEMBERS. Let him go on.


Glenlyon Campbell: I appreciate your kindness very much. We all heard of the minister's trip up to the Pas Mission, when he went up there and had a little pow-wow with the Indians and the settlers, and where he dug out the first sod, was it- or was it the first nail he drove in this bridge? I want to tell the minister that the people up in that country are most anxious for the Hudson Bay railroad, the people of the whole Northwest are more than anxious for it. But they want it built by the people and controlled by the people. They don't want it handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, or the Canadian Northern railway or the Canadian Pacific railway. They want a road over which the people will have some control of the rates. If the Minister of Railways does not do what the people up there want, I can tell him that" if it was a sod that he dug, it is the first sod of the grave of the Liberal party in that country ; and if was a nail that he drove, it was the first nail in his own coffin.


George Perry Graham: What a sad case.


Glenlyon Campbell: I referred to the fact that this bridge at the Pas is being built on the Canadian Northern railway right-of-way, according to plans that the minister has in his office. I now say that the bridge is being built in a straight line from the end of the rails on the Canadian Northern railway from the Hudson Bay Junction up to the Pas. But that line was built practically with the peoples' money, 90 miles from Hudson Bay Junction up to the Pas Mission. That 90 miles was guaranteed by the Saskatchewan government to the extent of $13,000 per mile, it was built through muskeg and swamp and rocks and dwarf timber, most of the way through a country that is practically worthless. This government also subsidized it to the extent of 20 square miles per mile, a little over a million acres, given by the people of Canada to build a line up there. The line is not ballasted, only one train or so a week runs over it, it is absplutely worthless to the people cxf Canada to-day. The only possibility of making use of that line is to utilize that bridge which is being -built by the people of this country and build a Mr. CAMPBELL.
line further on, and the minister says that is not the intention.


George Perry Graham: I did not say anything of the kind.


Glenlyon Campbell: The Minister disclaims having said anything of the kind. I made the statement that it was built on the Canadian Northern Railway right of way. He disclaimed that, but it is built there. Absolutely the logical conclusion is that the bridge will be utilized for the purposes of that railway. The people have given over 1,000,000 acres of land for its building and the Saskatchewan government have given a guarantee of $13,000 per mile. If, under the most progressive government which we have in Manitoba, the boundary of our province had been extended at the time we asked for their extension, we would have had the road built to Hudson bay now and in operation. And I wish further to point out that the Conservatives have always been fighting for that road to Hudson bay. The Norquay government of Manitoba in 1888 gave a guarantee of bonds to build the road. They were defeated at the polls in that year and the Greenway government came into power. The Greenway government, a Liberal government, repudiated those bonds. I shall quote from the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' of that year a despatch from Ottawa, dated December 24, bearing out this statement. That despatch reads:
I learn from the Dominion government that the coolness of the Manitoba government regarding the construction of the Hudson Bay road will not warrant them to give a Dominion guarantee of the company's railway bonds. This is no doubt an excuse on their part, but as one minister said it is well taken. ' If.' said he, ' the local government of Manitoba have no confidence in the railway, and from their actions seemingly they have not, how could we pretend to know more than they concerning the matter. The road will now have to wait until local traffic develops to such an extent as to demand its construction.' I may say the government here are delighted over the action of the Green way government in refusing the guarantee of the road made by the Norquay government, and are quietly making considerable political capital from the course pursued. Hitherto Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues professed to be staunch supporters of the Hudson Bay railway scheme, but now see no good in aiding the enterprise in which the local administration have no confidence.
Another despatch in the same paper, the ' Free Press,' says:-
An offer from James Ross, of Montreal, and Mr. Onderdonk, of New York, to complete the Hudson Bay railway in two years, for a guarantee of $4,500,000. This was refused by the Greenway government, who manifested great hostility to the project. If it had not been for this opposition the road would have been built and in operation years ago.

I cite this to show that if there is fault it does not lie with the Conservative party. They have been anxious and at all times willing to do everything in their power to further the building of that road at the request of the people.
I wish to speak on many other things to-night, for probably two hours, but it is late, and I have compassion on you, Mr. Speaker, as sometimes you do not have on me. I must, however, refer to the recent election in Drummond and Arthabaska. I am sure you are tired of listening hour after hour


An hon. MEMBER.: Sure.


Glenlyon Campbell: An hon. gentleman said ' sure.' Is" it the Minister of Marine and Fisheries? I am glad that he confesses that he wasted hour after hour discussing a matter that is dead and past. He shows that he is sore, that the result of the election hurt his feelings, that he felt he had to make excuses for himself. The first time I spoke I reminded him of the old adage: ' qui s'excuse s'aoeuse.' When a man makes an excuse for himself you may be certain he has something to be ashamed of. The world of Shakespeare, The lady doth protest too much methinks,' are true in regard to that minister. I was surprised to see him for nearly an hour absolutely defame the people of his own province, his compatriots. He told the House that they were led astray, that they were fanatical, and anti-British in that if what he said about the Nationalists was true, then the people who voted for the Nationalists are as anti-British and fanatical as he claimed the Nationalists were. It was a surprise to me to hear it and I really do not believe it, because I have a great knowledge of these people. I will tell him why they voted against him. I believe the French Canadians are as intelligent and as loyal as any other of our people, that they have just as much reasoning power as any other people, and that they are like the rest of Canadians as would be shown if we had an election in any other province, they are just as wise to the fact that this government is being run by men who forget that they are not dictators, who use the people's money improperly, who refuse investigations when they are demanded and are absolutely unworthy of the confidence of the people of this country. That is the reason why the people of Drummond and Arthabaska voted against the Laurier candidate.
We hear from that side of the House all kinds of things about members on this side who took part with the Nationalists in that campaign; they have called them absolutely disloyal, they have read speeches out of Grit papers and claimed that our friends were disloyal. I throw it back to the Minister of Marine and his friends that the 21J	.
members on this side of the House were just as loyal as they can be on that side. Take Monsieur Bourassa, take his paper, Le Devoir,' what is it? It is his organ among whom? Among the English speaking people, not among the French. This is the organ that he uses to educate the the people of Quebec up to his ideas of Canadian politics. I will read what Mr. Bourassa says in ' Le Devoir ' which is circulated amongst French Canadians, and the same sentiments appeared in that newspaper before the election and during the election and after the election.


An hon. MEMBER.: Read it in French.


Glenlyon Campbell: I will read it in French or in Cree or in English or in any language you like. I quote from ' Le Devoir ' of October 22.


An hon. MEMBER.: What year.


Glenlyon Campbell: This year. Is that my old friend the Minister of Mines who woke up sufficiently to ask a question? This article says:-
J'irai plus loin-on accuse de faire appel aux sentiments de ma race-j'irai plus loin- si par inu] hon r la France venait attaquer nos rives, je serais le premier a dire: Canadiens-franpais, armez-vous et defendez le drapeau britannique, meme contre la France.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will translate that for you.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want every man in this House to understand that this is the kind of sentiments that Mr. Bourassa, the leader of the Nationalist party in Canada places before his French Canadian citizens. I translate as follows from 'Le Devoir' :-
I would go further; I am accused of making an appeal to the sentiments of my race. If by chance France would attack our shores I would be the first to say, French Canadians arm yourselves and defend the British flag even against France.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


Glenlyon Campbell: Some one over there said 'oh.' I have no doubt that language makes you sick because it shows you that Bourassa is a loyal subject of the British Empire.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He says: Arm yourselves and I will stay at home.


Glenlyon Campbell: That's where you ought to stay. Then Mr. Bourassa goes on to say.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is that?


Glenlyon Campbell: I am speaking of Mr. Bourassa. My hon. friend does not seem to have any common sense, and I would be pleased to put some into him if I had the opportunity. Mr. Bourassa goes on to say,

that if his own children were big enough he would be willing to sacrifice them on the altar of the British Empire, and yet some hon. gentlemen opposite say that Bourassa is disloyal. Well, that is the kind of loyalty that appeals to me, and I am not afraid to acknowledge it. I don't approve of Mr. Bourassa's policy with regard to the navy and I never did. I am a Conservative of a sort of independent type, first, last and all the time. I am something more than that for I believe absolutely in imperial federation. And, Sir, if you will eliminate the Conservative party and its naval policy altogether, forget the Conservative party, forget that they have a policy of that kind, and then take the Liberal policy and the Nationalist policy, and I will vote every time to go to the people and ask them for their mandate before I would build a tin-pot navy that would never be any use. What use is it? In time of peace we don't need it and in time of war it's no good. Just imagine a navy with the Minister of Marine at the head of it. Why, he cannot run the buoys that he has floating ar.ound to mark dangerous shoals. He asks us to entrust him with the running of the navy, but was not the 'Arctic' and the 'Montcalm' and the 'Minnie M.' enough for him? If he runs this navy at the same rate of expenditure as he ran these three old boats it will ruin the people of Canada, and the sooner the navy is blown up the better. Well, I heard stories about the Drummond-Arthabaska election, as well as those we heard from the other side of the House. I heard about the speech of the First Minister at that packed convention in Montreal, that subsidized convention where those who attended were paid four dollars apiece. Speaking in his flowery language to that assembled mob of paid supporters the Prime Minister said: I will accept the decision of Drummond-Arthabaska as the decision of Quebec as to whether they want me or not. Well, he has got his answer and just as sure as he said it, that verdict has gone into the hearts of the people of Canada and he is on the toboggan slide, and we will keep him there. Our friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) reprimanded everybody who was against him but he did not point to his own little shortcomings. In one speech at Victoriaviile he told the people: If you vote for Laurier you are voting for a Canadian navy and if you vote for Borden you are voting for an imperial navy and just as sure as Borden is elected conscription will come. He was the first man of the whole campaign that said anything of that kind and if he is here let him deny it if he can.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: He made no such statement.


Glenlyon Campbell: Do you know anything about it? '


Glenlyon Campbell: -


Victor Geoffrion: Certainly, I know everything about it.


Glenlyon Campbell: I told you the substance of what he said, and as most of the papers down there are Grit papers you can't believe them. Our friend the Solicitor General was in that election, and if the gentleman sitting beside him would wake him up I would like to direct some attention to him. The hon. gentleman sat in an office or a room down in Victoriaviile for several days during that campaign, if I am rightly informed. What was he doing, Sir? He was there with the avowed purpose of settling claims. What were the claims? Claims for an old horse of a Liberal supporter which was hired in the general election and got wounded or died-$400 for that; some hay claims, I guess, to feed the dead horse; little settlements for rigs hired to go here and there. The Solicitor General is in his place, and, if my information is correct he might lay on the table a statement of the exact claims he did settle, the amounts of them, and what amounts are still outstanding.


Mr. BUREAU.: Mr. Speaker, if I cannot lay it on the table, I can give it the flattest denial possible.


Glenlyon Campbell: I did not quite catch what the hon. gentleman said.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend is misinformed. The statement is absolutely untrue.	.	.


Glenlyon Campbell: Then, the hon. gentleman was not there settling claims-am I to understand that?


Jacques Bureau: I was not there settling claims.


Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Speaker, what was he there for-to beat poor Perrault?-because that was the result. I would like to pay a little tribute to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) in passing. He told the House that he was the first man on the ground when that election came on, and the last to leave-and he takes credit to himself-for what? A majority of 1,200 for the gentleman who last represented Drummond and Arthabaska in this House, and 270 now on the other side, a change of nearly 1,500, and he said that if he had been there ten days longer he thought he could have won out. Anybody who knows anything about arithmetic knows that if he had stayed ten days longer, Mr. Perrault would have lost his deposit. I heard a story about my friend from Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet) on the eve of the election, which I think would be interesting for you, Mr. Speaker, to hear. Our friend received a hurry-up call. A meeting was to be held at a certain house, and the hon. member went to attend the

meeting. It was more or less successful for both sides. There were ladies present, and after the meeting the ladies were treated by our friend from Hoehelaga to wine and peanuts-peanuts, Mr. Speaker. What lady would be tempted by a bribe of that kind? Our friend the First Minister was out in British Columbia last summer. He was well received there. He was received by the whole Conservative party of the province. I may say that British Columbia, with almost no exception, is Conservative. We have one of the exceptions here, or two of them, and when I point out to the members these exceptions, they can easily realize that the exception proves the rule. The First Minister was treated in the proper manner by the Conservatives, and in moving up the aisle to the dais that was built for him in the big reception hall, he was heard to say, looking around:	'This is paradise.' I am
sure that when he thinks of the Drummond and Arthabaska election he must say right down in his heart: ' This is purgatbry.' It is my earnest wish that he may long remain there-I only speak politically, because I was taught some scripture, and I realize that at the eleventh hour the greatest sinner may return. There were many other things, Sir, I wanted to bring to your attention, but I have some compassion on you; and, if permitted, I will close with a quotation which I think is most apt. I read ' it on Sunday when I was in my room looking over the good book. You will find it in Matthew, the 15th chapter, and the 7th verse. I think it applies to the Liberal party as constituted to-day, with their professions of loyalty, better than anything else:
Ye hyprocrites well did Isias prophecy of you saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
House divided on amendment to amendment (Mr. R. L.	Borden).
 YEAS: Messieurs
Armstrong,	Lalor,
Arthurs,	Lennox,
Barker,	Lewis,
Barnard,	Macdonell,
Beattie,	McCall,
Best,	Magrath,
Blain,	Marshall,
Borden (Halifax	), Meighen,
Bradbury,	Middlebro,
Bristol,	Owen, Perley,
Broder,	
Burrell,	Porter,
Campbell,	Reid (Grenville),
Chisholm (Huron), Rhodes,	
Clare,	Roche,
Crosby.	Russell,
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Crothers,	Sexsmith,
Currie XSimooe),	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Daniel,	Sharpe (Ontario)
Doherty,	Smyth,
Donnelly,	Sproule,
Edwardte,.	.Stanfield,
Elson,	Staples,
Foster,	Stewart,
Lancaster,	Taylor (Leeds),
Eraser,	Taylor (New West-
Goodeve,	minster),
Haggart (Lanark),	Thoburn,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Thornton,
Henderson,	Wallace,
Herron,	White (Renfrew),
Hughes, .	Wilcox (Essex),
Jameson,	Wilson (Lennox and
Kidd,	Addington) and
Lake,	Wright.-70.
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Allard,	McAllister,
Allen,	McCoig,
Aylcswortb,	McColl,
Beanparlant,	McCraney,
Beland,	McGiverin,
Bickerdike,	McIntyre,
Black,	McKenzie,
Blondin,	McLean (Huron),
Boyer,	McMillan,
Brodeur,	Major,
Brown,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bureau,	Martin (Montreal, St.
Carrier,	Mary's),
Carvell,	Martin (Regina),
Cash,	Martin (Wellington),
Champagne,	Mayrand,
Chew,	Meigs,
Chisholm	Michaud,
(Antigonish)	Miller,
Chisholm (Inverness), Molloy,	
Clark (Red Deer),	Monk,
Congdon,	Murphy,
Conmee,	Nan tel,
Currie (Prince	Nesbitt,
Edward),	Neely, [DOT]
Delisle,	Bapineau,
Demers,	Paqnet,
Douglas,	Pardee,
Dubtau,	Parent,
Ecrement,	Paterson,
Kmmerson,	Pickup,
Ethier,	Proulx,
Fisher,	Prowse,
Fortier,	Pugsley,
Fowke,	Rankin,
Gauvreau,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoflrion,	Richards,
Gervais,	Rivet,
Gilbert,	Robb,
Girard,	Ross (Middlesex),
Gladu,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gordon (Kent),	Roy (Dorchester),
Graham,	Roy (Montmagny),
Guthrie,	Rutan,
Harris,	Savoie,
Harty,	Schell,
Hodgins,	Sealey,
Hunt,	Seguin,
King,	Sinclair,
Knowles,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Kyte,	Smith (Stormont),
Lachance,	Talbot,
Lafortune, .	Templeman,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Tobin,
Napierville),	Todd,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Tolmie,
Lapointe,	Turcotte (Nicolet),

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Turootte (Quebec
Law. LeBianc, Losgie, Lortie, Lovell, Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
County),
Turgeon,
Turriff.
Verville,
Warburton,
White (Victoria,
Alta) and
Wilson (Laval).-126.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Messieurs
Borden (Sir F.), Fielding,
Lemieux,
Oliver,
Sperry,
Smith (Middlesex), Clarke (Esisex), Stratton,
McLean (Sunbury),
Worthington,
Price
McCarthy,
Boyce,
Maddin,
Ames,
Osier,
Gordon (Nipissing), Northrup.
Amendment to the amendment negatived.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member for Al-goma did not vote.


Mr. BOYCE.: I was paired with the Minister of the Interior. Otherwise I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: Where is Mr. Foster?
The House divided on amendment of Mr. Monk.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Crosby,
Crocket^
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Fraser,
Gilbert,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
J ameson,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lennox,


Glenlyon Campbell: Lewis,
Lortie,
McCall,
Magratli,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Nantel,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Roche,
Russell,
Schaffner,
Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster),
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Verville,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox and Addington),
W right.-67.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allard,
Allen,
Avlesworth, Beauparlant,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness) Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Eerement,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Gordon (Kent), Graham,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Harty,
Hcdgins,
Hughes,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
LeBianc,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
MaoNutt,
McAllister,
McCoig,
McColl,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
M olloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup, '
Proulx,
Prowse,
Prgsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex),
Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smitn (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Talbot,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Tureotte (Nieolet), * Turcotte (Quebec County),
Tuigeon,
Turriff,
W arburton,
AVhite (Victoria Alta), Wilson (Laval).-120.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Opposition.
Messieurs
Borden (Sir F.), Fielding,
Lemieux,
Sperry,
Worthington,
Price,
McCarthy,
Maddin,

Smith (Middlesex), Clarke (Essex), Stratton,
McLean (Sunbury), Oliver,
Ames,
Osier,
Gordon (Nip.),
Northiup,
Boyce,
Amendment negatived.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: As I wish to make some remarks in connection with the paragraph in the speech from the throne referring to the recent award in the matter of the North Atlantic fisheries before the Hague Tribunal, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Sir WILFRID LA DRIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. BORDEN.: I would ask my right hon. friend whether he will have the Committee of Public Accounts called as I suggested the other day?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. colleague the Minister of Justice has an important statement to make with regard to the fisheries award before the debate is closed on the address. Then everything will be referred to the Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.25 a.m., Friday.


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	How long have the repairs on the government post office building at Halifax been in progress?
2.	Have they been completed? If not, when is completion expected, and what is the estimated cost?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Contract awarded July 18, 1908.
2.	(a) No.
(b)	The main contract, elevators and fittings for Savings bank will be completed by the end of December. The post office fittings are under consideration by the Post Office Department.
(c)	The main contract was for. . $ 94,000 The heating, lighting and fittings are estimated to cost.. 56,000
Total estimated cost....$150,000



I.C.R.-FREIGHT TRANSFER.

Mr. BORDEN:: 1. Was a letter in the following form, or to the following effect, sent by any official of the Intercolonial Railway to the freight agent at Moncton, or to any other official of the said railway:-
Moncton, October 21, 1910.


Mr. H.: McLeod,
Freight Agent, I.C.R., Moncton.
Dear Sir,-I have been instructed to notify you that in future instead of depending on the track department to furnish men to transfer freight from disabled cars here that you will notifv either James Doyle or John T. Hawke, giving them a day's notice when you have rough goods of any description to be handled and they will furnish the required help. This is, of course, when it will not cause a serious delay to the freight.
Yours truly,



H. B. FLEMING,

[Stage Direction]
Chief Despateher.
2.	If so, by whom and to whom was the said
letter sent?	.
3.	By whose authority and at whose instance was it sent?
4.	Have James Doyle and John T. Hawke, or either of them, any and what official connection with or position in the service of the
said railway?	.	...	.
5.	What are the official positions of the person by whom and the person to whom the said letter was sent?
George Perry Graham: The letter was sent by the chief train desnatcher to the acting station master and the local freight agent, as a result of a suggestion made by Die divisional superintendent to facilitate the getting of men for the transferring of this freight. Messrs. John T. Hawke and James Doyle, have no official connection with, or position in the service of the railway.
In explanation it might be added that this work is merely temporary, lasting, usually, a few hours. The trackmen had been doing it after hours, and were being paid time and a half for it. The station agent and freight agent informed the superintendent, that they could not get men to do this temporary work, and the superintendent suggested that this other arrangement be made to get men without delay wrhen needed.
G.	T. R. TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.


Mr. WALLACE:: Did the government make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk railway and its trainmen and conductors that all would be reinstated within a period of ninety days, as a basis of settlement of recent strike? If so, why has that agreement not been carried out?


Mr. KING.: The agreement which was the basis of settlement of the recent strike was made between the parties to the dispute and not between the government and the parties. Section 1 of that agreement provided that:-
* 1. The company will put back as soon as possible the men other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the ' new men.'

An assurance was given by the company that by the words, 'as soon as possible' in this section was meant a period not exceeding three months from the date of the settlement. In a communication dated November 10, Mr. Hays, president of the company, says:-
' In the opinion of the officers of this company our undertaking to re-employ all who were not found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct has been complied with.'
-The government has been informed by the representatives of the men that they take the position that the officers of the company have not carried out that part of the agreement; the government has so informed Mr. Hays and has strongly urged a re-consideration of the cases of all men involved in the recent strike who have not as yet been restored to the company's service.
black head in turkeys.


Mr. ELSON:: 
Mr. FISHER:: 1.	As far back as 1899 investigation was made as to the cause of a disease known as blackhead among turkeys. In the Annual Report of the Experimental Farms for that year full particulars are given on pages 229 and 221, of the nature of this disease, its symptoms and the treatment recommended for it. Also on page 12 of Bulletin No. 9 entitled, 'Diseases and Parasites of poultry,' published in 1905, particulars are given of this disease.
2.	No remedy has yet been discovered for this disease.
3.	Investigations are at present being conducted at the Biological Laboratory of the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture and it is hoped that some practical measures for dealing with this disease may be found before very long.



CANADIAN GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	What is the total amount paid by the Department of Railways and Canals to the Canadian General Development Company since the 31st March, 1910, up to the present date?
2.	What is the total amount paid to the same company by the Department of Public Works since the 31st March, 1910, up to the present date?


Mr. KING.: 3.	Has the Canadian General Development Company any contracts with the government at the present time? If so, with what departments ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Amount paid by the Department of Railways and Canals, to the Canadian General Development Company, from the 31st March, 1910, to the present date, $41,681.68.
2.	No payment has been made to the above company, by the Department of Public Works, during that time.
3.	The Canadian General Development Company have now a contract with the Department of Railways and Canals, for section number three of the Ontario-Rice lake division of the Trent canal, and also a contract for the wharf and basin on the Laehine canal, Montreal, in each case their tender being the lowest.



NOVA SCOTIA POSTMASTERS.

Mr. RHODES:: Who is the postmaster at Colling nood Corner, Cumberland County, N.S., when was he appointed and who was his immediate predecessor in office ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Charles Bragg is postmaster of Collingwood Corner, N.S. He was appointed on the 1st of February, 1905. His immediate predecessor was Mr. J. W. Schurman.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Who is the postmaster at Jackson* Cumberland County, N.S., how long has he held office, and who was his immediate predecessor in office?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. E. F.
Jackson is postmaster of Jackson, N.S. He has held office since the 1st August, 1909. His immediate predecessor was Mr. William Jackson.



NEW EXPERIMENTAL FARMS.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: How many new experimental farms have been established by the government during the past vear and where located, and the number of acres contained in each?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: An experimental farm station has been established near Scott, Sask., on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, 103 miles northwest of Saskatoon. It consists of 220 acres.
An experimental fruit station has also been established near Kentyille, N.S., containing about one hundred acres.



BRITISH PATRIOTIC SONGS.

Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the matter referred to in the following extract:-

OPPOSE 'RULE BRITANNIA/
Children of American Settlers in West object to British Anthems.
Calgary, November 21.-At the Technical Education Commission's meeting here there was incidental evidence given as to trouble over the singing of British patriotic songs in the schools where there were children of United States settlers. Inspector Boyce, of Red Deer, in reply to Dr. Bryce, said that some trouble had arisen in respect to the singing of British patriotic songs, such as Rule Britannia in the rural districts. Americans did not mind so much Canadian songs, but feeling arose when purely British songs were sung.
' Is the singing of these songs insisted on ?' asked the Honourable Mr. Armstrong.
Inspector Boyce replied that national songs were used at first in singing lessons, but where objection was taken the songs objected to had been mostly dropped. ' We want peace in Canada,' commented Mr. Armstrong.
2.	What Technical Education Commission is referred to in the above extract?
3.	Is it one appointed by the Dominion government? If so, who are its members?
4.	Who is the Honourable Mr. Armstrong referred to?
5.	Is the proper and best way to preserve neace in Canada, to get under the bed, or take to the cellar every time impudence, intolerance, effrontery and oppression show themselves ?
6.	Are immigrants to Canada instructed that this, is a British country, and that it is the intention for it to remain so?


George Gerald King: 1,	2, 3, and 4. The government's attention 'has not been called to the extract referred to, and in the absence of an official copy of the evidence taken before the Commission on Technical Education appointed by the Federal Government, it would not be possible to say whether the extract in question is an accurate account of proceedings.
5.	This is not a proper question to be asked of the Ministry.
6.	Immigrants are given the necessary information in this connection.



NOVA SCOTIA BREAKWATERS.

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Have contracts been let for the construction of a breakwater at New Edinboro', Digby County, and for the extension of White's Cove breakwater, Digby County? If so, when and to whom?
2.	What are the respective contract prices, and when are the works to be completed?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. Contract for New Edinboro breakwater has been awarded to J. E. and
H.	Bigelow at $11,900, work to be completed in twelve months from the date of signing contract.
For Whits's Cove, the Chief Engineer is under instructions to have contract plans and specifications prepared.



FENIAN RAID VETERANS.

Mr. BEAUPARLANT:: Does the government intend to do anything for the survivors of the volunteers who went to reoel the Fenian invasion? If so, what does it intend to do?	.


Frederick William Borden: In reply to a somewhat similar question asked last session (see Revised ' Hansard,' Session 1909-1910, Volume I, page 780), the minister stated as follows :-' The services of those who took part in repelling the Fenian Raids of 1866 and 1870 were recognized by the granting of a medal, under the authority of Her Majesty the late Queen. That medal was awarded to all those who took part in repelling the raids. I am not aware that any promise has been made beyond that to which I have referred, and which has been fulfilled.'



QUEBEC BRIDGE.

Mr. NORTHRUP:: 1.	What soundings or investigations were
made to ascertain the nature of the river bed at the site of the Quebec bridge?	.
2.	Is the government aware that no solid
foundation has been found for one of the piers ?	,
3.	If it has not been so informed, will it inquire into the fact?
4.	Is the government aware that sonqe time after the Quebec bridge disaster it was ascertained that the pier on which the fallen structure had rested w-as one inch lower than when work was started on the superstructure?
5.	Has the government taken any steps to ascertain how said pier was on the day of the disaster?
6.	Is the government aware that the said
pier subsequently regained, or practically regained, its position?	_
7.	How is this regaining of position accounted for?
8.	Were any tests made of the velocity of the wind at the bridge before the disaster?
9.	Have any been made since?
10.	When, and by whom were said tests, if any, first made?
11.	How does the velocity of the wind at the bridge site compare with that at other points on the river outside the ranges of cliffs which are on both sides of the bridge?
12.	Was the information as to the nature of the river bed, the velocity of the wind and the sinking and rising of the pier laid before the engineers acting for the government ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Borings were made by the Board of Engineers, Quebec Bridge, at the site of the bridge, during the summer of 1909. 19 holes in all were made; 10 on the south side and 9 on the north side. All these holes were carried down to rock.
2.	The north main pier is founded on rock. The south main pier is on solid

foundation, 79 feet below ordinary high water level.
3.	See question number two.
4.	Variations of level of pier are shown on drawing No. 14, accompanying the report of the Royal Commtisison of Inquiry. These variations amount to about one-eighth of an inch.
5.	Yes, as shown in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry as noted in answer No. 4 above.
6.	Answered by No. 4.
7.	Covered by answer No. 4.
8.	Yes, see page 152 of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, volume No. 1, also pages 292, 293, volume No. 2. The maximum velocity of wind is stated as 60 miles per hour.
9.	No tests have been made by the Board of Engineers, Quebec bridge.
10.	Tests of the velocity of the wind were made by the Phoenix Bridge Company and the Quebec observatory.
11.	Comparisons were made with Quebec observatory; see pages 293 and 294 of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry. The bridge is calculated to resist strains due to wind, having a velocity of 100 miles per hour in any direction.
12.	It is the duty of the members of the Board of Engineers, Quebec bridge, to obtain all information necessary for the construction of the bridge, and all information in the. hands of the department has been given to them.



THE CENSUS.

Mr. ECREMENT:: V Roes the government intend to lay before this House before discussion, the complete list of questions prepared in view of the next
census ?
2.	Has the list of questions of 1901 been changed? If so, what are the principal changes ?
3.	As to what concerns the industrial census, what changes does the government intend to make in the proceedings and texts adopted up to the present?
4.	In the industrial census, does the government intend to add an enumeration of the industries employing one or more salaried persons and the enumeration of commercial houses ?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	The schedules for the census of 1911 consist of thirteen regular schedules for use in all organized provinces of the Dominion, and three special schedules for use in the Northwest Territories, and were published in the ' Canada Gazette ' of July 9, 1910.
The thirteen regular schedules relate to the subjects of:-
1.	Population by name, personal description. etc.
2.	Mortality, disability and compensation.


Mr. GRAHAM.: 3.	Heads of families, post office addresses, houses and buildings, occupied land, fruit trees and their products.
4.	Grain and other field crops for the harvest year 1910.
5.	Hoed crops, tobacco, hops and grass seeds in 1910, and field crop areas in 1911.
6.	Animals and animal products.
7.	Farm and urban values.
8.	Forest products in 1910.
9.	Manufactures.
10.	Churches, schools, colleges and other institutions.
11.	Fisheries.
12.	Butter and cheese factories.
13.	Mining and mineral products.
The three special schedules relate to population and mortality and the production of furs and skins, and of fish, whales and seals in the Northwest Territories.
2.	The subjects of inquiry are practically the same for the census years 1910 and 1911; but for the latter year there are questions relating to life and accident insurance, and to accidents and disability and compensation in cases of accidents during the census year.
3.	There are no essential changes in the schedule of manufactures, but in the proceedings of enumeration it is proposed to have the census of 1911 taken by the regular enumerators instead of by special agents as in 1901.
4.	Except as specially provided in the instructions, the census of industries will be limited to establishments employing not less than five persons at any period of the census year. Industries such as saw mills, flour mills, dairy factories, brick and tile works, fish curing plants, etc., specified in the instructions, will be taken whether the number of persons employed is less or more than five. Commercial houses will not be enumerated to show the volume of their business.



CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

Arthur Ecrément: How many copies have been printed of the first report of the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources, and how many have been distributed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 12,500 copies of the First Report of the Conservation Commission were printed, of which 9,574 copies have been distributed.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.

Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar) :: 1.	Has the government let any contracts for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway?
2.	If so, to whom, for what part of the road, at what expense, and when is such contract to be completed?

3.	Has the government decided on what policy the road will be operated after completion? If so, what is the policy?
4.	Has the government entered into any negotiations or contract with any person or persons with a view of leasing the road to any person or company after completion?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The government has let contracts for the construction of the La Pas bridge over the Saskatchewan river ; the initial link of the Hudson Bay railway.
2.	A contract for the substructure of the bridge at La Pas, has 'been awarded to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, at schedule prices, amount estimated at $104,870, then-tender being the lowest. A contract has also been let for the superstructure of the aboye bridge, to the Canadian Foundry Company, at schedule prices, amount estimated at $171,500, their tender being the lowest.
3.	No.
4.	No.
SS. ' CANADA./


Mr. MONK :: 1.	What is the subsidy paid to the Fraser-ville Navigation Company for the steamship ' Canada ' on the route known as the Gaspe and Campbellton route?
2.	Is it true that the boilers of this steamer are in an unsatisfactory state and that the service is defective?
3. Is it true that The ' Canada' of ten omits to call at the different ports?
4.	Have petitions been sent into the government in regard to this service? If so, how has the matter been dealt with?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to renew the subsidy?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	The contract amount is $15,000 for a full service. During the year 1909-10 there were deductions made to the amount of $2,125. During the current year to date $2,000 has been deducted.
2.	The boilers of the ' Canada 1 were inspected and tested on the 13th May, 1910, by the steamboat inspector. They were found satisfactory and a certificate was granted, good until the 17th May, 1911.
3.	Calls are sometimes omitted for a variety of reasons ; no cargo offering or perhaps heavy weather.
4.	Yes. The complaints have been brought to the attention of the contractors and they were informed that the conditions as represented would not be longer tolerated.
5.	The contract does not expire until the close of navigation, 1912. The department, however, has just received notice to effect that the company has gone into liquidation.



EXPERIMENTAL FARM TESTS.

Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):: 1.	What was the average amount of milk produced from the milking herd at the Experimental Farm during the last year?
2.	What was the largest amount of milk produced by any one cow during the last year ?
3.	In what way are the eggs disposed of at the Experimental Farm?
4.	If sold, to whom are they sold and at what prices? '
5.	How many of the departments at the Experimental Farm are self-sustaining?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	For all cows and heifers in milk 9
months or over, the average was 6,115 lbs. of milk.	.	,
2.	An Ayrshire cow, named Marjorie
(16535) in her last lactation period, produced 10,783 lbs. of milk, giving 461,-26 lbs. of butter fat.	_
3.	They aTe sold or are used for hatching purposes by the poultry division.
4.	They are sold to applicants on the Experimental Farm and in the city as far as the supply will admit. The prices realized during the past year have been as follows:
1909.
December	50 cents per dozen.
1910.
January	50	"February	45	"March	35 & 40	"April, May, .tune, July.. 25	"August	30September	30	^October	35	^November	45
Many of the eggs are also sold during the spring months for hatching purposes at $1.00 per setting of 15 eggs. The applicants, who are principally farmers, pay the express charges.
5.	Most of the work done in the several divisions in which the farm work is divided is purely experimental and educational. This makes a large and profitable return in the practical information gained, which is given to the farmers of Canada in the Annual Reports and Bulletins and in the large correspondence conducted, which, during the last fiscal year, amounted to over 44,000 letters.
There are, however, branches of the work where the revenue or products yielded more than pay for the expenditure and labour in connection with that branch. The following may be said to be self-sustaining:- ' The 200-acre farm,' dairy cattle beef cattle, horses, sheep and swine.



DRY FARMING CONVENTION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG-
Did the Canadian government have any representatives at the Dry Farming Convention,
[Stage Direction]
held last fall at Spokane? If so, who were the delegates and have they made a report?
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. The Honourable Senator Bostock of Ducks, B. C., and Mr. W. H. Fairfield, Superintendent of the Experimental Station at Lethbridge, Alberta.
No report has yet been received.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO :: 1.	How many investigations have taken place under the Combines Investigation Act, 1910?
2.	What was the name of each alleged combine?
3.	What was the result of such investigations in each case?
i. What was the cost thereof in each case?


George Gerald King: 1, 2, 3, and 4. No investigations have, as yet taken place under the Combines Investigation Act, but an application is at present time pending before Mr. Justice Cannon, Quebec, on behalf of a number of Quebec citizens for an investigation under this Act into the operations of the United Shoe Machinery Company of Canada.

Friday, December 2, 1910.