1913-05-15

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What amount has been paid annually out of the Consolidated Fund Account on account of the construction of the Transcontinental railway since the beginning to the end of the fiscal year 1912-13?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The amount paid
annually out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on account of the construction of the National Transcontinental railway since the beginning to the end of the fiscal year 1912-13 is as follows:
1904	$	6,249 401905	
778,491	281906	
1,841,269	951907	
5.537,867	501908	
18,910,253	581909	
24,892,351	231910	
19,968,064	311911	
23,487,986	191912	
21,110,352	051913	
12,787,059	53Total	$129,319,945 02


ILE PERROT BRIDGE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Did the hon. Minister of Public Works know of or authorize the sending of the telegram hereunder to the mayors, clerks of councils and other municipalities in the counties of Glengarry, Prescott, Soulanges and Vaudreuil:-
'Montreal, Quebec, May 2, 1913.
'Government Highways Bill is now before the Senate. You should ask your member to urge upon Senate to adopt this important Bill. We have the assurance of the Minister of Public Works, that the first money will be spent on Montreal-Toronto highway and lie Perrot bridge.	i
'(Signed) G. A. McNamee, 'Secretary Interprovincial Highways and Bridge Committee.'
2.	Has the hon. Minister of Public Works made a similar declaration and promise?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Have no knowledge of telegram referred to.
2.	When large deputation representing boards of trade and municipal organizations in province of Ontario and province of Quebec waited upon Minister of Public Works regarding construction of bridge at lie Perrot he assured the deputation that he was satisfied from his knowledge of the anxiety on the part of the Premier of the province of Quebec to see this 'bridge constructed that there would be no difficulty in arranging with the Minister of Railways and Canals to have a sufficient sum, provided for this purpose, as soon as his Highway Bill was passed.
Mr. ROGERS.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY WORKSHOPS AND SITES.
*Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Were plans ever made for workshops of the Transcontinental near Quebec bridge site, parish of Ste. Foye, Quebec county ? If so, by whom and when were these plans signed by engineers of the Transcontinental and by engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific?
2.	Were these plans ever approved by Mr. Chamberlain, the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and by the Transcontinental 'Commission?


Francis Cochrane: 1 and 2. Yes. A plan showing general arrangement was signed by engineers and officers of the commission and by E. J. Chamberlain, Vice-President, Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and approved by the commissioners in April, 1911.


*Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Has the Gorernment or the Transcontinental Commission purchased land at Ste. Foye; near Quebec bridge site, for the purpose of erecting thereon workshops for the Transcontinental railway? If so, when and what area was bought, at what price per acre, and from whom?
2.	If such a site has been bought, have,
there been any improvements made on this site in the way of levelling the grounds? If so, who has done the work, and what has been! the cost?	1
3.	Has the (Minister of Railways ever declared that workshops would be erected at Ste. Foye, near Quebec bridge site, commonly known as Cap Rouge?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. GERMAN:: I would like to call the
attention of the minister to the fact that he did not answer the third part of the question.


Francis Cochrane: It is under consideration.


*Mr. McGRANEY:: 1.	Has the Government or the Transcontinental Commission bought land at a place called St. Malo at or near Quebec?
2.	If so, when, from -whom and at what price per acre, how many acres, and for what purpose was this land bought?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September, 1912; Association Terrain Sans Bruit; 169.76 arpents; $1,017.68 per arpent. For Transcontinental railway purposes.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: Is the Government or the Transcontinental* Commission trying to buy a strip of land 100 feet, more or less, in width along the Cana-l dian Pacific railway line from, at, or near St.

Malo, right into Quebec as far as the Palais Canadian Pacific railway station?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: 1.	Has the Government or the Transcontinental Commission decided to change the lo-t cation of the Grand Trunk Pacific workshop^ from Cap Rouge to St. Malo? If so, when, and why?
2.	Is St. Malo situated on the main line of the Transcontinental or Canadian Pacific! railway or Canadian Northern railway?
3.	Has the Government or the Transcontinental Commission decided to make a tunnel through the Quebec promontory to St. Malo? If se, when were plans prepared, and what is the estimated cost of same?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Building of any shops now under consideration.
2.	On the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway.
3.	No.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	Has anything been decided by the Government or the Transcontinental Commission about a union station in Quebec at the Palais' near the present Canadian Pacific railway station? If so, when?
2.	Have plans been prepared for a union station at Quebec? If so, by whom and what will be the cost of such a station?
3.	Has the Postmaster General declared at a public meeting at Lorette that large shops were to be erected in his own county in Quebec at Cap Rouge?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Not by the commission.
3.	This department has no information.


PORT FELIX LIGHTKEEPER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has W. C. Boudreau, lightkeeper, Port Felix, N.S., been dismissed?
2.	If so, when, and for what reason?
3.	On whose complaint was the dismissal
made ?	>
4.	Was there an investigation?
5.	If so, what are the names of the witnesses?	-	i
6.	What was his salary?
7.	Who has been appointed to the position, on wrhose recommendation, and at what salary?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By Order in Council dated 21st March, 1913. Inattention and farming out duties of the office.
3.	Mr. W. H. David, Mr. M. Boudreau, Capt. B. Boudreau, Mr. G. A. R. Rawlings.
4 An inquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Lights, Nova Scotia.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	$380 per annum.
7. (a) Mr. W. H. David, (b) Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings, (c) $320 per annum with annual increments of $15 to a maximum of $380.


LOBSTER FISHING LICENSES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Does the Department of Marine and Fisheries issue licenses enabling dealers or fishermen to store live lobsters and dispose of same after the close of the fishing season?
2.	If so, what is the regulation under which such licenses are issued ?
3.	What fee is chargeable, if any?
4.	How many licenses have been issued since January 1, 1913?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1 and 2. Yes, under the conditions specified in 1-2, George V., chapter 9, section 5.
3.	$75 per annum.
4.	None.


CAN SO LOBSTER HATCHERY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has there been any delay in opening the lobster hatchery at Canso, N.S., this season? If so, what is the cause of the delay?
2.	At what dates did operations commence in this hatchery in 1910, 1911 and 1912?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. Delay caused by manufacturers not being able to deliver new boiler on date promised. Old boiler beyond repair.
2.	1910, May 10; 1911, April 30; 1912, May 10.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I want to call your attention to a question of privilege. I notice in this morning's Citizen the announcement that I took luncheon yesterday with the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Hughes). That statement is absolutely contrary to the fact. I do not wish it for a moment to be understood that I object to lunching with the Minister of Militia in his private capacity. I have always found him in private life a man of very great personal charm, and in case there should be any doubt on the point, I would like to have it understood that I am rather open for an opportunity. But the gathering of yesterday appears to have been purely one of military celebrities. I am not eligible to meet such gentlemen, and I want it to be understood by this House and the country that I was not there, lest my well known reputation as a man of peace should be compromised.



NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No.
[Stage Direction]
21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval. Forces of the Empire.
William Manley German: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a tew final words in connection with this Bill, which has occupied the time of this House so long and which has attracted a considerable degree of attention throughout the country. We have spent a lot of time over the discussion of this Bill, both in its initial stages and in committee, but I really think, Sir, that notwithstanding the fact that a good deal of time has been occupied, that there have been some compensating advantages. If the discussion has done nothing else, it has established the fact that in this House are men who, for oratory, for precise argument, for tactical knowledge and for physical endurance, are the equals of the members of any deliberative assembly in the world. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House at any length, and I think that I will keep quite within a reasonable distance of closure limitations. It has been said, and is being said, that Parliament should be unanimous on this question of aid to the British naval service. I wish to state, Sir, and I believe that in this I voice the feelings and opinions of every hon. gentleman on this side of the House, that we desire to have this Parliament united on this great question and that we have shown our desire to have both Parliament and the people of the country united upon it. If we are not united on this question, the one man who is responsible is the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) himself. He is the father of this Bill, he is the gentleman who introduced it. It has been stated in this House, time after time, and I wish to repeat it, that everything that can be done under the Naval Aid Act, which we are now asked to read a third time, can be done under the Naval Service Act, which the right hon. Prime Minister assisted in placing on the statute-book, and which he at that time approved of. Hon. gentlemen have been challenged to deny or controvert that statement if possible. There has never been a word uttered in contradiction of it.
It cannot be successfully contradicted that everything that can be done under this Act can be done under the Naval Service Act with the approval of Parliament. Who says that Parliament should not approve ? Shall the Governor in Council control this subject or shall Parliament control it ? When we have stated that, we have stated practically the issue between the parties in this contest. That being so, why should the right hon. gentleman have introduced this Bill, which he knew would be a contentious Bill and which he knew the Liberals of this House and the country could not accept if they Mr. BORDEN
were to be consistent with the record of the past ? He knew that the very same principle was embodied in the Highways Bill, introduced last year by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane). He knew that the Liberals opposed that Highways Bill because it took out of the control of Parliament the expenditure of a million dollars of public money and placed that control in the hands of a minister of the Crown absolutely and only to do as he saw fit, either in any one year, or in succeeding years, and at such times as he desired to spend the money. He knew that this was a contentious Bill, but, notwithstanding that, he saw fit to oast into the arena of politics a Bill which he knew the Liberals could not accept. The	right hon.
gentleman was equally responsible with us for the passing of	the^ Naval
Service Act. There was no dissension if I remember rightly, he moved that the ships, when built, should be placed at the service of the British Admiralty whenever necessary, and that Parliament should have no voice in the matter. That was disputed for a time, but hon. gentlemen opposite conceded that proposition to the then Government, and the Bill passed practically without a dissenting voice on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite except that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) moved that it should first receive the approval of the people of Canada. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman did not attack in any way the principle of the Bill; therefore I say that he is equally responsible with us for the passing of the Naval Service Act. Why then should he insist on forcing through Parliament a Bill which he can do no more than he can do under the Naval Service Act, especially in view of the fact that it creates dissension in this country'! If the Government had taken proceedings under the Naval Service Act, this aid to the British Admiralty for maintaining the supremacy of the British Empire upon the sea would have been given unanimously. My right hon. friend, however, launched into the arena of politics this Bill which he knew we were bound to oppose. The only reason that can be given for his action, that has been stated and that has not been contradicted, is that the righ t hon. gentleman is bound and gagged by his Nationalist colleagues from the province of Quebec. Let him come back to the position which he occupied in 1910. Let him cast his Nationalist colleagues overboard. Similar action was taken in years gone by when old Jonah was cast overboard to calm the raging tempest. Let him do the same here and calm the raging tempest of to-day; then he can build his ships and launch them in still waters.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. member mean to say that the Nationalists have not

voted with the Opposition against the Naval Bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken. Some of them have voted against the Government in order to save their political hides when they go back to their constituents, because they are pledged to vote against any sort of naval aid to Great Britain.
There is no reason why both parties should not get together on this question. I propose to give my right hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite another chance to join with us, so that whatever is done will be done unanimously. Before I sit down, I intend to move in amendment a motion similar to the one I moved in Committee of the Whole, namely:
That upon appropriations in that behalf being from time to time made by Parliament, there may be paid and applied from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of speedily increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
My right hon. friend expressed himself a few days ago as though that amendment would be of no effect. As reported on page 9669 of ' Hansard,' he stated that I was willing to make an appropriation under the Naval Service Act at once, and if that appropriation were made all these dreadful powers would be vested in the Governor in Council immediately. I deny that absolutely. If this amendment is ad pted, the money will be voted eventually, but it will be voted from year to year. He further said:
I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that we are asking for an appropriation and we are also consulting Parliament as to the purpose for which that appropriation shall be applied. Therefore, Parliament is being consulted as effectually now and as freely as it could be under the provisions of the Naval Service Act of 1910.
I deny that absolutely and in toto. What do we find? Let us take a very apt illustration in connection with the construction of the Welland canal, the cost of which is estimated to be an amount similar to the cost of construction of these three dreadnoughts. The length of time required for the construction of that canal will be practically the same as for the construction of these dreadnoughts. My right hon. friend might just as well say that the Government could ask Parliament to appropriate $40,000,000 for the construction of a new Welland ship canal, the expenditure of which would extend over four years, as that they could ask Parliament to vote $35,000,000 for the construction of these three dreadnoughts, the expenditure of which will extend over at least three
years, and to place that money in the hands of a minister of the Crown to expend during that period. The cases are absolutely parallel. If Parliament has the right to vote an appropriation of millions of dollars, the expenditure of which shall extend over three or four years, it has just as much right to vote an appropriation of a hundred million dollars, the expenditure of which shall extend over ten, fifteen or twenty years, that money to be in the hands of a minister of the Crown and under his control during those years without Parliament having a word to say in the matter. The right hon. gentleman would not introduce such a proposition, much less support it, in this House; but that is what he is endeavouring to do by this Bill. He says: Oh, but the Governor General in Council under the Naval Service Act has the right to purchase supplies. Certainly, and the Governor General in Council has the right under any Act of Parliament to expend the public money- for how long without the approval of Parliament? For three years? Not at ail. For one year, and one year only, and then the Government have to come to Parliament and give an account of their stewardship to the people whose servants they are. That is what we insist on and that is what is embodied in the Naval Service Act. That is the principle which my right hon. friend supported in 1910, but which he is violating at this moment in connection with the Naval Aid Bill.


Mr. LALOR:: Are you in favour of the principle of this Bill, that is, of the purchase of three of the largest dreadnoughts in the world?


William Manley German: I do not see that I can explain my attitude more clearly than I have done. If my right hon. friend will withdraw this Bill now and take action under the Naval Service Act, which he helped to place on the statute book, and ask for an appropriation-he says $10,000,000-towards the building of dreadnoughts in Great Britain, I for one will support that proposition and I believe the Liberals, in the province of Ontario at any rate, will support it. But no, we will not do that. Why? Because he is pledged to the Nationalists to repeal that Act.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Then, do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he would be in favour of this Bill if the amount were voted yearly instead of in one sum?


William Manley German: As I have said, time and time again, I am not in favour of this Bill at all, because it involves principles subversive of every principle that Liberals have fought for since time immemoral. My hon. friend seems to think that there is nothing in the question of the expenditure of money

being controlled by the Governor in Council as against being controlled by Parliament. Sir, I stated before and I state again, that that question was one of the burning questions in Canada in 1834-5-6-7. It was one of the questions which created a rebellion in Upper Canada at that time. Let hon. gentlemen look at the report of the committee of grievances made in 1835, the chairman of which was William Lyon Mackenzie. That report says, speaking of the British constitution:
The annual assembly of Parliament was rendered necessary in the first place by the strict appropriation of the revenue according to the votes of supply. No such system of checks and balances to protect from executive usurpation of popular right can he found in Upper Canada.
And, Sir, throughout the whole history of that time that was one of the burning questions; and this right of Parliament to control expenditure was one of the principles established at that time-unfortunately with bloodshed and death, but firmly established-in the constitution of Canada. From that moment, never an attempt was made to override or interfere in any way with the operation of that principle until 1870, when the coalition government of John Sandfield Macdonald passed through the legislature at Toronto a Bill similar to the one which my right hon. friend is now asking us to pass, which appropriated $1,500,000 to be handed over to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to be used by them in aid of the construction of railroads without any supervision or control thereof by Parliament. Edward Blake, as has already been said, opposed that proposition and said it was subversive of the principle of the Canadian constitution. The parties, in 1871, went to the people of the province of Ontario on that issue and that issue alone, and on that issue, and that issue alone, the Government of John Sandfield Macdonald was defeated, showing that the people of Ontario saw the absolute necessity of maintaining the popular rights which they had achieved in 1837. No other similar attempt was made until, when? Last year this Government introduced their Highways Bill embodying exactly the same principle. The sixth clause of that Bill provided that $1,000,000 could be spent by the minister of 'the Crown as he saw fit. That was the principle involved, and that was the principle we in this House of Commons combatted. And that was the principle on which the Senate voted when they amended the Bill by "striking out that clause. That same principle is involved in the Bill now before this House. I have been charged with saying that the Senate would throw out this Bill. I did say so. I do not know what the Senate will do, speaking from knowledge; I know no more about what the Sen-Mr. GERMAN.
ate will do in regard to this Bill than does any other hon. member of this House. But I do know this, that the principles which dominate in the Senate to-day are the principles of the Liberal party, the principles held on this side of the House. If these principles are as well lounded in the Senate as they are on this side of this House then that Bill cannot live long after it reaches the Senate.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is going to Toronto, and will, without doubt, on next Monday night, address an assembly large in numbers'-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: -as did my right hon. leader a week ago-large in numbers and strong in enthusiasm. I would like the right hon. gentleman to take the message to the people of Toronto, and I would like this message to go to the uttermost parts of this great Dominion:	That we on this
side of the House desire to join gentlemen on the opposite side of the House in putting through Parliament a measure of aid to the British naval service which will be unanimous and will be approved by the people, aid which when granted will be of real assistance to Great Britain by reason of the fact that the united sentiment of Canada is behind it. I want him to take this message, that if he will go back to where he stood in 1909 and 1910, we can be unanimous. If he will adopt the amendment that I am moving now and the other amendments which will be moved, and which are similar to those that we have already moved, we then can get together on this question. If he will but refrain from going back on every record of the past, every utterance that he made in this House in 1909 and 1910; if he will stand by the Bill which he helped to place on the statute-book in 1910, we shall be a united people and the ships can be built and sent forth to aid the British service in any portion of the seas. That is the proper thing for the Government to do; that is what we have been struggling for and are struggling for now. And, though we shall have no further opportunity-and want no further opportunity so far as that is concerned-of discussing this matter in this House, we should like to see unanimity; we should like to see the proposition suggested by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) carried out when he urged that in this matter all parties in Canada should
-run
Like the horses of the sun,
All abreast.
For these reasons, I am pleased to move the amendment which I now have the honour to place in your hands:

That this Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House with instructions to strike out Clause 2 thereof, and substitute the following:
Upon appropriations in that behalf being from time to time made by Parliament, there may be paid and applied from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of speedily increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. German) so far as I am able to appreciate his remarks, has said nothing on the present occasion that he has not already said on two or three previous occasions; and, as I then endeavoured to make what answers seemed to be appropriate, he will pardon me if I do not follow him at any very great length now. He has urged upon us that nothing could be done under this Bill which could not be done under the Naval Service Act of 1910 with an appropriation. I repeat that if that be the case it i3 utterly inconceivable to me why the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House should have presented the opposition that they have presented to this Bill. It does no more, says the hon. gentleman, than can be done under the Naval Service Act of 1910; and yet they oppose it to the last gasp and declare that it is absolutely subversive of every principle of Liberalism. My hon. friend is not very logical, and, more than that, he is not very accurate; because, in referring to our attitude on the Naval Service Bill of 1910, he has stated that the Conservative party in this House, including myself, supported that Bill. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman -and he can verify my statement by reference to the records-that that Bill went to a vote upon the third reading, and that it was carried by a vote of 111 to 70, a majority of 41. He asks me why I do not go back to the policy of 1910. Does he remember the policy that we advocated in 1910? I shall read to him one clause of it. moved by myself on the second reading. It was as follows:
That the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities of the Empire can best he discharged and met by placing without delay at the disposal of the Imperial authorities, as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada, such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two battleships or armoured cruisers of the latest dreadnought type, giving to the Admiralty full discretion to expend the said sum at such time and for such purposes of naval defence as in their judgment may best serve to increase the united strength of the Empire and thus assure its peace and security.
And yet the bon. gentleman suggests that we are departing from the policy which
we advocated on that occasion. I take exception to his remarks and join absolute issue with him. My hon. Mend has repeated that there is some understanding or agreement between the Liberal-Conservative party and certain gentlemen in Quebec whom he describes as Nationalists. He has repeated that, notwithstanding my assurance to him on two previous occasions during the present session that there was no pledge an.l no promise that had not been made public. Since he has introduced the subject, I would tell him that I myself, sitting in this House, heard the chief of the Nationalists, state that he was putting forward no principle and that he propounded no policy that he had not learned from my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier); and I would remind him further-


Mr. GRAHAM:: I think he has backslid.


Robert Laird Borden: -that while he stated his principles and his policy, he declared in the hearing of the House at that time-and my right hon. friend did not 'contradict him-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I did not contradict him, but he has fallen from grace since.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend did not contradict the statement made by him on that occasion. That gentleman, being then a member of the House, stated that his principles and policies respecting the defence of the Empire were what he had learned from the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I remind the hon. member for Welland of this, because he is very fond, apparently for some purpose which he may consider advantageous to his political interest, of making an assertion which has already been contradicted over and over again. I would point out to him that when in 1908 an attack was made in this House upon some gentlemen who were described as Nationalists, in respect of a cartoon, a copy of which I hold in my hand, published in one of fheir newspapers, certain facts were disclosed which do not at all support the suggestion of my hon. friend from Welland, but rather support the suggestion that he himself is in alliance with the Nationalists, if he is a good member of the party opposite. What was the cartoon? It represented Jean Baptiste with both hands on the Union Jack and an Imperialist uttering to him the following admonition:
' Hold on to the flag, Baptiste, as Dundon-ald said, and I will hold your coat for you.' The Imperialist is represented as pilfering the pockets of the simple-minded and credulous Jean Baptiste. When we came to investigate the facts, we found that that cartoon had not originally appeared in a Nationalist newspaper at all, but had appeared in Le Canada, the acknowledged

organ of the Liberal party in Quebec, in the election campaign of 1904, after a certain incident in connection with the dismissal or retirement of Lord Dundonald. The very material which was put forward as an example of Nationalist perfidy and disloyalty was material till at had been taken from the columns of the Liberal organ in the province of Quebec. Under these circumstances, although I do not desire to go into that question at any length, I think it ill becomes the hon. member for Welland discuss the subject of alleged alliances.
He has seen fit to reiterate the suggestion that I am responsible for any dissension in this House with regard to this measure. I take exception to it in the strongest possible terms. I submitted these proposals to this House in a non-controversial speech, and I produced a memorandum from the Admiralty which, as I understood, imposed upon Canada the duty of taking some step of an immediate and effective character to aid in the naval defence of the Empire. In thus placing my proposals before this Parliament I followed the advice oi the Admiralty as I understood it. I brought that' measure before this House in no controversial manner, by no controversial speech; and I had no reason to expect that it would meet the opposition which unfortunately has been manifested in this House. I am desirous, as much as any man in the House can be, that any aid of this character should go forth to the Mother Country, not only by the unanimous voice of the people of Canada, but, so far as may be possible, by the unanimous voice of this House. But, under the circumstances to which I have alluded, I do not think the hon. gentleman is justified in any sense or from any standpoint in imputing to me the lack of union between the two parties which has made itself manifest in respect of this measure. I have already shown that what we propose can be harmonized with what has already been put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite, both in 1910 and during the present session, before these ships can be put in commission, if it should be the will of the Canadian people that fleet units should be established and that a naval organization on a large scale should be undertaken by the people of Canada in the immediate future. There can be no possible difficulty about that, even if this measure should be passed. Under these circumstances, I venture to express once more my very great surprise that hon. gentlemen opposite, especially my hon. friend from Welland, should have manifested the insistent opposition to this measure which has made itself apparent ever since we placed it before the House.
Mr. BOUDEN.
House divided on proposed amendment of Mr. German:
YEAS:
Messieurs
Boland,	Loggie,
Buchanan,	MaoNutt,
Cardin,	McCrea,
C ar poll),	McKenzie,
Carvell,	Marcile (Bagot),
Charlton,	Michaud,
Clark (Bed Deer),	iMurphy,
Delisle,	Neely,
Devlin,	Oliver,
Fortier,	Pacaud,
Gauvreau,	Papineau,
German,	Pardee,
Graham,	Power,
Guthrie,	Proulx,
Hughes	Reid (Restigouche),
(King's, P.E.I.),	Richards,
Kyte,	Seguin,
Lachance, *	Sinclair,
Lapointe	Thomson (Qu.Appelle)
(Kamouraska),	Turgeon,
Lapointe (Montreal,	Verville,
St. James),	Warnock,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),White	
Law,	(Victoria, Alta.),
Lemieux,	Wilson (JLaval)-46.
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Al'guire,	Lewis,
Ames,	Miacdonell,
Armstrong (Lambton), Maclean (York, 0.)*	
Ball,	McKay,
Barker,	McLean
Beattie,	(Queen's, P.E.I.),
Bellemare,	Marshall,
Bennett (Calgary),	Meighen,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Merner,
Beet,	Middlebro,
Blain,	Morrison,
Borden,	Nantel,
Boulay,	Nicholson,
Bowman,	Northrup,
Boyce,	Paquet, [DOT]
Boys,	Paul,
Brahazon,	Pelletier,
Bradbury,	Perley,
Burnham,	Porter, *
Chabot,	Rainville,
Clarke (Wellington),	'Reid (Grenville),
Cochrane,	Robidoux,
Cockshutt,	Rogers,
Coderre,	Schaffner,(
Crocket,	Sevigny,
Crothers,	Sexsmith,
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Edwards,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Elliot,	Shepherd,
Fisher,	Smith,
Fowler,	Stanfield,
Gauthier (Gaspe),	Stevens,
Girard,	Stewart (Luneinburg),
Green,	Sutherland,
Guilbault,	Taylor,
Harfct,	Thompson (Yukon),
Henderson,	Thornton,
Hughes (Victoria, 0.),Walker,	
Jameson,	Wallace,
Kemp,	Weichel,
Lalor,	White (Renfrew),

Lancaster,	Wilson (Wentworth),
Lavallee,	Wright-85.
PAIRS:
Ministerial. Clements,
Steele,
Morphy,
Aikins,
Baker,
Barnard,
Bristol,
Burrell,
Davidson,
Tremain,
Clark (Bruce), Doherty,
Armstrong (York Arthurs,
White,
Hazen,
Webster,
Rhodes,
MWCurdy,
Nickle, *
Tboburn,
Wilcox,
Roche,
Broder,
Roster (Toronto), Roster (King's N Garland,
Rripp,
Hepburn,
Munson,
Smyth,
'Stewart (Hamilton),
Bison,
'Lesperance,
Clare,
Currie,
Opposition.
McCoig,
Nesbitt,
Champagne,
Turriff,
'Kay,
Martin (Regina), Bickerdike,
- Douglas,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness'' McCraney,
Marcil . (Bonaventure),
O.), Boivin,
Boyer,
'Emmerson,
Pugsley,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Halifax), Ross,
Rlobb,
Cruise,
Cash,
Tobin,
_ Clarke (Essex),
!.), Brown,
McMillan,
Gordon,
Knowles,
Bureau,
Ethier,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacdnthe), Demers,
Molloy,
Lafortune,
Brouillard,


Mr. NESBITT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Rinance (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CRUISE:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. AIKINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BARNARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. THOBURN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. NICKLE:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross), and did not vote; otherwise, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm.) Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RHODES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville):: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment on this question of naval defence which will assert once more the rights of Canada, our common country.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. There are too
many hon. members talking. That is distinctly a violation of the rules, which say .that when an hon. member is on his feet there must be no noise.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to say a word on behalf of Canada on this momentous question. Sir, we are all devoted to the British Empire, but we are all devoted also to Canada, our native land. It seems to me that if the Canadians of 1867, the fathers of Confederation-Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Cartier, George Brown, and Alexander Mackenzie-at that remote period of our national existence, foresaw that Canada could organize her defence not only on land, but on sea, we, living in the year of our Lord, 1913, should not go backwards, but should follow in their footsteps. In 1868, a Conservative administration went to defeat because it had the courage to establish wdiat is to-day known as the Canadian Militia. Our volunteer force was finally established; the Militia Act is on our statute book, and our gallant soldiers are serving His Majesty the King under the British flag. It is a Canadian militia, commanded by Canadian officers, and by Canadian generals, and yet no one would dare suggest that because of that, the volunteer force is a separatist organization. As Canada developed and progressed, the time came when it was thought proper to have a naval force on sea for the protection of our trade, for the defence of our coasts on the Atlantic and Pacific, and at the same time as our due share of contribution to the naval defence of the Empire in cases of real emergency. Canada started to organize her navy as she had organized


Robert Laird Borden: I challenge my hon.
friend to show any words of mine to that effect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I take the various
declarations made by the right hon. gentleman. I take his own Bill, his many contradictions during this debate, sometimes a gift, sometimes a loan, sometimes an option to get back these ships-I take all these and I take the speeches delivered by some of his friends, and I conclude that he is committed to a permanent tribute. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) stated that it was only the beginning of a permanent policy of contribution. What does that mean?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Grouping all these
facts together, glancing at all these contradictions, knowing what happened during .the elections of 1911, knowing the temper of the jingo party in Canada and in Great Britain, I assert that this is the beginning of a permanent policy of contribution.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend stated
distinctly that I had so expressed myself; I ask him to point out where I said anything of the kind. I want to remind him that I stated distinctly the reverse of that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, I accept the
right hon. gentleman's word, but when he states that not for twenty-five years, not even for fifty years, can Canada have a naval organization; when during this debate	he states	first	that	the	35 millions	is	a	gift,	when	later	on he statesthat	it	is	a	loan,	when on	anotheroccasion he states that he may get back	our	ships, I	say	that,	putting
together all these contradictions, all these obscure words and equivocal sentences to please one day the jingoes, the Nationalists another day, the right hon. gentleman has framed a policy which in my humble
315J
judgment, means nothing else but a permanent policy of tributes.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to read-


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will
have a chance to speak in a few minutes.


William Sora Middlebro: If the hon gentleman will permit me, I would quote what the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mt. Borden) stated on the 7th April, as reported at page 7411 of 'Hansard.' He said:
I desire, speaking upon my responsibility as a member of this Government, to take the strongest possible exception to the statements which the right hon. gentleman has made. I say, in the first place, that it is not a policy of contribution at all, and I say, in the second place, that it is not a permanent policy. That was stated on the 5th day of December last, I have stated it on more than one occasion since, and I state it again to-day in the strongest form of expression that parliamentary usage will permit.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend might
take ' Hansard ' of 1909 and 1910, and find exactly the contrary of what his leader has said in the sentence he has just quoted.
Sir, this is a permanent policy of contribution; yes, it is the establishment of tribute in this free country of Canada. This policy is un-Canadian; it is un-British. It spells distrust, not trust. It divides the people of this country. It pleases the jingoes alone; it does not satisfy Canadian pride and Canadian manhood, and manly Britishers the world over will say that it is not in the best interests of the Empire. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of amending the same by providing that all works under this Act shall be executed under the provisions of the Naval Service Act.


William Sora Middlebro: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and indeed nearly every hon. gentleman opposite, have been repeating time and again-I might almost call it tiresome reiteration-that this is part of the permanent naval policy of the present Government. I can quite appreciate why it is absolutely necessary for hon. gentlemen opposite to make that contention, because they know that, unless they can prove it to be founded upon fact, they are absolutely inconsistent with regard to their prior action in regard to naval service in Canada. In 1910, when they brought in their naval policy, which they admitted was their permanent naval policy, they refused to go to the country on it though it was admittedly their permanent policy. They know that we submitted a counter pro-

position for the purpose of giving temporary relief to then existing conditions in the Empire by contributing a sum of money sufficient to build two dreadnoughts. ' They know that, unless they can make the people believe that this is our permanent policy, they 'have no ground whatever for asking Parliament to submit this measure to the people. They know that the Prime Minister has said that he intends to submit his permanent naval policy to the people. They know that, before he was called to power, he said that he would go to England; that he would take the evidence of the British Admiralty, the best possible evidence that could be obtained, in order to find out the true situation. He went there and did so. It is perfectly well known to the British Admiralty that this is not the permanent policy of Canada. It was well known in the House of Commons, when the Prime Minister was in England that this was not the permanent policy. I just wish to read from the speech which Mr. Winston Churchill made in the British House of Commons at that time, in order to prove my contention. I am quoting from Mr. Churchill's speech in the House of Commons on July 22, last, when he said:
There is, however, a strong distinction between measures which deal with the requirements of the immediate future and the elaboration of a permanent naval policy. The latter will require longer consideration and much fuller discussion than have been possible during the short time our visitors have been among us. Mr. Borden and his colleagues authorize me to say they share this view, and that any special action which the immediate future may require of them will not be delayed pending the settlement of a final and permanent naval arrangement.
That shows conclusively that the Prime Minister told them that this was no part of his permanent naval policy, but that the latter would require a great deal of discussion and consideration in this country. He told them that this is simply a measure of temporary relief, and that the permanent policy would be submitted to the people. In view of the declarations of the right hon. the Prime Minister, when on the 5th day of December last he said that this was no part of the permanent policy of the Government, and that his permanent policy would be submitted to the people, and when, on the 7th of April, he said: I have again and again reiterated in this House that this is no part of the permanent naval policy of the country; it is simply an emergency provision, is it fair for hon. members opposite to contend that this measure is part of the permanent policy of the Government? Is it fair for them to issue campaign literature, a copy of which I have before me now, which on the face of it says that the policy of this Government is to contribute $35,000,000 as part of the permanent naval policy of this Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
country? They are disseminating that information throughout the country, for the purpose of endeavouring to make the people believe that to be true which is not true.


Michael Clark: Is my hon.
friend's conception of Imperial Federation, which has been mentioned in this House and also by Mr. Churchill, wrapped up in the idea of one contribution?


William Sora Middlebro: I simply say to my hon. friend that this House has the absolute right to make whatever gift it chooses to make. It may make a gift to a foreign nation for the purpose of affording relief in the case of an earthquake disaster or on account of floods, and it has done so. In doing so, Parliament is exercising its undoubted democratic parliamentary right, and that is exactly what we are doing here to-day. We, on this side of the House, state that we will grant to the British Admiralty $35,000,000 for the purpose of building three dreadnoughts in order to assist Great Britain in maintaining her supremacy upon the sea.
I have had letters from Liberals in my riding stating that, if I can show them that the Prime Minister has stated openly and publicly that this is not part of the permanent naval policy of this country, they will vote for the policy brought in by him. When the Prime Minister says that this is not part of his permanent policy, are we not to believe him? Do hon. gentlemen opposite want this to be part of our permanent policy? If they do not, why do they preach that it is? The only answer is, they know they are absolutely inconsistent in asking Parliament to submit this measure to the people, unless they can deceive the people into believing that it is part of the permanent policy of the Government, when they know that it is not.	*


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: policy of the right hon. Prime Minister, I suppose it is the Montreal Star. We had the policy announced by the correspondent, Windermere, in the Montreal Star read in this House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and given us as authority on which we ought to vote. The Montreal Star said:
We are fighting in this country for ' one navy ' This is not because there are no peo-f pie in Canada who would like to have the feeding, and handling, and building, and incidental ' grafting ' that would go with a Canadian navy. But we realize that the navy is ail instrument which can best be managed by a central authority; and that, if the Em-, pire is not valuable as a means of controlling a great British navy, it is hard to see why it is valuable at all. For what then are we to use the Empire? Why should we stay m it? Obviously, if it is to he anything but an empty shell, it ought to look after the navy.
There you have the statement of the leading organ cf the Conservative party in regard to what we ought to do. I submit that the reiterated statements of the right hon. Prime Minister, the statements of nis press and of the men who sit behind him go to prove that they are in favour of a policy of contribution.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


John Howard Sinclair: At one o'clook I had
pointed out that several prominent men supporting my right hon. friend had declared themselves in favour of an Imperial navy to be supported by a -contribution system. I wish now to state that my right hon. friend himself on the 27th of February this year used language in this House which cannot be understood in any other way, I submit, excepting in the way that we contend he has been drifting, and that is in favour of a system of contribution. Speaking on that date, as reported at page 387 of 'Hansard,' he used the following language:
Now, I come to one or two other points and I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in dealing with them. What will be the purpose of the navy which my hon. friends propose to create when it is created? They propose to have one fleet unit on the Atlantic and one fleet unit on the Pacific. For what purposes will they be placed there and to what extent will they be effective? I say that the defence of Canada will be by the united naval forces of the whole Empire and I further maintain that it would be impossible for a single fleet unit on the Atlantic, or a single fleet unit on the Pacific, to defend the shores or coast line of Canada against such an attack as might be expected if an attack were to take place. On the other hand, if you have the British navy, the most powerful navy in the world, if you co-operate with it, if you assist in maintaining and building it up, I venture to say that you have
Mr. SINCLAIR.
arrived, for the present at least, at the best solution of this problem that could possibly be devised and in support of this I take the clear statement of the Admiralty that the best way in which Canada can aid the Empire at the present time is by the provision of a certain number of the strongest and most powerful battleships that money can procure or science can devise.
What does that declaration mean ? It means that a Canadian navy could not be effective, and are we to assume that my right hon. friend would support a navy that he believes would not be effective ? He makes the positive statement that in his opinion a navy such as can be built up in Canada would not be useful in protecting the coasts of Canada. Can we expect my right hon. friend to embark on the construction of a navy of this kind which in his opinion would not be useful for the purpose for which it was built ? He further says that if we assist in maintaining the British navy that would be the best solution of the difficulty. I submit that that language is very plain. I do not know what my right hon. friend could say that would be any plainer as to his attitude in regard to this question, as distinguishing between a Canadian navy and a system of contribution to the Mother Country. He has not said in so many words that he is in favour of a system of contribution, but that is the only fair and honest inference that we can take from his language.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest to the hon. member that he is wandering outside the amendment which is before the House. It is simply that all work under this Act should be executed under the provisions of the Naval Service Act.


John Howard Sinclair: I submit that I am
keeping closely to that very question. I am dealing with the question as to whether we should have a Canadian naval service or a system of contribution to the Mother Country. This matter is very easily settled. If my right hon. friend intends to embark on the construction of a Canadian navy in the future why does he not say so? Why does he not come out frankly and take us into his confidence? We do not expect him to give us the details of his policy, to say how many ships he is going to build, we do not expect him to say whether he will build the ships in Canada or elsewhere. We are not anxious to confine him to any details in regard to his policy but surely he is able to give us this information tliat he favours establishing at some time or other a Canadian navy. He has not ventured to make that statement during the whole course of this discussion. Why has he not said so? I submit that if he ventured to stand up in his place and make that statement this

afternoon a number of things would happen. The Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) would resign. The Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) would resign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Never.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Coderre) would Tesign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Never.


John Howard Sinclair: The Deputy Speaker
(Mr. Blondin) would resign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


John Howard Sinclair: These things would
have to happen, because these men are pledged to this course and they are all honourable men. You see that there is a good reason why my right hon. friend does not come out and be frank with the House as to whether he is in favour of a Canadian navy or a system of contribution to the Mother Country.
There has been considerable speculation as to what course the Senate would take on this question. For my part, I cannot see how the Senate can take any but the one course. Senators supporting the present Administration and senators opposed to the present Administration have already voted in favour of a Canadian navy. Three years ago, with the unanimous consent of that Chamber, they passed a Bill in favour of a Canadian naval system, they have always declared themselves in favour of a Canadian navy and I submit that nothing has happened during the course of this debate to change the minds of the hon. gentlemen in the upper Chamber. The question then will be, will the Prime Minister keep the pledge that he gave to the people of Canada that if Parliament refused to pass this Bill he would immediately appeal to the people. Will he keep that pledge? There is, I submit only one way to settle this question, only one way to find out whether we should proceed with this policy, it is by an appeal to the Canadian people. I pointed out that when my right hon. friend went to the people in September 1911 he was very careful not to announce any naval policy. He therefore, has no mandate from the people of Canada, especially he has no mandate to take the step that he is proposing to take. He is therefore bound in honour to appeal to the country. That is one of the splendid things about the British system of public life. When a Prime Minister does not know, when he has a fair and reasonable doubt whether he has the country behind him, it is his duty to appeal to the people and find out what the will of the people is. In the United States, the President is appointed
for a certain period of years. The people throw the business of the country into his hands during that time, they have to submit to whatever he and his cabinet choose to do during that period. But that is not the British system, and that is one of the splendid things about the British system. We put out trust in the honour of men, we put our trust in the honour of ministers and especially of the Prime Minister and it is the bounden duty of the Prime Minister, if he has any reasonable doubt as to whether the people of Canada are in favour of the policy he is now proposing, he should appeal to the people and find out whether or not they will sustain him. We had his promise and I for one will trust him until he actually does break his word. It will not take us very long to find out, in a few days we will know what action the other Chamber will take and I hope that when that result is known the Prime Minister of Canada will be as good as his word and will dissolve Parliament, go to the country and find out what the will of the country is on this important question.
House divided on the proposed amendment of Mr. Lemieux:
YEAS:
Messieurs
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Carvell,
Charlton,
Clark (Red Deer), Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
German,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Kay, lvyte,
Lachance,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lapointe (Montreal, St. James) Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
Lemieux,
MacNutt,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin
(Montreal, St. Mary's), Michaud,
Murphy,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Sinclair,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock,
White
(Victoria, Aita), Wilson (Laval).-49.
Messieurs
Alguire,
Ames,
Armstrong (Lamhton), Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Beattie,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lavallee,
Lesperanee,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
Maclean (York, 0.), McKay,

Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Clare,
Clarke (Wellington), Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Currie,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,	.
Forget (Sir Bodolphe) Garland,
Gauthier (Gaspd), Girard,
Green,
Guilbault,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Jameson,
Kemp,
Ministerial.
Nicholson,
Hughes (Victoria)
Steeel
Morphy,
Wallace,
Aikins,
Barnard,
Bristol,
Tremain,
Davidson,
Clark (Bruce), Foster (Toronto), Clemente,
Wilcox,
Doherty,
White,
Webster,
Rhodes,
McCurdy,
Nickle,
Thoburn,
Chabot,
Foster (Kings), Roche,
Sutherland,
Smith,
Fripp,
Elson,
Armstrong (York),
Broder,
Carrick,
McLean
((Queens, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Perley,
Porter,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Se vigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Walker,
Weichel.
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-94.
PAIRS:
Opposition.
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.), , Buchanan,
Nesbitt,
Champagne,
Knowles,
Turriff,
Martin (Regina), Bickerdike,
Chisholm (Inverness), Chisholm (Antigonish), McCraney,
Lafortune,
McCoig,
Cruise,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Emmerson,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Halifax), Ross,
Robb,
Boland,
Tobin.
McMillan,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Loggie,
Molloy,
Ethier,
Boyer,
Brouillard,
Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe),


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). Had I voted, I should have voted for the amendment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was paired with
the Minister of Finance (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Marcil: I was
paired with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: We have had some discussion to-day as to whether or not it would not have been better to have attempted to construct, under the Canadian Naval Service Act passed in 1910, the proposed vessels; and, so far as I have been able to follow the discussion, no reason has been given by my hon. friends opposite why they did not follow that course. It has been charged on this side of the House by many hon. members, that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister would not call for tenders or construct the ships under the Canadian Naval Service Act, Because his Nationalist allies would not permit him to do so. My right hon. friend has never tried to answer that question until to-day, and- to my recollection, about the only argument he advanced was a cartoon which' appeared in Le Canada some years ago, and which was afterwards reproduced in some other papers. That is a pretty lame excuse for the Prime Minister to offer for departing from a great constitutional principle, and for taking the course which the Government are taking on this important question. I wonder if there is another reason for the course which is being pursued by my right hon. friend. I know I am not allowed to impute motives to any hon. member of this House, but I am allowed to state facts, and if the public impute motives upon a knowledge of those facts, I am not responsible. I find in section 5 of the Canadian Naval Service Act the following:
There shall be a department of the Government of Canada which shall be called the Department of the Naval Service over which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the time being shall preside, and he shall be the Minister of the Naval Service.
Then I find in the Revised Statutes, vol. I, on page 39, the following:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work
Mr. SINCLAIR.

it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or,
(c) Where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
2. Whenever in case of any work tenders are required to be invited, the minister having charge of the department concerned shall submit all tenders received therefor to the Governor in Council and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the direction of the Governor in Council.
That is the law of Canada to-day, and, if my right hon. friend had decided to construct those vessels under the Naval Service Act, he would have been brought under the law as I have read it. I sometimes wonder if it is to evade the conditions of that law that my right hon. friend is pursuing the course he is taking to-day. Let us see where the suggestion lands us. Under the Naval Service Act those vessels would be constructed under a department of the Government, then they are brought within the terms of the section which I have read, that is the section which provides:	[DOT]
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the Government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders.
Would there be anything to prevent the Government from calling for tenders for the construction of those three ships? The statute says positively that these public works shall be done after public tenders have been called for, except in cases
(a) of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest.
Well, Sir, my right hon. friend will not now say that there is a pressing emergency in this case. It is true that the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) had the assurance to go back to the old position of six months ago, and to say there was an emergency. He even went so far as to say that there is a crisis, but nobody but my hon. friend from North Grey would risk his reputation in making such statements. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister will not risk it. I venture to prophesy that he will not risk it in Toronto next Monday night. He has too much regard for the real condition of affairs, and for his reputation as a statesman, to make a statement like that. Everybody knows now that there is no question of an emergency. Time and again during the last three or four months, the British Government have reiterated that they are perfectly capable oh taking charge of any condition that may arise. They have all the ships 'they need, and all the men, and all the money, and they are ready to take care of
any situation that may arise. As has been pointed out a number of times, too, conditions have changed in Europe recently, and there is no emergency there. The second exception in the statute is a case:
In which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
Well, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries cannot build these vessels under his department, and therefore the case does not come under that exception. Then the third exception is:
Where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
As this expenditure amounts to $35,000,000 or $40,000,000, it does not come under that exception. Therefore, if my right hon. friend had decided to build the vessels under the Canadian Naval Service Act, he would have been brought under the provisions of this law, and would have had to call for tenders. It is true that the department is not always under the necessity of accepting the lowest tender, but, if they do not accept the lowest tender, they have to coma to Parliament and give very good reasons why they have not. That is the law. I find that that course has been followed in every important undertaking in Canada in recent years. Even before the general law was passed, that principle was laid down definitely in connection with the greatest work which has been constructed by the Government during the last fifteen or twenty years, the National Transcontinental railway. In fact I might say that that is the only great work that has been constructed by the Government in Canada in the last fifteen years outside ot the ordinary run of public works for improvement of navigation, public wharves, and other works required to carry on the business of the country. When the National Transcontinental Railway Act was passed in 1903, nothing was left to the Government to do at their own sweet will. As I understand it, the section I have read regarding the necessity of calling for public tenders in connection with the construction of public works had not been passed, but in order that there should be no question about it, in order that the best results should be obtained for the least money, and that there should not be the least suspicion as to the integrity of the officials carrying out that great work, it was provided that the work must be done by tender. So religiously was that principle carried out in connection with the Transcontinental railway, that $50 contracts had to be let by tender, even although the com.

missioners thought they could do, better under an ordinary arrangement with some contractor. In every case they had to comply with the condition and call for tenders. You will find that condition in section 16, chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1903:
The commissioners shall let the work of constructing the eastern division by tender and contract after the plans and specifications therefor have been duly advertised, and they shall accept the lowest tender put in by a contractor who, in the judgment of the commissioners, is possessed of sufficient skill, experience and resources to carry on the work or such portion thereof as he has tendered for.
I have not looked up the history of that section, but my recollection is that it was moved by a prominent member of the then Opposition, now in the Government. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister will recollect the discussion, and - will remember that both parties insisted that that was the proper course to pursue, that the contracts must be let by tender. The result has been that, in the last seven or eight years from $100,000,000 to $120,000,000 worth of work has been done by public 'tender, and done so successfully and honestly that after investigating it for the last year and a half, after spending probably $50,000 in investigating it, and after sending not one, but half a dozen engineers half a dozen times all over the work, the Government have not been able to find one dollar's worth of work that has not been properly done. It is true that some of their inspecting engineers have said that the classification should not have been so high, but that is only a matter of judgment. They cannot find anything wrong, and now their chief investigator has given up the job in disgust and has been given a better one at $20,000 a year to look after the Intercolonial. This only shows you how important it is that the great public works should be carried on by public tender and contract. It shows that when we were carrying on a work costing $125,000,000 it was done so honestly that hon. members opposite could find no fault, and could pick no flaw in the management of it. Why should not this policy be adopted regarding the construction of these vessels? My right hon. friend said the other day, when I called this matter to his attention, that possibly the work could be best done in the Government dockyards. Besides the Government dockyards there are eight or nine different shipyards in Great Britain that build dreadnoughts. My right hon. friend proposes to get this work done in the Government dockyards, but if the conditions are such that he can get his vessels built in the shipyards of Cammell, Laird and Company, John Brown and Company, or Beardmore and Company or of any of the other large shipbuilders in Great Britain, on more reasonable terms Mr. CAEVELL.
than he can get them built in the Government shipyards, is that any reason why he should not have the advantage of all the information available, or is that any reason why he should not call for tenders for the building of these vessels?
He cannot make a contract for the construction of these vessels unless he has plans and specifications. He must be in a position to call for tenders before he is justified in signing any contract or spending a dollar. If he can find a private contracting firm in Great Britain who will build these vessels cheaper than he can have them built in the Government dockyards, surely he would be justified in having it done by them. How is my right hon. friend going to find out what these vessels will cost unless he calls for tenders? I am only appealing to my right hon. friend as an ordinary business man. I have tried to show him what has been the custom and what has been the law in Canada regarding the building of public works. In order to get around the law in Canada he is having a special statute passed in the form of a Bill, which is now before this Parliament, a Bill which takes away all the safeguards which have been thrown around the construction of public works for the last ten or fifteen years, a Bill which, if passed, would permit graft to run rampant and there would be no way of finding it out. I am not saying that the right hon. gentleman intends thai, there shall be graft, I am only pointing out that there could not be graft if he followed the ordinary law of the country, while under this Bill there could be millions of graft and the public have no opportunity of finding out what the true conditions are. I have no doubt that is the reason why hon. gentlemen opposite insist on bringing about this change. I have placed the law before my right hon. friend, I have shown him what the law is and what it would be if he took advantage of the ordinary machinery provided at the present time for the building of these vessels. But, without any reason, and without any explanation, he has created a new Bill which takes away all the protection, which removes every safeguard the ratepayers of Canada have at the present time and which gives him the absolute power to control the expenditure of public money up to the amount of $40,000,000. There is nothing to prevent graft, although I do not say that that is the object that the right hon. gentleman has in view. I am only pointing out that graft will be possible under these conditions.
Outside of the great question of taking this money out of the country, and outside of the great constitutional question involved, the most serious matter for us in this Parliament to consider is that these vessels are being built without tender and without the ordinary safeguards which should be thrown around their construction. If you want any confirmation of our

fears in this regard I would like to call the attention of the House to some remarkable figures which have been given regarding the construction of these vessels. The British Admiralty told us in 1909 that a vessel of certain specifications would cost $11,162,000. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister told us on December 5 last that, from the information which he had received from the British Admiralty in October the same vessel would cost $11,750,000. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) comes down to this House in January and tells us that this same vessel will cost $13,056,000. The same vessel, on the same specification, under exactly the same conditions, built in the same country and by the same people in one year will cost us $11,162,000 and in another year $13,056,000. There is practically an increase of $2,000,000 on the same vessel. Yet, they tell us, in the face of figures like these, that there is no necessity of calling for tenders and that everything will be perfectly straight. Then again, coming down to comparative figures, let us take the Lion, the latest completed ship in the British navy; the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says that this vessel costs $11,421,000. This Navy League Annual, this red-book, which has been referred to as Britain's imminent danger, and which will be accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite as an authority, says that this vessel only cost $10,228,000, or a difference of $1,200,000. The right hon. Prime Minister told us in December that these three vessels that it is proposed to build would cost $35,000,000 and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, two or three months afterwards stated in answer to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that they might cost $39,000,000. In three months the price had gone up by $4,000,000. What does all this mean? Are the Government preparing the people of Canada to sign a contract for the construction of these vessels at a figure away above what the ordinary cost in Great Britain would be? If that"be the case what is going to become of the difference? That is the question. If these vessels can be built in Great Britain for $11,000,000 and we are going to pay $13,000,000 for them, what becomes of the $2,000,000? Of course the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), not being the Minister of Naval Service, does not know anything about it, but probably he has been in the Cabinet when this has been discussed. But there is in that enough to make the ordinary ratepayer in Canada suspicious, especially when my right hon. friend refuses to do this work in the ordinary business lawful way in Canada and when he is compelled to get a special statute passed to get around the provisions of the law which requires that all public works shall be built by public tender or contract.
I do not want to elaborate this matter or take up any more of the time of the House.
I discussed it in the committee stage of the Bill, and I felt it to be my duty to bring it to the attention of the House at the present time. I have given the law and the facts sufficiently to show that there is grave cause for apprehension, that there is grave cause for alarm because the difference between the figures which my hon. friends are now saying these vessels will cost and what they said they would cost when they introduced this Bill in December ought to call for investigation and is in itself sum-cient ground for demanding that some protection shall be thrown around the expenditure of the public money of Canada. There is no reason that my right hon. friend can urge for not calling for tenders. There are seven, eight or nine big firms building vessels in Great Britain and they will all tender; they are all anxious to do business. Let them all tender, let my right hon. friend get prices, such as we had when we attempted to build a navy in Canada. We had tenders from all the principle ship-building firms in Great Britain and we were able to tell to a dollar what these vessels would cost. We were able to compare one tender with another and we were able to say whether the lowest tender was a reasonable price or not. We were not compelled to say that we would take this tender or that because it was the lowest but we had an opportunity of comparing all the tenders and of seeing^ what one price was as compared with another. That is an advantage that the right hon. gentleman would have if he would call for tenders. He should have tenders from seven or eight different firms in England and then, if he wants to go to the government dockyards, he will be able to know what the proper price should be and he will know whether he is paying more for these vessels than he ought to. In the interest of the Government of the country, as well as for the protection of the public at large, he should adopt the plan of calling for public tenders for the ships and they should not be built except by contract founded upon public tender, giving the contract to the lowest tenderer unless there is some very good reason for acting to the contrary. Therefore I move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Murphy;
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend it by adding the following words to section 6: ' provided, however, that all the work executed under this Act shall be by contract awarded upon public tender.'


Robert Laird Borden: I need not go over the same ground that I traversed on a previous occasion in reply to some observations of my hon. friend from iCarleton (Mr. Carvell), which were directed to the

same question as that which he has brought to the attention of the House this afternoon. Whether or not the section of the Public Works Act which he has quoted would relate to the construction of ships, I have already stated that the principle of tender and contract, which is a very good principle, is one from which we do not propose to depart in connection with the construction of these ships. I brought to the attention of the committee the possibility that one or more of these ships might be built in a royal dockyard. For that reason I did not think it advisable to add any such clause to the Bill. It seems to me that there is no disagreement between the two sides of the House as to the principle which ought to be followed by a government in respect to a matter of this kind.
The hon. gentleman drew a very alarming picture as to the increase in cost, as stated by the Admiralty. We are not responsible for their statements in that regard. We have given their statements to the House precisely as they were given to us. It is undoubtedly true that within a period of two or three months the cost of a battleship or armoured cruiser of the most modern and powerful type has increased, according to the statements of the Admiralty. I brought that fact to the attention of the House. I have no reason to believe that the estimate given to us on either one occasion or the other was incorrect. My hon. friend and every other member will realize that there are a great many considerations which might bring about that increased cost within a very short time. There was a certain increase in wages during that period, and I believe also that during the last six months or a year there has been a considerable increase in the cost of material.* Besides all that, there are other considerations which might increase the cost of a ship described in terms such as those I used when I addressed the House on the 5th of December last. I spoke of a battleship or armoured cruiser of the most modern and powerful type. Anyone having the slightest acquaintance with modern construction understands that the types of these ships are continually changing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My right hon. friend
has evidently misunderstood me, because I was referring to the same vessel and the same type, the cost of which increased from $11,162,000 to $13,056,000.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has not appreciated my point. It might very well be said that a battleship or armoured cruiser of the most modern and powerful type in September or October, 1911, would not, after new designs had been brought out in December or January, be
Mr. BORDEN.
then a battleship or armoured cruiser of the most modern and powerful type.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is the same ship, the same type.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: If I cannot make myself clear to the hon. gentleman by the language which I have used, I am sorry, inasmuch as the design, the size, the speed, the armour, of a battleship of the most modern and powerful type, may change within a period of three or four months, it is perfectly apparent that the price may change correspondingly, and must do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would not be the same type of vessel.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will have to make the best he can of my language.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All right.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I cannot
make it any clearer. It is clear to my mind. I hope it is clear to the minds of hon. gentlemen.
If this Bill had been passed on the 12th day of December last, when the right hon. the leader of the Opposition made his speech, and had been immediately assented to by the Senate, and if designs had been prepared within three or four weeks of that date, those designs might be in certain respects of a different character from designs for a battleship or armoured cruiser prepared in July, August or Sep^ tember next. The armour might be of a different character, the armament might be less powerful and the speed might be less than in the later designs. That reason among others might account to some extent for any increase in the cost.
There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government to depart from well recognized principles in regard to the construction of these ships. We hope to utilize the expert knowledge of the British Admiralty, and we shall see to it that these ships are built with every possible safeguard to protect the public interest that is applied to the construction of ships for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.


William Manley German: The right hon. gentleman says that there is no intention upon the part of the Government to depart from the well recognized principle of advertising for tenders. If that is the case, why not accept the amendment of the hon. member? Surely there can be no objection to the Government putting that in the Bill and settling by positive declaration what the right hon. gentleman says the Government intend to do. I cannot quite understand the philosophy of the right hon. gentleman when he says: We do not intend to depart from well recognized prin-

ciples of public tender. If he does not, all the amendment of my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) Says is that there shall be put in this Bill a clause declaring that the Government shall advertise for tenders.


Robert Laird Borden: I have explained to my hon. friend that it is quite possible that one or more of these ships may be built in a royal dockyard. If so, they would be built under every possible safeguard that protects the public interest in respect of the construction of such ships in the United Kingdom for His Majesty the King. Under those circumstances and in view of the declarations that I have made to the House, it seems to me there ought not to be any idea or suggestion on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite that well recognized principles will be departed from. They will not be departed from.


William Manley German: My right hon. friend
may not be here. These ships will take three years to build. Some other king may reign in Israel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my right hon. friend found that he could have a vessel built moTe cheaply in a private dockyard than in a royal dockyard, would he prefer building it in the latter?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will
realize that in a case of this kind, where very great interests are in question, and where we have not the knowledge or the experience that is possessed by the great organization that exists in the United Kingdom, we should do well, it seems to me, to be guided by that expert advice under which the greatest navy in the world has been built up, and built up without a breath of suspicion having been cast upon the expenditure of public money in that work of construction. With that statement, it does seem to me the House ought to be absolutely reassured. I have never heard any question as to the proper expenditure of money for naval construction in the United Kingdom. I am not very familiar with that matter, and may be speaking without warrant upon the actual facts; but, so far as my knowledge goes, no question as to the proper expenditure of those funds has ever been raised. We propose, as we - have not the knowledge and experience, to be guided by the knowledge and experience acquired in centuries of shipbuilding, and to have these ships built under the direction and with the advice of the Admiralty, seeking all the advantages which come to us from the experience and knowledge which they have in these matters. It is undoubtedly true, so far as my knowledge-limited knowledge, I admit-will enable me to judge, that in naval construction Great Britain leads the
world, and has lead the world for a great many years. It seems to me that by placing ourselves in the hands of the Admiralty, and adopting the safeguards which they have, adopted and of which they make use, we shall maintain and safeguard the public interest in this country in regard to naval construction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The right hon. gentleman has not answered the question.
House divided on proposed amendment of Mr. Carvell:
YEAS : Messieurs
Beivin.
Bourassa,
Bui eau,
Cardin,
Carroll.
Caivell,
C'l arlton,
Ch'ik (Red Deer), Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin.	[DOT]
Douglas,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
German,
Graham,
Green, .
Guthrie.
TCav.
Knowles.
Kj te,
Lachance,
Lanctot Laroinie (Kamouraska), Lapointe (Montreal, St. James),
Lautier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
Lemieux,
Loggie.
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McCrea. I McKenzie.
Mareil (Bonaventure), Mercile (Bagot).
Mai tin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's). Michaud,
Murphy.
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Power.
rronlx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouehe), Richards,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnoek,
White (Victoria, Alta),
Wilson (Laval)-54 ' !
NAYS:
Messieurs
Alguire.
Ames,
Armstrong (London), Armstrong (York O.), Arthurs.
Baker,
Ball.
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary) Bennett (Siincoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin.
Borden,
Bowman.
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon.
Bradbury.
Burnham.
Burrell.
Claie.
Cl a ike
(Wellington),
Lalor,
Lancaster.
Lavallee.
Lespe ranee.
Lewis.
Macdonell,
Maclean (York. O.), McKay,
McLean (Queen's.



P.E.I.),

[Stage Direction]
Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner.
Mliddlebro.
Morrison,
Munson,
Nantel,
Osier (Sir Edmund), PoQuet.
Paul,
Pelletier,
Pei ley.
Porter,
Rainvilie,
Reid (Grenville),
[Stage Direction]
Cochrane.
Cockshutt. < Coderre.
Crocket.
Cromwell,
Cro there,
Currie.
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edvards.
Elliott,
Fisher,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe) Fowler.
Garland,
Gauthier (Gaspd), Girard,
Green.
Guilbault,
Hazen,
Henderson.
Hepburn.
J ameson,
Kemp,
Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Roger s.
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Soxsmith.
Shaipe (Lisgarl, Sharpe (Ontario', Shepherd,
Stanfield,
Stevens,	_
Stewart Hamilton), .Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Walker.
Wallace,
W.eiehel,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright-95.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Opposition.
Morphy,
Steele,
McCurdy.
Bristol.
Aitkius,
Barnard,
Clark (Bruce), White, «
Wilcox.
Nickle,
Tlioburn.
Dohertty,
Tremain,
Davidson.
Clements.
Hartt,
Nicholson,
Hughes (Victoria), Webster,
Chabot,
Broder,
Smith,
Smyth,
Roche,
Northrup,
Fripp,
Foster (Kings),
Foster (Toronto), Barker,
Elson,
Garrick,
Champagne,
Nesbitt,
McLean (Halifax),
B icker dike,
Turifi,
Martin, (Regina), McCraney,
Emmerson.
Ciuiae,
Ross,
Robb,	,
Marcil (Bonaventure),
Chisholm (Inverness), Chisholm
(Antigonish), McCoig. I	,, ,
Thompson (Qu Appelle) Hughes
(King's. P.E.I.), Buchanan,
Lovell.
Beland,
Biouillard,
Tobin,
Molloy,
Cash, '
McMillan,
LaFortune,
Gauthier (St .Hyacinthe), Gordon,
Boyer,
Ethier,
Biown,
Amendment negatived.
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) :: If the members on the Government side do not agree with me in the motion which I now desire to make, I think there is at least one ground upon which they will see eye to eye with me, and that is, at the present stage of this measure, that I am in order in moving an amendment. The expression of my views on this occasion will necessarily be brief, because when this Bill was being considered by the Com-
Mr. CARVlECDL.
mittee of the Whole House, I gave my views on the matter and the reasons why at that time I attempted to move an amendment to Bill No. 21, intituled the Naval Aid Act. I shall now briefly outline, as reasons for moving this amendment, the views I presented at that time. Before coming to that, however, I desire to say that I have in no wise lost any of the strength of my opposition to the general terms of the Naval Aid Act as it at present stands. I have held and still hold that the proper course to be pursued by the Canadian Government, as representing the people of this country, is the organization of a Canadian navy, the ships of which shall be built in this country, out of our own material and by our own workmen and artisans. I am no less strong in that opinion to-day, even though I am moving this amendment. However, it seems that the Government do not intend to withdraw the present measure _ and take a course which would give the industries and workmen and artisans of this country the great stimulus which the expenditure of $35,000,000 would necessarily afford to them. The Government of the day have given reasons why they have determined to bring this legislation into effect; they have given their reasons for not living up to the Naval Service Act of 1910. To my mind, the reasons given by the present Administration do not seem sound. I do not think anv man who has any grasp upon public opinion, eitheT in this country or in the British Empire at large, will say that at the present stage there	is	an emergency	of any
kind within the British Empire. It seems to me that the idea that an emergency exists, which was the principal reason given by the present Administration for the bringing down of this Bill, has been absolutely dispelled. It seems to me that the people of Canada are absolutely aware of the fact that there is no such emergency, and that there is at the present time not even a need for this Government to send thirty-five million Canadian dollars to the Mother Country. The only good effect it will have on the Motherland will be to stimulate the great ship-building industry of England, and make it greater than it is. I gave the other day my reason for having reached this conclusion, and those reasons I based upon information found on the pages of one of the most prominent of the great English dailies, the London Times. It was stated that there was no reason in the world to doubt the capacity of the Canadian people to enter upon the construction of ships, but, said the Times: If they do enter upon ship-building, thus creating a great industry in Canada, they will lessen and decrease the value of the ship-building industry of Great Britain.' There are certain journals in this country which have

a certain influence over Canadian public opinion, and when one in his capacity as a public servant desires to bring his views before this Parliament or before the country, they accuse him of selfish motives. I give all due credit to the opinions of every hon. gentleman of this House, but when those journals-and I have to point out that the Montreal Star is the greatest sinner in this regard-undertake to lecture the members of this House and say that the reason why hon. gentlemen express themselves as being desirous that a shipbuilding industry shall be established in this country is because they are actuated by selfish motives. I may tell them that they are not the moulders in its entirety of public opinion in this country. We are entitled to our own opinions, and when hon. gentlemen are sent to this House with a mandate from the people on a policy of shipbuilding in Canada in pursuance of the Naval Service Act, it ill behooves any newspaper in this country to say that their opinions are based upon selfish motives. You may call it selfishness if you will, but I say that there is an opinion to-day, in my part of the country at least, that it would be in the best interests of Nova Scotia, of Canada and of the Empire at large if the terms of the Naval Service Act of 1910 were put into effect. It has been said that this Act was a separatist Act, inasmuch as this Parliament had control over the actions of whatever naval force might spring up under its terms. Let me point out that under the present Bill as it stands the Governor in Council has that power; the Governor in Council may withdraw the ships at any time. What would happen if during a great conflict in any part of the British Empire, a majority of the Council were composed of the Nationalist party? That is not an impossibility, and, on that score at least, the Naval Service Act is worthy of more favourable consideration than the present proposed legislation. The Conservative party in this country have since 1867, always boasted that they are the friends of the great industries of this country. Many years ago they introduced and passed a tariff Act in this Parliament. This Act had a two-fold object. The principal object was that great industries might be established and flourish under the application of its provisions. The second object was that a revenue might be obtained to carry on the public business of the country. Since the inception of that national policy the Conservative party in this country have always boasted that they are the friends of the industries; they have always boasted that the industries received a great stimulus under this national policy. I am not going to argue that point. If that is their desire; if that be their ambition, here is a chance for them to make good their assertions and professions in that regard. Here is a chance to encourage
a great industry in this country; here is a chance to add a stimulus to the steel and lumber industries of Canada. Here is an opportunity of giving a stimulus to the nickle industry of this country. If, therefore, hon. gentlemen opposite are the friends of industry in this country,, they surely must accept the amendment which I propose to move to the Naval Aid Act. On what ground can the members of the Government vote against this amendment? If they vote against this amendment, they are voting against certain industries in this country, they are voting against the workmen and the artisans who gain their livelihood in these industries. Does their loyalty carry them so far that it requires of them to decry those three industries that I have mentioned in order, not to overcome an emergency which they say exists in the British Empire, but to help out the great shipping industry of Great Britain. As well might this Government and the Railway Department of this Government, when they require an engine or a box car or any other equipment for the Intercolonial, send over to the contractors of Great Britain and tell them that, in view of the fact that we are loyal to the British Empire, that we want to build it up, we will send our money over there and allow the contractors of Great Britain to build all the necessary cars for the government railways of Canada. What would be the result of this policy if it was carried to its logical conclusion? The result might be that some time in the future some person in Great Britain could arise and say that the railway facilities of Great Britain were not sufficient to carry their soldiers to war and they would ask this Government to send over a few million dollars in order to build some more railways in Great Britain or it might transpire that in some other part of the Empire somebody, having if you will selfish motives, or, if you will, good motives, would require the expenditure of a large amount of money for any public work or any great undertaking. I say it would be just as sound for the Government to do that as to do what they anticipate and intend to do under this present Act. It would be a great thing, and I do not think it would interfere with this Bill as it stands, if at least $10,000,000 or $11,000,000 of this $35,000,000 were spent in this country. If we cannot have it all, let us have an expenditure of $10,000,000 or $11,000,000. About one-third of the cost of a battleship is made up of the materials which go into it. If the cost of those battleships will be in the vicinity of $33,000,000 or $35,000,000, and if the material at least were procured in this country, it would mean the expenditure of something like $11,000,000 in the great industries I have mentioned. Is not that a matter of some moment for the present

Government to take into consideration? We were sent to this Parliament first of all in the interests of the Canadian people, and I ask the right hon. leader of the Government and hon. gentlemen opposite, is it in the interest of the Canadian people, of Canadian workmen and Canadian industry, that $11,000,000 which could be spent in this country under the Naval Service Act as it stands, should be sent out and spent across the Atlantic. I think there are reasons for reflection and consideration on this matter. The question was hurriedly discussed the other day and I shall not dwell upon it longer but, having regard to the welfare of certain Canadian industries and having regard to the welfare of Canadian workmen and artisans, I beg leave to move the following:
That the Bill be not now read the third time but that the same be referred back to Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of adding the following as clause 7.
Whenever practicable, in the construction of the ships provided for in this Act, the constructors or builders shall be bound to accept steel and other material produced in Canada.	i	i i j


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: It was not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to take part in the discussion on the third lecture of this Bill, but I am induced to say a few words by reason of a remark made this morning by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). Before submitting his amendment, the hon. member for Welland has declared that he thought he was expressing the opinion of all the members of the Opposition in asking the Government to vote each year a certain sum of money for building dreadnoughts in England, under the control of the government of Canada.
For my part, I object to having dreadnoughts built in England, whichever mode is adopted, either with the money voted in a lump sum, or divided into three parts so as to form the 35 millions necessary.
I object to such a policy, for two reasons : In the first place, because England has no need whatever of those three dreadnoughts; and, secondly, because Canada feels that need still less.
The Prime Minister has stated on several occasions that such a policy of contribution would not be a permanent policy. He has also often reminded us that it would take from 25 to 50 years to build up a Canadian navy. He qualifies to-day his declaration by saying: A navy equal to the British navy.
I do not think that anybody will sustain in this House that Canada must build up a navy which would be equal to the British



navy. It would take every able-bodied man in Canada to man such a fleet, and even then it would be necessary to resort to foreign help.
I am a farmer and a trader since twenty years, and I cannot help asking myself how it is that so much time is consumed in discussing a business question.
With respect to the Naval policy, adopted in 1909 by the Liberal party, with the cooperation of the Opposition of the time, I have not deviated from the same point, and in my opinion we should stick to it.
Dreadnoughts might perhaps be necessary in 25 or 50 years from now, but before that we should begin by building smaller ships, so as to form a fleet, and when that fleet will have been built and will form two units, one being stationed on the Atlantic and the other on the Pacific, then we might think of adding a dreadnought to each one of those units.
Mr. Churchill, who has been so conspicuous in this House-and Heaven knows how hard it has been for the Opposition to have his letter brought up to light-has declared that we, Canadians, are incapable, that our efforts are scarcely worth anything, and that, in fact, we constitute a negligible quantity. I must say that all that trash has not roused me too much. When I spoke of it to my electors, they were not more agitated than I had been. In fact they would rather be deemed an incapable lot of people and have the privilege to keep their money. The man who keeps his money to himesif can always use it as he sees it. That was the policy adopted by the Japanese and the Australians. Have not the Japanese shown themselves to be clever enough to build their own navy, of which the power is to-day acknowledged everywhere? And the Australians, with a population much less numerous than ours, are also imbued with the same spirit.
I must say, then, to those hon. gentlemen opposite: Don't be in_ such a hurry; wait until we are in a position to do something.
I find it very strange that those hon. gentlemen, who were all in favour of a referendum in 1910, and among whom there are some who have again voted in favour of a referendum, are now supporting the policy of the Government. All the members of the Province of Quebec used to declare that they were opposed to any navy and to any contribution, without a referendum. I am surprised that those hon. gentlemen do not force the Government to appeal to the people. The three French Canadian ministers have declared themselves in favour of a referendum; they have stated that nothing would be done without appealing first to the people. Where are they all to-day? I can see one, at the present moment, in this House. He must not assuredly, be opposed Mr. LANCTOT.
to a referendum. He has not, surely, repudiated what he has advocated before the electors of the Province of Quebec. How then explain that he now remains silent on that point? All those conversations lead me to believe that the policy of contribution inaugurated this year will be kept up in the future. I have always fought that policy in my country, and I cannot approve it to-day. That is the policy of the tory-jingoes: one king, one empire, one fleet. That was the policy advocated by the Prime Minister, when he returned from England last summer.
I greatly fear that we will never have a Canadian navy, and that we will on the contrary have a policy of permanent contribution, in proportion to the population, as an aid to the Imperial Navy. How is it that you, who were so much opposed to any expense for military purposes, do not now object to all that?
There are vague rumours of elections. Those very ministers who have not kept the promises made to their electors do not want an appeal to the people. Better wait two or three years, and then a good many of those gentlemen will have disappeared from the political arena; some will be called to the Bench, and the others will take whatever plums are offered them. They will not be hard to please, so long as they do not appear again before their electors. Efforts will thus be made to take them away, as much as possible, from the Province of Quebec, and have their places taken by others who will not be implicated as they were. Such is the compromise arrived at, between the Prime Minister and those hon. gentlemen.	'	_
I pity those who will have to remain to face the music before their electors, because short work will then be made of them and they will have richly deserved their fate.
I will not delay the House any longer. Being a farmer, and representing a county exclusively agricultural where there are nevertheless a few workingmen, I wanted to protest once more against that legislation which takes us backwards 60 or 70 years, in asking us to pay tribute to England. I wanted my protestation entered in the Hansard and to say that, if we must do something, it should be for the protection of our shores and our commerce, and all for Canada and only for Canada.
I agree with the member for Cape-Breton, Who, by his amendment, has asked the Government to decree that, so far as possible, only Canadian material should be used in the construction of those three dreadnoughts.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, five months
ago the. Government, as the result of the examination and consideration of condi-

tions affecting this Empire and Canada's relations thereto, submitted a proposal to this Parliament and asked for its approval. After a long period of discussion and controversy we have now come to the final hours of the debate when every member of this House, representing as he does thousands of Canadian citizens, will be asked to exercise his responsibility by his vote signifying his approval or disapproval of this measure. We all admit that this is a deep and a grave responsibility. It is not my wish or intention to delay the House at this time at any length at all, but I have listened, as many other hon. members have to most of the arguments which have been placed before the House by various members and, as I have not as yet spoken at all upon this question, I trust that the House will pardon a few brief remarks. If I perhaps do not confine myself to answering my hon. friend's amendment I feel that you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House will pardon me in this case.
We all agree, I think, that it is a profoundly regrettable fact that this matter, which so vitally affects our common citizenship, our world relationship and our national future, should be plunged into the strife of party politics. I know that we shall not agree as to who shall bear the responsibility for plunging it there. After all we are perhaps too close to the theatre of conflict to ourselves have a very clear vision of that point, but it is certainly true that our judges will be the millions of our fellow subjects who have sent us here as their trustees. Then further I might say, and I venture to think that there will not be much dissent from the remark, that no equally great question was ever laid before any Parliament in terms characterized by loftier patriotism, greater freedom from party sentiment or deeper sincerity than those used by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) on the 5th day of December last. If the manner of that message was above reproach, we on this side of the House feel also that its matter was. Six years ago, at the Imperial conference, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in speaking of the problems of Empire used these words:
Let me ask you to realize what our position is. Forty-three millions of people in those two small islands bearing on our shoulders-I do not complain of it-this burden, we are quite willing to sustain-the whole weight of the debt which has been incurred in the formation and development of this Empire, bearing also the cost, at any rate, the great bulk of the cost-of the Imperial defence not only of these islands, but of the whole Empire in all its parts.
I think that no member of this House will dispute the truth of that statement. Canada has presented in the past a spectacle unparalleled as far as I know in the history of the world-a young, strong, growing country prosecuting year after year the development of its own resources, building up its own industrial and social fabric, absolutely unhindered by a thought of external interference solely and simply by the fact that between us and any conceivable trouble from the outside stood the power and might of the navy of Great Britain.
It would only be wearisome, nor is it necessary to discuss the much discussed question of whether the absolute supremacy of that navy is in any way threatened or jeopardized by naval and military developments in other parts of the world? The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the party he leads have assumed that no such possible danger exists. Some hon-members have indeed gone very far, like the-hon. member from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), who has asserted that Great Britain not only is not in danger but never will be. It is true, and there is perhaps some little solace in this, that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has said very positively that if England is ever in danger, or even on trial, he would be the first to go to the people and call them to assist with all their might. When the clock has struck, however, and the day of trial is at hand, my right hon. friend will be too late in his preparations and his appeals.
We believe on our side of the House that evidences sufficient have been given by those best able to give them that the peace and security of this Empire will be best assured by immediate strengthening of its naval forces. No truer word has been spoken than that by the great Imperial soldier, Lord Roberts, when he said that this Empire is always practically defenceless beyond its first line. The Bill now before this House is for the purpose of strengthening the first line of defence, and whatever may be the views of hon. members as to the gradual construction of naval forces in this country, we hold on this side of the House that our first duty is to provide immediate and effective aid in the way proposed by the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and those behind him, have spent very many words in denouncing as unpatriotic and un-Canadian the expenditure of money for the construction of three battleships for the strengthening of British naval supremacy.
I will not go into that argument, but I would point out to him that on February 3, 1910 when he was talking about the financial assistance extended by England to other nations to strengthen them during the Napoleonic war, he referred to Napoleon's description of England as a 'nation of shopkeepers ' and said:
For Canada, for my country, I would de-1 sire no better title than to be called a nation of shopkeepers and to be able to supply the! sinews of war.

in this House on the 7th of February last which. I think, is eminently true:
The question of our naval services and coast defence should be carefully studied and the advice and assistance of the best experts obtained. I sometimes think that the less a man knows about a question like this the more apt he is to express a very strong opinion about it.
And I would commend to attention one other passage in that lion, gentleman's speech, as follows:
The question for Canada to decide is not the definition of the word ' emergency '; but what is our duty? Is it not clear that our duty is to give every assistance within our power to Great Britain at the present time?
I do not wish to detain the House by speaking longer. We believe on this side of the House-and I am confident that I speak for the people I represent in that far western province-that this measure should receive the cordial sanction of the House, and that it will and does command the strongest sympathy and support of the Canadian people. One of the hon. members opposite speaking in this debate quoted a passage from Joseph Howe. Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to Mr. Howe's political career he stands in the memory of us all as a strong, big-hearted Oanadian of large views and lofty patriotism. Perhaps the House will permit me, in closing, to quote one memorable passage from the utterances of Joseph Howe, this being a speech on the Organization of Empire delivered on the 11th of March, 1854:
In no vain spirit do I wish also that the sentiments which I am about to utter, might be heard and pondered, not only as they will be by those who inhabit half this continent, but by members of the British Parliament, by Imperial statesmen, by the counsellors who stand around, and by the gracious sovereign who sits upon the Throne. Perhaps this may not be. Yet I believe that the day is not distant when our sons, standing in our places, trained in the enjoyment of public liberty by those who have gone before them, and compelled to be statesmen by the throbbing of their British blood, and by the necessities of their position, will be heard across the Atlantic; and will utter to each other, and to all the world, sentiments which to-day, Mr. Chairman, may fall with an air of novelty upon your ear, I am not sure, Sir, that even out of this discussion may not arise the spirit of union and elevation of thought that may lead North America to oast aside her Colonial habiliments, to put on national aspects, to assert national claims and pre pare to assume national obligations.
And he closed with this fine thought:
Come what may, I do not hesitate to express the hope that from this date she will aspire to consolidation as an integral portion of the realm of England, or assert her claims to a national existence.
Mr. BURRElLE.
It is in the belief that the Bill now before the House makes for that consolidation that I shall vote for it firmly convinced that in doing so I am expressing the mature conviction of the people whom I represent and am doing my duty and theirs.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: When the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) moved his amendment I did not intend to say a word in connection with it, but the speech of the Prime Minister and the observations of others to which it has given rise brought to my mind the necessity of making some reply. At that stage I did not know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) was to make a speech. I must say that in my judgment the speech of that hon. gentleman has nothing in common with the amendment before the Chair, and I submit that, according to the pronounced rulings-[DOT] and I suppose proper rulings-which we have had from Your Honour frequently and recently that the last motion before the Chair is the one to which hon. members must address themselves, the hon. minister was not in order. But, as he has had his little speech in course of preparation from day to day, I suppose, since the introduction of this Bill, and as it is clear it was not ready until now, far be it from me to place any obstacles in the way of the hon. gentleman reciting his ' Mary had a little lamb ' before this House. If anything were needed to show that no undue time has been taken up in the discussion of this Bill, if any evidence were necessary to absolutely and forever refute the argument put forth by hon. gentlemen opposite that too much time has been taken up, and that obstruction has been offered to the progress of this Bill, that evidence is furnished by the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. That hon. gentleman, while a member of the Government, who felt that he had important information to give, who felt that there were high principles that he wished to emphasize, that there were grand ideas of Empire in his heart and head of which the people of the country should be made aware before they were called upon to pass judgment on this Bill, it is only now that he is prepared to finish the discussion on the Government side and give us this speech. Where, then, is the obstruction, where is the time mis-spent on this side, when the Government have not been ready themselves until this moment to have the country properly pronounce upon this subject? I am sure that no other minister of the Crown, and no member supporting the Government would dare to say that the time to pronounce upon this measure had arrived when we had not before us the opinion of the hon. gentleman who has last addressed the House. Nor do we know that some other of the hon. gentlemen who adorn my

right hon. friend's Cabinet may not be maturing speeches which must be heard before this matter is concluded. I was told that possibly we may get some opinions on that navy question from the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel). I have ithe greatest regard for the Minister of Inland Revenue. We sat close together in this House some years ago when hon. gentlemen who now support the Government were on this side of the House, and I learned to have a great deal of respect for that hon. gentleman. I remember distinctly that when' he was sitting on this side of the House he made a very pronounced speech upon the naval question. If the hon. minister would make that speech again, I am of the opinion that he would make matters Tather uncomfortable for the Prime Minister and those who sit behind him. But I take it for granted that my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue has seasoned himself to his surroundings, and that he has used his political padlock to shut off the conveyance of any information that might be embarrassing to the Prime Minister.
If there is one point more than another that is worthy of notice in the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, the Minister of Agriculture, it is the emphasis he laid" upon the fact that the Prime Minister has an overwhelming mandate from the people of Canada with regard to this matter. I submit that, if we understand aright what the getting of a mandate from the people on any specific question really means, a mandate is obtained only after due deliberation upon the issue by the people. When the judgment of the people is then obtained, it should be regarded as a mandate with regard to that question. The province of Nova Scotia is the native province of the Prime Minister, and I submit that so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, hon. gentlemen opposite have no mandate with regard to this question of naval construction, because it was not an issue in the last election. The Minister of Agriculture is therefore speaking entirely aside from the question and without due regard to the facts when he says that the Government can go forward with this because they have a mandate from the people. They have nothing of the kind. As to the province of Quebec whatever mandate they have from that province, it is absolutely and diametrically opposed to the course now being taken by the Government.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Was my hon. friend
not in the House when the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) said that he was elected largely upon the policy of a Canadian-built navy?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That was certainly the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; it was well understood in that province.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has said that the naval question was not an issue in the province of Nova Scotia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If there was an issue
in regard to that matter, it certainly had reference to the question as to whether the ships should be built, and whether any part of their construction would be carried on, in the town of Sydney. If, in his younger days, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie had been promised a pair of boots by his father, the question as to whether or not he should buy them would not be subject to decision; the only matter at issue would be as to which of two stores he should purchase them-the matter of his getting the boots was settled. So far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, the
Suestion as to whether we should have a anadian navy according to the programme outlined by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was settled; it was simply a question as to where .the ships should be built and whether we would get any share of that building in Sydney.


John Hampden Burnham: Is that the hon. gentleman's conception of Empire?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not always wise
to pay a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). As graver questions are now before us, I leave my hon. friend to deal with such matters as theology, the French language, and the question as to whether we are married or not. I propose to confine my observations in answer to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture largely to this matter of the obtaining of a mandate from the people. There was in the Government an hon. gentleman from the province of Quebec who was well posted in matters pertaining to the naval question in all its bearings as relating to the province of Quebec. Why is he" not sitting across the way at the desk which seems to be somewhat dilapidated by his desertion of it? Why is he not there? If that hon. gentleman went into the Government with the will of the people behind him; if he went into the Government upon the statement of the Prime Minister as to what the will of the people was; if the members of the Government were unanimous in their idea that a mandate had been obtained, as the Minister of Agriculture says, why this breakaway on the part of one of its most important members? The reason why he left was that the mandate_ he had received had not been complied with. I leave my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture to

Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Beattie,
Bellemare,
Bennett (Calgary) Bennett (Simcoe). Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Ch abot,
Clare,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Coderre,
Crockett,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Currie,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe) Fowler,
Garland,
Gauthier (Gaspe), Girard,
Green,
Guilbault,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Jameson,
Kemp,
Lalor,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
Maclean (York,'O.), McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nan tel,
Northrup,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Perley,
Porter,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Tremain,
Walker,
Wallace,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-102.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Morphy,
Steele,
MteCurdy,
Bristol,
Aikins,
Barnard,
Clark (Bruce), White,
Wilcox,
Nlckle,
Thoburn,
Doherty,
Roche,
Nicholson,
Clements, Webster, Broder,
Hughes Clarke Foster
Opposition.
Champagne,
Nesbitt,
Maclean (Halifax), Bickerdike,
Turriff,
Martin (Regina),
McCraney,
E'mmerson,
Cruise,
Ross,
Robb,
Marcil
(Bonawenthre), ' Cash,
Hughes
(King's P.E.I.), McCoig,
Lovell,
Molloy,
(Victoria, O.),Buchanan, (Wellington), Guthrie,
(King's, JNB.), Gauthier
$} St. Hyacinths),
Mr. McKenzie.
Foster	(Toronto), Gordon,
Fripp,	Lafortune,
Garrick,	Brown,
Armstrong (lork, U.),Tobin,
Eleon,	M'oHillan,
(Amendment negatived.)
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, like those of
my fellow members who have addressed themselves to the third reding of this Bill, I Rave no intention of re-opening the main issue which has been discussed for such a long time, though not too long, I am sure. But. as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, the discussion was closed on Saturday last at two o'clock in the morning when the rules of closure were applied against us.	On the present occasion I rise,
as I have said, not to discuss the Bill, but simply to offer a last protest- Not that I have any expectation that anything that may be said by me on this occasion can in any way affect the decision soon to be recorded by the majority. Yet this vote settles nothing: the question Temainis, and the result will simply complicate the problem of defence. The question must come up again for consideration, and it is fitting that we should lay down the landmarks which should guide our course not only at this time but in future years.
In many quarters surprise is expressed at the strenuousness of the opposition which we have offered to this measure. In this there is no cause for surprise; indeed, there would have been cause for surprise if we had failed to do what we have done. When a measure of this importance, a measure which is at variance with the historic traditions that we have followed in this country since Confederation, is introduced into this House, the people have a right to expect that their rulers will treat them with frankness and candour, will show them whither they are led, and above all will see that the public is consulted before the final decision is reached. On all these counts the Government have been remiss, unfaithful and delinquent. We arraign them before the people on all these grounds. The first indictment which I present against them is that the very reason upon which this measure is based has absolutely no foundation in fact.
When, some few months ago, in the earliest days of this session, members who support the Government were told that there was an emergency in the affairs of Great Britain and that Great Britain

should receive the assistance of this country, they did not suspect, I am sure, that before the last vote would be taken they would have in their hands absolute evidence of the falsity of the assertion which was then made. When they were told that there was an emergency and that the condition of things which prevailed in England required that immediately the people of Canada should contribute the sum of $35,000,000 to procure three of the largest battleships which money could buy or science devise, they would have seen at once what a cold mockery it was, if there was such a danger, that we should send three empty ships into the firing line. But they are easily led away from the truth who are desirous of being led away from the truth, and our hon. friends were ready to believe, and in fact did believe, that there was such an emergency; and we witnessed a climax of enthusiasm when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) summarized the situation in these graphic words:
From what quarter is England menaced? From Asia, no; from Africa, no; from America, no; where is her menace to-day? It is in Europe, and if combinations of powers, or if any power in Europe aims a spear at her heart, be the aim taken in Europe or elsewhere, that is where my shield and helm ought to be, to ward off the pointed dart and to prevent the death that otherwise would come.
This was certainly graphic language, and well do I remember the enthusiasm with which it was greeted. But the unreality of these words was shown at a not very distant day when the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that these ships which would be contributed by Canada were not to be placed on the firing line, but were to be placed under the shadow of the rock of Gibraltar.
What a fall was there for these staunch Imperialists who had dreamed by night and thought by day that their helm and shield would be there to ward off the blow! But what a triumph for the Nationalists whose souls had been tortured for so many years by the expectation that their sons might be called away from their homes to be disembowelled on board these ships ! The Nationalists to-day can rest in peace, they can slumber without trouble, because no one will be disembowelled upon these ships so long as they are under the shadow of the rock of Gibraltar and have the protection of the guns of the citadel. If these ships are to be named after Canadian celebrities, I would suggest to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) three names which would be quite in accordance with the fitness of things-Pelletier, Nantel and Coderre.
But there is more than that. We proposed a counter policy, which was that we should continue the policy which had been adopted in 1909, that we should have a naval service of our own; and we showed that this policy was suggested by the very facts disclosed in the memorandum of the British Admiralty. That memorandum stated that on account of the augmentation of the navies of European powers, the Admiralty had been forced to withdraw their naval forces from distant seas and concentrate them in European waters. Our policy was that we should have two fleet units, one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific, to take the places of the British squadrons which had been removed from those waters. But the rejoinder which we received was to the effect that the contribution was an emergency contribution, an extraordinary contribution, to be made on account of a sudden condition of things which had arisen, and that we therefore could not do anything along the line of a permanent policy such as we proposed. As the discussion went on, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), whom we all regret not to see among us to-day, thought that he had discovered a paramount argument against our policy. He found that argument in a speech of Mr. Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty, delivered on the 31st March last, in which Mr. Churchill made use of the following language:
I ask the House seriously:	Is it not unwise for some people on one side of the House to say that the Canadian ships are redundant, superfluous and an unnecessary burden -(Hon. members: No)-and is it not equally unwise for other people on the other side to say that they ought to he redundant, superfluous, and an unnecessary burden. Both these views seem to me to he equally wrong and equally harmful to our interests, and 1 must repeat that the Canadian ships are absolutely necessary for the whole world defence of the British Empire from the end of 1915, or from the beginning of 1916 onwards.
I have never disguised the fact that I am an admirer of the young First Lord of the Admiralty. I have read some of his books, I have read some of his speeches, I have listened to some others, and on every occasion I, like everybody else, could not but marvel at his variety of gifts, his power of expression, his remarkable faculty of dramatically marshalling facts and ideas-in short, his versatility. On this occasion the one quality which was conspicuous was not the power of speech, not the faculty of dramatic expression, but rather his versatility, because we had not up to that time heard any such language on the part of the young First Lord of the Admiralty. Mr. Churchill, on the contrary, on every occasion had told us that the naval forces of England were adequate for any emergency that might arise; that England did

1001&
not need assistance from any quarter; that any assistance that might be given her by any of the young nations of the Empire would be welcome; but that, if that assistance did not come or could not come, Britain would face all perils that might come. This was indeed a strong argument to confirm the view represented by the Government that England was in need of assistance from Canada, and that the ships which were offered by Canada would be required by the year 1915.
There is something more than this. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance did not give us the whole of the quotation. If he had gone further, another story would have been unfolded. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) told us a few days ago that he would give the whole of the quotation from the speech of Mr. Churchill which bore upon this point. My hon. friend made a quotation, which I shall read in its entirety in order to show him that he did not give the whole of the quotation, but left out something which has a material bearing upon the point at issue. He prefaced the quotation with the following remarks:
His remarks have been referred to by the hon. Minister of iFinance and several other members, but have never before been placed on ' Hansard ' in their entirety. He said that up to the year 1914 the 60 per cent standard had been provided for. Then he goes on to say:
Then comes the quotation:
That is quite sufficient for the year 1915, with which we are at present dealing, but, haying regard to the responsibilities of the British Empire both in the Pacific and in, the Mediterranean, and having regard in particular to the new development of forces in the Mediterranean, it is clear that thlei margin of strength available for the whole world service of the British Empire will not be sufficient after the first quarter of 1916 unless further steps are taken either by the dominions or by ourselves. From the point of view, the reality of the need of the three Canadian vessels can be well appreciated. They would raise the margin of the strength available for the general defence of the Empire, after the main need in home waters has been met, as follows: 1915, in the fourth quarter, 10;	1916, in the first quarter, 13;
in the second quarter, 8; in the third quarter, 8; in the fourth quarter, 10; 1917, in1 the first quarter 13, and so on, an average of 9 or 10 vessels available for the whole world service of the British Empire. That, in the absence of further developments in the Mediterranean or in the Pacific beyond what is now in prospect, would he sufficient. If, how-over, new developments took place of such a kind as to affect Admiralty problems, or if the Canadian ships were to miscarry for any reason, the situation would have to be reviewed. It is unnecessary at the present moment, and it would be premature for me to say any more on the subject. I have given the fullest information in my power to the House, and I hope I shall not he pressed to Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
add to it. I could not accede to such a re-: quest. It is necessary, however, to make-it clear that the three ships now under discussion in Canada are absolutely required from 1916 onwards for the whole world defence of the British Empire, apart altogether from the needs of Great Britain in home waters; that they will play a real part in the defence of the Empire; and that, if they fail, a gap will be opened to fill which further sacrifices will have to be -made without undue delay by others.	_	.
With these facts in view, I ask the House* seriously: Is it not unwise for some people* on one side of the House to say that thef Canadian ships are redundant, superfluous, and an unnecessary burden-(Hon. members:
' No.')-and it is equally unwise for other' people on the other side to say that they1 ought to be redundant, superfluous, and an unnecessary burden? Both these views seem to me to be equally wrong and equally harmful to our interests, and I must repeat that the Canadian ships are absolutely necessary for the -whole world defence of the British Empire from the end of 1915, or from the* beginning of 1916 onwards. The fact that- . they are necessary is no measure of thein value. Their value far exceeds the value of three ships. We can build three ships ourselves if necessary. Parliament has never refused to supply the money for that which res-possible ministers have considered necessary for the proper discharge of the responsibilities of the Crown. It is the fact of this great new nation coming forward with all its measureless strength and possibility, to testify to the enduring life of the British Empire that has already produced an impression throughout the world of more value than, many dreadnought ships, an impression which throughout the world conduces both to* the safety of this country and to the peace of the nations.
There my hon. friend stopped, after stating that he would give the whole quotation which bore upon this point. If he had continued, he would have read the following sentence, which comes immediately at the point where he left off:
From this point of view the difference in method which separates the proposal of Mr. Borden's Government from those of that far-seeing Imperial statesman, Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, are not of vital importance.


Mr. AMES:: Will the right hon. the
leader of the Opposition be good enough to continue the quotation?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly. I will read not only the quotation, but my hon. friend's mind, which I understand perfectly well. My hon. friend wants me to read further in order to draw attention to this statement of Mr. Churchill:
The Admiralty have expressed their opinion, as it was our duty to do, as to which is the most convenient method and which method will be the most quick and helpful and will be most effective for the common good of the British Empire. But from a wider standard than any rwbich the Admiralty can occupy

the principle of Canada, coming forward for the world-wide naval defence of itlhe British Empire is of inestimable value, and that is tihe principle on which I understand Liberals and Conservatives in Canada are at one.
My hon. friend wants to draw my attention to the statement that the method which has been adopted by the Government of a contribution rather than of a Canadian navy is in accordance with the views of the Admiralty. The Admiralty have on all occasions pronounced their preference for a policy of contribution rather than for a policy of autonomous organization. I grant that willingly to my hon. friend; but we on this side of the House have told the Admiralty that, although they expressed that preference we would not have a system of direct contribution but would have an autonomous organization.
If my hon. friend will allow me, I will show him that this policy is the right policy; and, if he asks for authority, I will give him an authority which, I am sure, he will not question-an authority which he accepts on all occasions: the authority of the present Prime Minister of Canada. Since he is in the way of asking for quotations, I will ask him to send to the library and get a copy of the Debates of this House of the 29th of March, 1909. He will find there the speech of the present Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition. I have not seen it for some time, but I am as certain as I am that I exist that in that speech my right hon. friend stated that the Admiralty had expressed a preference for a contribution, but that that system had been tried in Australia and had failed, and that he was in favour of a Canadian navy. This is the way the question stands, not only before the Canadian people, but before the whole Empire. We have been told again and again-it is the basis upon which this measure has been drafted-that the British Admiralty desired our contribution-that such a contribution was necessary for the safety of the Empire. But you have the testimony of Mr. Churchill that though he would prefer the one, yet the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier is just as acceptable as the policy of Mr. Borden. I have just this to say to my hon. friends on the other side, and not only to these hon. gentlemen but to the Canadian people, nay, to the wide Empire: that we on this side of the House are as ready to bear our burden, to discharge the duty which we owe to the Motherland as British subjects, as any others can be; but we want to do it in the manner which was adopted by all parties at one time, when this question was approached free from party bias-by the organization of a Canadian navy on lines compatible with the autonomy of Canada. And which of these two policies is preferred by gentlemen on the other side? With the
exception of tvro, every hon. gentleman supporting the Government who has opened his lips on this question has told us he was in favour of a Canadian naval service at some time or other. But they declare that they are in favour of the present policy because it is necessary on account of an emergency. But Mr. Churchill says that the policy which we propose will be as effective at the present time as the policy of the Government.
What more need I say; what more should I say? Is it not evident that we are more than vindicated by the language of Mr. Churchill? Is it not evident that it would have been better for the Government not to adopt an emergency policy when there is no emergency, but to follow the policy adopted in 1909 and 1910? I will say no more on that point, but I repeat that I believe I have fully vindicated our course by the quotation I have given of the speech of Mr. Churchill.
Perhaps I might sit down now without saying anything further. But it will not be amiss, I suppose, if I review some of the other grounds on which we find fault with the Bill now before the House. It has been stated and repeated, and repeated again, that we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: So say I.
I never said anything else; on the contrary, I have maintained that attitude everywhere; I have always maintained that attitude in my own province on all occasions and under all oircumstances. But I do not base that gratitude upon the ground on which it is based by some hon. gentlemen. When we are told that we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain, that we should vote $35,000,000 to Great Britain because Great Britain has lent us money to develop this country, this is to my mind nothing more than a purely childish argument. If Great Briatin were to receive a dreadnought from every one of the countries to which she had lent money, her harbours would be so filled with these ships that there would be no place for the present British fleet. Great Britain has investments in all the countries of the world. She has investments in the United States, in Mexico, in Chili, in Venezuela, in Brazil, in the Argentine-in fact, in all the countries on the continent of America. She has investments in all the countries of Europe; in Austria, in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal, even in France and Germany. Great Britain has investments in Japan, in China, in all the countries of Asia and Africa. She has loaned money to states, to provinces, to cities, to towns; she has loaned money to ship-building industries,

to railway companies, to industrial enterprises, to corporations, to individuals-to every man who came to her willing to pay the rates of interest and furnish good security. If Canada has received money on loan from Great Britain, it has not been because of sentiment, but simply because Canada could afford the security and could pay the interest. Let the rate of interest be lowered, or the security be found wanting, and at once the door will be closed against us. There are interests which a few years ago found the doors of every bank in Britain open to them, which to-day are received with coldness because their securities are not supposed to be as good as they were.
Nor do I admit that we owe gratitude to Great Britain because she spent money to defend this country. Sir, sovereignty implies defence, and so long as Britain was sovereign over Canada, it was her duty to defend Canada. If we were a colony still, we should have the right to claim this defence at the hands of the Mother Country. But to-day we are a free nation. Yet I have already said that we do owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. I proclaim it to the world. And why should we be grateful? Not because she has defended us, not because she has loaned us money, but because of the liberality of the regime she has introduced here. And especially do we of the province of Quebec owe gratitude to her-I say so without hesitation- because she has permitted us to become a nation within her Empire. That is the ground upon which I rest our gratitude to the Mother Country.
But, while I say this, I say also that if the basis of this contribution be gratitude, then the authors of this measure should blush. Who ever heard of paying gratitude with a loan? Favour begets favour. That being so, I could understand a gift as being an expression of gratitude. But this is not a gift that we are making to Great Britain; it is a loan. The Government on this question has been vacillating, changeable, variable, with an eye to the East and an eye to the West, trying one day to please the Imperialists and the next day to placate the Nationalists, and in the end deceiving all.
Sir, we are opposed to this contribution because our policy, as I said a moment ago, is a policy of autonomous development. That was the policy which was accepted in 1909 by both sides of this House; that was the policy which we endeavoured to put on the statute-book in 1910; and that is the policy to which we remain faithful. For remaining faithful to that policy we have brought down upon our heads the ire both of the Nationalists and of the Imperialists. Every day our policy is attacked in the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
chief organ of Nationalism in the province of Quebec. Only last week there was published in that organ an article which opened with these sentences:
Mr. Laurier knows very well-and he proclaimed it in 1902 and 1907-that Canada, for the protection of its territory, and of its commerce, has no need of war vessels. Hei knows, and everybody knows, that England, the sole mistress and principal beneficiary of the maritime commerce of Canada, has a moral, legal and material obligation to defend that commerce; and he proclaimed himself against his opponents-in which he is right-that the British fleet is sufficiently powerful to accomplish that task. He knows also that if England were at war the trade of Canada would be carried under a neutral flag.
There are many things in this article which it is said I know, but which I know not, because they do not exist; there are other things which I do know, but which are not mentioned here. I know, for instance, and the writer of this article ought to know, that the British squadron has been removed from the northern waters of the Atlantic, the direct route of Canadian commerce. I know, moreover, that if Great Britain were at war Canadian trade would have to be carried under a neutral flag if there were no war vessels to protect it. That I know, and that is one reason for our policy. What would be the consequence if Canadian trade had to be carried under a neutral flag? It would mean that our exports-our cereals, butter, cheese, cattle, lumber, fish, minerals-in fact, all the products of the farm, the sea, the forest, the mine and the shop, would, if on the Atlantic coast, have to be taken to Boston and New York, and there placed in United States bottoms to be carried to their destination; or, if on the Pacific coast, would have to be carried to San Francisco, there to be placed in United States bottoms to be carried to their destination. This would mean that Canadian trade would be dislocated, that our harbours would be deserted, and that the people who usually handle this Canadian trade would be without their means of livelihood. These are the consequences which would follow if our trade were to be carried under a neutral flag, and it was to prevent that calamity that we decided to have a Canadian fleet of our own.
And what is the Imperialist side of our policy? We are every day taunted in this House and by the press throughout the country with the assertion that our naval service law of 1910, which created a Canadian navy, is a separatist law, and that our aims are towards separation. In connection with this I have a word to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). Some days ago the hon. minister delivered a speech in this House, in which he said, speaking of the election of Drummond and

Arthabaska, that, although I had for more than forty years been in the constituency, I had taken no part in that election, because my friends supporting the Liberal cause were preaching separation, and that if I had been there I would have had to bear, in the English provinces, the odium of the doctrine which was being preached in Drummond and Arthabaska. In order to do justice to the hon. the Minister of Labour, I will quote the very words he made use of. Speaking of the election, he said:
He did not appear amongst the people once during that campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska. Why? His followers carried forward that qampaign, and the burden of their song on every platform on which they spoke throughout the constituency was that the naval policy of the then leader of the Government meant separation, and had been adopted with a view to putting the people of Canada in a position to take care of themselves as soon as they became independent^ That was the doctrine preached from every platform in Drummond and Arthabaska during the first election held after the Naval Bill was introduced and carried in this House in 1910. Any hon. gentleman who desires to verify my remarks may do so by referring to the columns of the Montreal Herald and the .Montreal Witness, both Liberal papers, .where they will find, in the reports of the meetings held throughout Drummond and Arthabaska, that the Government of that day were preaching Canadian independence; and the right hon. leader of the Opposition, not desiring to incur in the English-speaking provinces the odium of supporting that doctrine, and not desiring to go into the constituency and say anything that would not be popular with the people, kept out of it altogether. What do hon. gentlemen think of a Prime Minister who, having introduced such a measure as the Naval Bill of 1910, and the first election after the passage of his Bill taking place in the constituency in which he lived for forty years, plays the coward, and keeps out of the constituency altogether.
Sir, there are big words in that paragraph. The word ' coward ' is a big one, even in the mouth of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, who is not, he will admit, accustomed to remarkable feats of bravery. The hon. gentleman and I are good friends, I hope, but I am sure he will not take it amiss if I suggest that when he selects his adjectives, he had Better consult the record in order to ascertain whether or not they fit in with the subject. He gave very good advice to his hearers on that occasion when he suggested that they read the Montreal Witness and the Montreal Herald, both Liberal papers. If he had himself followed the advice he gave to others; if he had read the Montreal Witness, the Montreal Herald, the Montreal Gazette or the Montreal Star, he would never have spoken as he did, for he would have known that I was in Drummond and Arthabaska, and that I held the first meeting with my hon. friend the then Solicitor General, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), when the candidature of Mr. Perreault, the Liberal candidate was being presented to the people. At that meeting, I spoke to perhaps one thousand electors, and set forth the policy of the Government of the day. I afiirm-and I challenge contradiction-that separation and disloyalty were preached, not by any member of the Liberal party, but by the men who are now supporting the Government and who sit in council with my hon friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). Sir, it has been my privilege to speak upon that question both in the province of Ontario and the other English provinces and in the province of Quebec, and I defy my hon. friend or anybody else to find a word of contradiction between my speeches, whether I spoke in one province or the other.


Mr. CROTHERS:: How many times did the right hon. gentleman speak in Drummond and Arthabaska during the campaign, and at what time during the campaign did he make the speech to which he alludes? I remember very well-
Som hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Life is too
short for me at my age to undertake to reply to everything spoken of me. I do not remember the occasion to which my hon. friend refers. I may have been in the House or not; I do not know; but I know that the hon. gentleman had no right to make such a reference to me and to speak as he did. He wanted to convey the insinuation that I had raised racial cries I never did anything of the kind. On the contrary, everybody in Quebec knows that upon every platform from which I spoke- and there were scores of them-I told my fellow countrymen of French origin that it was their duty, if the supremacy of Great Britain were ever at stake, to risk their all in her defence. The statement of my hon. friend was unworthy of his position in this House. I know I have been taken to task again and again because I have asserted upon all these questions that parliament ought to have control of its policy. For this I have been branded in this House as a separatist.

But let us discuss this question, as I think we can, without any passion or prejudice. Sir, what is the meaning of the policy of the Government when they say they want to have a voice in all questions of peace and war, if it is not to affirm the supremacy of the Canadian Parliament? The Government want to have one of their ministers in London. What is that for? To discuss all questions of peace and war? What is that for? Is that minister in London to sit at the council board as a dummy? Is he to have no voice at all except to say ' yea ' to anything proposed, or is he to carry to London the views and the voice of the Canadian people? This is the policy which I have maintained all my life; this is the policy which I maintain to-day; and I believe that in his heart of hearts every man on the other side of the House will admit that there is no other policy to be maintained by a self-respecting people. The great mistake which is made by my Conservative friends on the other side of the House is that they will not trust the people, that they are afraid that if there should be an emergency, the Canadian people will not be up to the mark. We were put in that position in 1899 at the time of the South African war; but, Sir, without any compulsion, without any obligation on our part, when the flag was under trial in South Africa we determined that Canada should do her part, and we acted upon that determination. That is the true policy.
In the light of the discussion which has taken place, it has often occurred to me that we were approaching this subject from different points of view. It has seemed to me that the thought prevalent in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite was that we are still a colony, whereas I maintain that we are now a nation. We are a nation within the British Empire; we are a nation consistently with our allegiance -to Great Britain; but it is one of the glories of Great Britain that she has allowed her colonies to develop into nationhood without forcing the breaking of the colonial ties. This is a development unique in history. It has brought about a condition in which the British Empire is composed of a galaxy of young, ardent nations. I do not know the view of our friends opposite-no, I think I know it; but, Sir, on this side of the House we take pride in claiming that we are a nation within the British Empire, and it is our policy to take up the duties which pertain to nationhood. This is one of the reasons why I oppose this policy. We oppose this policy because it does not recognize the duty which we owe to ourselves as a nation. We oppose this policy because it is not based on principle, but is simply makeshift and expedient. We oppose this policy because, as stated by one of the leaders of hon.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
gentlemen opposite, it does not strike any root, it does not prepare the soil, it leaves no residue. We oppose this policy because this $35,000,000 should be applied to the organization of a Canadian naval service in close co-operation with and in connection with the Imperial navy- a Canadian service, built, manned, equipped, in Canada. This is the goal to which we are looking; and it is because the present policy ignores all these duties that we say, revert to the old policy which we all accepted in 1909 and which should be accepted in 1913, and which we in opposition as in office maintained flying to the winds. It is for these reasons that we say we cannot support this policy. My last word is that we cannot support it, and I beg to move the six months' hoist.


Mr. J. P. O. GUILBAULT (Joliette):: I was myself, Mr. Speaker, on the point of submitting the motion which has just been made by the hon. leader of the Opposition, but not however for the same reasons.
The hon. leader of the Opposition is asking for the six-months' hoist. Why so? Simply, so as to be able to come back to his own naval law. That law has already been condemned by the people. For my part, I have condemned it myself, and I have done all I could to have it condemned by others. The Liberal party is now opposed to a temporary policy, so as to give new life to a permanent policy. Do you call that sincerity?
Amendments upon amendments have been proposed, the better apparently to destroy a law which is approved in principle. Both parties seem to have come to the same understanding upon the fact that it is necessary that money should be spent for the motherland. But the hon. leader of the Opposition goes still farther, when he says that money does not suffice for paying a debt of gratitude, and that he is ready to contribute, even by calling upon our children to shed their blood, in reverting to the Naval Policy which he has formerly patronized and which he desires to revive to-day. For my part, I am opposed to that policy, and if I have condemned in the past the policy of the leader of the Opposition, I must also condemn to-day the policy of the Government. Those two policies, I condemn absolutely, and I feel certain that the country also condemns them.
A short time ago, I had the honour to ask the leader of the Government to refer that measure of contribution to the people, by way of a referendum, and also refer in the same time the measure of the preceding administration. I say again, I believe that is the only way to know clearly and without ambiguity how public opinion stands on that matter. But both parties have come to an understanding that such an

amendment, as I had the honour to propose, must be killed.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: It is a conspiracy.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: Yes, there is a conspiration, but that conspiration is one of both parties to spend the money of a people who refuses to spend anything for armaments; it is a conspiration of both parties to stifle the voice of the people.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is the hobby of Bourassa.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: It gives me pleasure to support the motion of the hon. leader of the Opposition, but, I say again, not for the reasons that he has given himself.
When it was said that the independent members were not loyal, that was an error, and the people has been deceived when there were attributed to independent papers certain articles and carieatures which those papers have never published, but which were, as stated this morning by the hon. Prime Minister, a pure invention of the Liberals and of the 'Canada.' The same tactics will be continued, in telling deliberate falsehood. They will say, in Ontario, that the Independents are not loyal enough, and, in Quebec, that such a contribution will ruin the country. It is a reversion to the same game.
With regard to a permanent policy, the hon. Prime Minister has declared that he would never commit himself to such a policy without first consulting the people. But, for my part, I must object energetically against taking the first steps in that direction, in voting to-day a contribution, even if only temporary. It is for that reason that I will vote in favour of the amendment of the -leader of the Opposition, but not for the motives he has stated.
I desire to say a few words in English to make my position clear to those who do not understand French. I am in favour of this amendment, and am prepared to second it, but not for the reasons given by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. The leader of the Opposition has in view the keeping in force of the Canadian Naval Service Act, but I stated in the province of Quebec, and everywhere I spoke, that I was opposed to that Act, and my friends and I are equally opposed to this'Bill, though, I repeat, not for the same reasons as the leader of the Opposition.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: There
are many others like you.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: You are not.


Ernest Lapointe: No, I am not, thank
God.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: The people are, and I am with the people. I simply wish to repeat that I second the motion of the leader of the Opposition, but for reasons
quite opposed to those given by my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been some competition between my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Joliette for the honour of moving the six months' hoist in respect of this Bill. My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Guilbault) rose before six o'clock, but gave way when the Speaker called upon the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, and thus the right hon. gentleman secured the first opportunity in that regard. I will not follow the right hon. gentleman in all his observations. He has alluded to the ruthless closure which took place after the second clause of this Bill had been discussed in committee for twenty days. If that is ruthless closure, then my right hon. friend is under some hardship in respect to the matter. But I have been reminded by one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House that I need have no apprehension that they have not had ample opportunity to discuss this Bill to their heart's content. The right hon. gentleman still harps upon the question of an appeal to the people. When, in 1910, he put forward what he expressly stated to be a definite and permanent policy for the people of this country, he voted on at least two occasions, and I think on three occasions that there should be no appeal to the people before the permanent policy was adopted. When, in tne light of the Admiralty memorandum which has been placed before this House, we now propose that there should be this temporary measure of immediate and effective aid, my right hon. friend departs from the position which he took in 1910, and demands that there should be an appeal to the people before any further steps are taken. He does that, notwithstanding that he himself, and all his followers voted on 13th February, and again on 27th February, that there should be a grant of $35,000,000, although it was to be spent in a different way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not new.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has
spoken a good many times on this question, without, I think, contributing anything new to the debate. Now the right hon. gentleman has discovered what he considers absolute and conclusive evidence that there is no emergency, and no need, and that Canada should stay her hand and do nothing at this moment. He bases that upon his allegation that these ships are not, as he says, to be in the firing line at all, because they are to be placed, not in the North sea, but at Gibraltar. Has my right hon. friend so neglected to observe what has taken place in the British House of Commons during



the past year that he does not know the object of placing the Mediterranean fleet at Gibraltar instead of at Malta? It was stated in very plain terms indeed by the First Lord of the Admiralty less than a year ago, and the ground which the First Lord of the Admiralty put forward at that time was that these ships were within two or three steaming days of the North sea and could be called upon in case of emergency to join their forces with those which were already there for the defence of the whole Empire. My right hon. friend suggests that this fleet is to be under the guns of Gibraltar and that it is not to do any fighting at all. Let me distinguish between this fleet and that which my right hon. friend proposed in 1910. This is a fighting fleet of five of the most formidable battle cruisers in the world which can go to the North sea, or to the Mediterranean, or to the North Atlantic, or to Australia, or to the Pacific, or wherever the needs of defence may call it. It is not a fleet that is not designed for fighting. On the contrary, it will be a fleet possessing the greatest speed of any fleet in the world of a similar character, a fleet composed of armoured cruisers of the most powerful and modern type and one which will be able to afford every needed aid which the requirements of the Empire may demand.
But my right hon. friend harps upon the question of the Canadian Naval Service which he instituted in 1910. He asserts, in so far as I understand his argument, that we should stay our hand until we aTe able to build that fleet completely in Canada. If my right hon. friend did not mean that by his previous speeches it will be well for him to say so now. As I understand his proposals, no part of the money ought to be expended outside of Canada and in face of the conditions disclosed in the Admiralty memorandum, we should stay our hand in Canada, as he stayed his hand for fifteen years when in power, and await the day when we shall have the ability in this country to construct not only the hulls of these battleships but the armour-plate, the armament, the guns and all of the countless variety of engines and machinery that are necessary for the thorough equipment of a dreadnought. What does that mean? Every hon. gentleman in this House knows the indefinite delay which that means. Every one remembers the delay which my right hon. friend insisted upon, in 1902 and again in 1907 at the Imperial conferences. I have his language under my hand and I could quote it to the House if I were disposed to do so, but I make the assertion in the bald terms which I have used and I challenge my right hon. friend to a Mr. BOLDEN.
contradiction of what I have stated. He will not contradict it because he knows that I speak by the record.
He ventured to assert that in 1909 a certain resolution was passed by this House and that he undertook to carry out that resolution by his proposal of 1910. I venture to affirm that he did not undertake to carry out, by the Naval Service Act of 1910, the resolution which was agreed to in this House in 1909. The resolution of this House in 1909 declared for a naval service in Canada to be in close corporation with the naval service of the Empire and along the lines suggested at the last Imperial conference. The lines suggested at the last Imperial conference were that in time of war all the naval forces of the Empire should be united to repel any attack, that they should be under one direction and control, and that they should not be organized as scattered navies which might be overcome in succession by a hostile power.
But the emergency has ceased, repeats my right hon. friend, although he did mot lay emphasis upon it. He said that there is no emergency, that there is no need, and his followers have stated time and again that Great Britain is wealthy, that Great Britain is disposed to maintain her naval forces so that the Empire cannot be successfully attacked and, therefore, why should we take any steps ? There is no emergency, said my right hon. friend, there is no need, there is no occasion for us to take any step whatever. But I would like to point out to him that one of his own colleagues, and a very leading colleague, I believe, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), a little more than a year ago in this House, said this:
If there was necessity to prepare for naval defence two years ago, how much greater is that necessity to-day? Two years ago there was merely a suspicion of danger, but today Germany and England are exchanging what are practically defiances. It is admitted that the only security which the British Empire has to-day is the British fleet; and that without that fleet the prestige of Britain would be gone and the liberties of Canada^ would be endangered.
Further on:
I say that the Empire admittedly, never since the days of Napoleon the First, has been in greater danger than it has been within the past two months. Does anybody deny it?
And again:
But I say that under the circumstances which have occurred during the past two months, when only yesterday the telegraph wires were awaiting and expecting war, these gentlemen cannot escape responsibility by saying that they have no policy.

I have quotation after quotation from the leading Liberal organ of hon. gentlemen opposite published in Ontario in which, during the past summer, the same statement is made. These views were put forward only some eight or nine months ago. Let me read one or two of them, because it is well to contrast the attitude of some portions of the Liberal press to-day with that which they assumed only last summer and last autumn. Take the following quotation from the journal to which I have alluded-the Toronto Globe:
The speech of Mr. Winston Churchill on the naval defence of the Empire clearly points the way for Canada. He stated that only by cool study and by methodical preparation, extended over a series of years, could Britain raise the margin of naval power in Europe alone, while, he added, ' we have to protect dominions and territories scattered over every continent and every ocean as well/ There in a word is Britain's problem. There, too, is the opportunity for the dominions overseas to cease sponging-the word is not a bit too strong-on the Mother Land for naval defence.
And again from the same journal:
The problem of British naval defence has been greatly complicated by the growing sea power of the tripple alliance and the declining power of Prance. Ten years ago Germany's naval forces were relatively insignificant, and even now in pre-dreadnought battleships she is hopelessly outclassed. But pre-dreadnought battleships count less every day, and in the building of dreadnoughts, the Triple Alliance powers-Germany, Austria and Italy-are all feverishly at work. It is estimated that by the winter of 1913 the triple alliance will he able to muster twenty-one dreadnoughts against Britain's twenty-six, which is a very narrow margin of supremacy.
Further, I venture to quote this also because hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are very much influenced by the opinions of the journal in question, and I hope that by bringing to their attention these very striking and earnest words I may be able to induce some of them to support this Bill:
. The peace of the world is for the moment secure and the British navy is the founda-t tion of that security. Looking ahead, however, every thinking man must recognize that Britain will not always be able to play ' beggar my neighbour' with Germany in the game of building warships. There are
65,000,000 Germans, and they are increasing at the rate of over 1,000,000 a year. They do not emigrate, but remain at home to strengthen the power of Germany. The total emigration of Germany is probably less than 30,000 a year. Britain, with 45,000,000, people sends out every year about ten times the number of emigrants Germany does. They are, for the most part, young, fit and enterprising. Their departure drains the Mother Land of the most virile element of the population and results in an ever-widening in-' feriority in the population and wealth-pro-' ducing capacity of Britain as compared with Germany.
These are grave utterances, one coming from a very prominent colleague of my right hon. friend, one of the leaders on the other side of the House uttered only about a year ago, and the other from a very prominent liberal organ in the province of Ontario. We have something later than that. During this winter we have been told that the sky was clear, that there was no danger of war; that the peace of Europe was assured. We have been told that within the past three, four and five weeks. My right hon. friend declaimed some time ago against the action of Great Britain in assisting in a naval demonstration off the coast of Montenegro, on the ground, as he claimed, that it was absolutely unfair for Great Britain and certain other European powers to make such a demonstration under the circumstances. I would like to direct hon. gentlemen's attention to the fact that, while we have been discussing at endless length and with tiresome reiteration the question of whether or not Canada shall provide $35,000,000 for the immediate and effective aid of the naval defences of the Empire, the peace of Europe has been in the balance; according to the statement of no less a gentleman than Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary for Great Britain. This is what he says:
The operations of Montenegro against Scutari are part of a war of conquest, and there is no reason why the same sympathy that was felt for Montenegro and other countries contending for national existence should not be extended to the Albanian population of Scutari and its district, who are mainly Catholics and Moslems who are contending, for their lands, their religion, their language and their lives. For these reasons His Majesty's Government have no hesitation in being parties to the agreement of the powers about Albania. The agreement between the powers respecting the frontiers of Albania was reached after a long and laborious diplomatic effort . . . This arrangement leaves a large tract of territory to be divided between Montenegro and iServia 'as the fruits of victory. The making of the agreement was essem trail for the peace of Europe, and in tmy opinion, it was accomplished only just ini time to preserve thiajt peace between great powers. That the agreement if disputed, should he upheld iby international action remains essential for the continuance of that peace.	'	;
Therefore I would like to point out to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that there have been, within even a few weeks, very perilous conditions so far as the peace of Europe is concerned; and that those, who have stated that there is no danger of war or discord, no danger of attack upon this Empire, are speaking without the book and without the authority

which goes with the citation that I have just read from the language of Sir Edward Grey on the 7th day of April last.
Let me say just one or two words with regard to the Naval Service Act of 1910. It is well we should have a clear understanding on this question. I do not propose to make any personal attack upon my right hon. friend in respect of any opinions which he now holds or which he may hereafter hold with regard to the co-operation of this country in the naval defence of the Empire. The right hon. gentleman is thoroughly entitled to his opinions, and other hon. gentlemen in this House and in this country are entitled also to their opinions; but I call his attention to the fact that from 1902 to 1911, so far as I understand his attitude, it was that of one who was determined that Canada should not take any real part in the naval defence of the Empire. I have under my hand a statement made recently by Mr. Merriman in a debate in the Parliament of South Africa. Mr. Merriman's statement as to the attitude which the right hon. gentleman took in that conference, in which he was a colleague of my right hon. friend on many occasions, is-


Wilfrid Laurier: He was at none of the conferences which I attended.


Robert Laird Borden: I am perhaps mistaken. I accept the correction at once. I am quite sure that Mr. Merriman was at the conference 6f 1909; I remember reading about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Merriman never was at a conference which I attended, either in 1902, 1907 or 1911. He was at the conference in 1909; I was not there.


Robert Laird Borden: No, my right hon. friend was not there, but his colleagues were there under his direction and instructions. Mr. Merriman, in the debate in the Parliament of South Africa, went on to say that what struck him and his colleague most was the fact that the aim of Canada seemed to be to hoist its own flag and to claim that independence which would come some day. That is a very significant statement, if it is borne out by any conduct which would justify its utterance, I do not intend to dwell upon that. My right hon. friend has held his opinions on that subject in days gone by. He alluded to them in his speech on the 12th of December last, when he spoke of his utterances as being those of his boyhood days. I would like to remind my right hon. friend, and I do so in the kindest possible manner, that the utterances to which allusion was made were not utterances of his boyhood days; they Mr. BORDEN.
were utterances after he had been twenty years in this Parliament, and after he had been five years leader of his paTty. That perhaps is a significant circumstance which ought not to be overlooked by the right hon. gentleman when he deals with that particular matter.
Let us come now to the Canadian Naval Service Act of 1910. Hon. gentlemen opposite have stated over and over again in this debate that this Bill on it3 face seemed more or less harmless; but that it was to be interpreted in the light of my speech in introducing it, and in the light of my subsequent remarks in regard to it. I am quite ready to assent to that suggestion in so far as the Bill and the speech which accompanied it are indicative of the policy of the party which I have the honour to lead. If that be the true principle with regard to this Bill, and my utterances in respect of it, I assume that it is equally a true and proper principle to apply to the Naval Service Act of 1910, as interpreted by the speeches of my right hon. friend in support of it. The right hon. gentleman has a certain conception of Canada's duty towards the Empire, and I have another, which seem to be entirely distinct and divergent. The conception of the right hon. gentleman, if I understand it, i3 that Canada should have a naval service of its own; that the ships belonging to that naval service may be neutral in time of war and will be so, unless the Governor in Council passes an order that they shall take part; that even our shores and harbours may be neutral in time of war; that is to say, the right hon. gentleman's conception is a Canadian naval service absolutely distinct and separate from the naval service of the Mother Country and the rest of the Empire; that we should have no voice or influence in the councils of the Empire which determine war or peace, and that we may possibly be neutral in time of war. According to his conception, we are to enjoy the advantages which result from belonging to this Empire in time of peace, and then when war comes we are to judge as to the justice of the quarrel, and if we do not think the quarrel just we are to pass no Order in Council, we do not call Parliament together-because in case of inaction according to the Act of 1910 Parliament is not called together-and Canada's ships, and I suppose, Canada's shores and harbours are to remain neutral. I d.o not think my hon. friend opposite is misrepresented by what I have just stated. If he thinks he is, I will read to him his own words so that there may be no possible doubt on the subject. I quote from the debate on this subject which took place in this House in 1910:

Mr. Borden: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Suppose a Canadian ship meets a ship of similar armament and power belonging to an enemy, meets her on the high seas, what is she to do? I do not ask now what she will do, if attacked; but will she attack, will she fight?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	I do not know that
she would fight. I do not know that she should fight either. She should not fight until the Government by which she is commissioned have determined whether she should go into the war. That is the position we take; my hon. friend takes a different position. He says that without any question, under all circumstances, we are bound to send our ships into the war. We take a different position, and we say: Let the country judge between us.
Mr. Borden:	Would our ports and harbours be neutral like our fleet until an Order in Council had been passed?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	I do not understand
what my hon. friend means by asking if they should be neutral.
Mr. Borden. I understand the Prime Minister to say that our ships would not fight until they were ordered to do so, and, therefore, they would in effect be neutral untill the Governor in Council had made an order; that they should participate in the war. Have I misstated my hon. friend's position?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier : No.
Mr. Borden:	Then inasmuch as our ships,
under the conditions mentioned, will be practically neutral, I would like to know whether our ports and harbours will also be neutral in the same way?
And so on. Now, my hon. friend expressed himself in that way and it is the policy of every hon. gentleman on that side in respect of the Canadian Naval Service Act of 1911.
Mr. MACDONALD; Is not that Australia's policy too?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not so understand it. Is it the hon. gentlemen's policy?


Mr. MACDONALD:: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he does not so understand it. Will he be good enough to be frank on this question and distinguish the Australian Naval Act from the Canadian Naval Act policy.


Robert Laird Borden: When my hon. friend is frank enough to give me an answer, I may go on and discuss that subject. Now, every hon. member of this House is entitled to his opinion, and I have explained the position of hon. gentlemen as I understand it. I have shown how their Canadian Naval Service will be neutral in time of war unless an Order in Council is passed, and they contend that the Canadian Naval Service shall not necessarily take part in Britain's wars. We have several illustrations given by my right hon. friend. I have these also under my hand. We have him reported as stating that if
the Crimean War were to be fought over again and we had a Canadian Naval Service, if he were Prime Minister those Canadian ships would be neutral and would take no part in the war. We have him further stating that if the demonstration against Egypt at Alexandria were to take place again and Canada had a Naval Service, and he were Prime Minister, that Naval Service would be neutral and would take no part in the war-and as a result, I assume, would take no part in any war growing out of that demonstration. The British navy has been the protection of Canada, of Canadian ships, of Canadian commerce, of Canadians throughout the world. We have had no other protection so far as the high seas are concerned. Suppose this country became embroiled through some act of its own with another power; suppose we enforced some law harshlv: and suppose our enforcement of that law did not commend itself to the judgment of the Government	of the United Kingdom
is the rule to work both ways?- is Great Britain to say:	Our navy
shall not protect you Canadians, your coasts or your shipping, until we pass an Order in Council; and as we do not think yo-ur quarrel just we will pass no Order in Council and you can fight this battle unaided and alone? Does any hon. member of this House believe this Empire of ours could be kept together by anv nolicv such as that?	*
What is the other conception as to our duty in this respect? The other contention is this: that we may have a Canadian division or unit of the British navy, if you like, because a just pride and sentiment of the Canadian people may desire to recognize in the British army a particular division which shall be distinctively Canadian, but that all the forces of the Empire shall be united in time of war and shall stand together to repel any invader or assailant whether the attack is directed against the British Islands, or Canada, or any other dominion of the Empire. And, concurrently with that, I have taken the ground, and I think it is a just ground, that when we reach the position of assuming a definite and established part in the naval defence of the Empire, then, inasmuch as the question of defence is connected with the question of foreign policy, with the councils of the Empire which determine peace or war, then we, as Canadians, desire to have a just voice in those councils. Hon. gentlemen on the other side seem to be alarmed by such a proposal; they say it is a recession, a denial of our autonomy. I venture to submit to the judgment of every hon. gentleman of thi9 House that it is not a recession but a continuance of that constitutional

development which we have had in this country for the last seventy-five years. What did we accomplish first after the troubles of 1837? We got responsible government, responsibility of the executive to the people, the absolute control of Parliament over the revenues of the country. Then, we got control of our public lands; they were thereafter managed not in the Mother Country, but by the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian executive. Then, we got absolute control of our fiscal policy. Then, we advanced to the dignity of making our own commercial treaties. So, from the rudiments of self-government which prevailed before 1837, we have by degrees advanced to a period when Canada is a nation within the Empire, having practically complete power of self-government. And is it not a legitimate development of that increase in power and influence, that we should also claim some voice in the councils of the Empire which determine peace and war, especially as, according to my conception, Canada, if she remains within the Empire,_ i?rust be involved in any war in which the Empire is involved. This theory of neutrality which appeals to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House does not seem capable of standing any close or searching analysis. I observe in the press despatches this morning that the Rev. Dr. J. T. Lawrence, formerly deputy professeor of international law in the University of Cambridge, has been discussing the relations of the dominions with the Mother Country in this connection, and, in stating his conclusions, the report says:
In connection with the question of neutrality, he laid it down that^ the great self-governing colonies could not invoke the principle of limited liability in war. All parts of the Empire must sink or swim together.
Further on he says:
Hence arose the disposition to claim that their armed forces should be entirely under their own control, and he did not think that Great Britain disputed that. But neutrality and belligerency were the functions of the sovereigns states. A power could be no more neutral in one port and belligerent in another than a man could be married in one. part and single in another part of the country.
No foreign country would recognize any such in-and-out arrangements, if ever an attempt was seriously made to create a curious race of international entities. We should be British at one moment and non-British at the next, an in-and-out policy which would 6urely break down.
So I say that if you take the two conceptions and place them side by side and contrast them, any hon. gentleman in this House who sincerely desires that Canada shall work out her destiny within the Em-Mr. BORDEN.
pire will surely come to the conclusion not that we shall have separate navies, neutral if you like, in time of war; not that we shall have no voice or influence in the councils of the Empire, but that we shall have, if you like, a distinctively Canadian portion of the Imperial navy, that that distinctively Canadian portion of that navy shall be part of the armed forces of the Empire in time of war, and that we as Canadians shall have our voice and influence in the councils of the Empire which determine peace or war. This seems to me a more reasonable and logical conclusion as to our future relations with the Mother Country than that which my right hon. friend on the other side of the House proposes. No one appreciates more than I do the difficulty of the problems that will arise in working out any permanent scheme of co-operation in this respect between the great dominions and the Mother Country. I have said before that the problem is attendant with great difficulties, but the mere fact that it is attendant with great difficulties surely ought not to deter the statesmen of the Mother Country or of the great dominions of the Empire from giving their best consideration to an endeavour at least to take the same step in advance. In the proposition which I outlined on December 5 last, I indicated a certain important step which we may take at this time. That step has been criticised, but I know it is regarded by statesmen of the Mother Country on both sides of the Imperial House as a step not only proper and desirable, but as one which in the future may lead to a very important advance, and which, while preserving the autonomy of the great dominions of the Empire, will give to them a reasonable voice and influence in the councils of the Empire that determine peace or war.
There are a great many things that Canada can do to aid the Mother Country aside from the provision of these ships. Canada can take very important steps in regard to matters that are entirely under her own control, and as to which there can be no possible suggestiqn that her autonomy will be disturbed in any way. Take, for example, the construction of dry-docks, which, while perhaps primarily useful for commercial purposes, could be constructed under Admiralty supervision and would be an important aid to the Admiralty in time of war. It is the intention of the Government to proceed with the construction of dry-docks on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The question of a dry-dock in the St. Lawrence at Quebec has been under discussion in this House, and inasmuch as there are, I think, some twenty or twenty-two steamships in the St. Lawrence which cannot be accommo-

dated by any dock	below Montreal
at the present time, I venture to say	that every	hon.	gentleman
in this House will be glad to approve of the action of the Government in that regard. At Halifax and on the Pacific coast the docking facilities are also inadequate, and it is the purpose of the Government to at once to proceed with the construction of dry-docks at these points as well, the construction of each one being an important aid not only to the shipping and commerce of this country but to the Admiralty as well, if, unfortunately, war should break out and their ships should require the services of one of these docks for purposes of repair. We can take another important step by establishing naval bases on the Atlantic and Pacific entirely within our own control, and we can undertake the fortification of trie harbours and ports at which these naval bases may be constructed. Not only can we undertake the fortification of these ports by batteries on shore, but we can provide for their defence as well by torpedo boats and other similar craft, in regard to which we would seek the advice and assistance of the Admiralty. I have already stated in this House that it is not desirable that all the ship-building facilities of the Empire should be concentrated in the United Kingdom. That has been assented to by the Lords of the Admiralty, for they have commended the establishment and gradual extension in the overseas dominions of ship-building and repair plants, capable in the first place of building small cruisers and other ancillary craft, as well as vessels for commercial purposes. These eventually might be so extended-and would, we hope, be so extended-that they would be capable of constructing vessels of a very much larger size. We believe it is in the public interest that we should encourage this establishment and extension, and I stated on the 5th of December last that the Admiralty proposed to co-operate with us in that purpose by giving orders for small cruisers and other auxiliary craft to be built in this country provided we can assure them that those craft can be built in such manner and within such time as to compare reasonably with the construction of similar vessels in the United Kingdom. Then we can proceed with the training of officers in the naval college at Halifax and by means of training-ships maintained for that purpose; and it would be well, I think, that the ships of the Canadian hydrographic survey and of the Canadian fisheries protection service should be manned by men so trained. Mr. Churchill, in speaking on this subject on March 26 last, used this language:
Side by side with this the dominions will
be encouraged by the Admiralty to develop the necessary naval bases, dockyards, cruisers, local flottillas, or other ancillary craft, which
will enable the Imperial squadron to operate for a prolonged period m any particular threatened theatre to which it might be sent.
We have a fisheries protection service in this country, and that service might be amplified and developed to a much greater extent than it has been in the past by the addition of small cruisers, which while primarily used for the purpose of protecting our fisheries and natural resources against marauders, would, in time of war, be useful for the protection of our commerce and for the purpose alluded to by Mr. Churchill in the citation I have just read. It will be observed, therefore, that in all this there is room for the Canadian people to undertake very much that will be absolutely important for the protection of our own harbours and coasts and commerce within a certain area, and at the same time will be of a character to afford material assistance to the proposals of the Admiralty as outlined by Mr. Churchill.
I venture to think that when the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House propose, as they have proposed, that we should establish two fleet units in this country and man them altogether in Canada, they are absolutely oblivious of the consideration which I have brought to their attention some weeks ago when I pointed out that the training of seamen and of artificers and machinists for the royal navy is a work which occupies a very considerable number of years. Create two fleet units in Canada and man them by Canadians at once ? Why the figures I gave to this House on a former occasion indicate the absolute impossibility of doing that. What are the conditions in regard to the Niobe and the Rainbow to which hon. gentlemen opposite have very frequently alluded ? The conditions are that much the larger proportion of the men in training on these ships are not Canadians. I have said before that this is no discredit to Canadians, because the numerous opportunities in the ordinary avocations of life in this country do not tend to induce Canadians to enter the naval service. My right hon. friend knows his own experience in connection with the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I took that force over as he left it, and what is its position? Not more than seventeen per cent of the men in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police to-day are native-born Canadians, seventy or seventy-five per cent were bom in the British Isles and about eleven per cent were not born within the British dominions at all. What is the position so far as the permanent military force of Canada is concerned? Something like eighty per cent of the members of the permanent force were born in the British Isles. This is no discredit to Canadians, because

of the abundant opportunities on every side in this country for men in other walks of life. Not only the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and the permanent force, but the Canadian naval service are manned very largely by men who have come from the British Isles.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the ground that this Government has no mandate whatever for making these proposals to Parliament. They say, in effect, that we did not place any such policy before the people of Canada, that the people have never pronounced upon it, and that therefore there should be an appeal to the people. In 1910 I made the distinct proposal in this House that a sufficient sum to provide two battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modern and powerful type should be provided for the needs of the naval forces of the Empire at that time. In November, 1910, I declared in this Parliament that if we were returned to power at the next election we would proceed to ascertain from the Admiralty what the needs of the Empire were, and if we were convinced that the needs of the Empire demanded immediate and effective assistance from Canada, we would ask Parliament for that immediate and effective assistance. And in the campaign of 1911, speaking at London in the province of Ontario, in the very first speech that I made in that campaign, I declared the same thing to the people of Ontario and of all Canada, and I have the quotation here under my hand. My right hon. friend himself, speaking at Soxel in the province of Quebec, during the campaign of 1911. used this language on the 23rd day of August:
Mr. Borden's idea is to vote $25,000,000 and give it to England. Do you want a navy actually made and manned in Canada or do you want to make an annual contribution
to England ?
My right hon. friend was not accurately representing my policy as I had presented it before Parliament but he did indicate to the people of Canada that I had made proposals of a distinct and definite character, and thus he made it abundantly clear to those whom he addressed and to the people of Canada to whom his language was repeated through the press that there were two distinct policies before the people of Canada at that time, and that my policy was to bring immmediate and effective aid to the Empire by the methods which I now ask Parliament to sanction.
Under these circumstances, having regard to what I said in 1910 in February and again in November of the same year, having regard to the speech wiith which I opened the campaign in the province of Ontario in that year, having regard to what the leader of the Opposition himself Mr. BORDEN.
presented before the electorate in the province of Quebec as a contrast between the policies on the one hand and on the other, I fail to apprehend the argument of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House when they declare that the Government has no mandate to propose this policy or to ask Parliament to sanction it. Why, Mr. Speaker, this Parliament and this Government have a more direct mandate to pass this law' than my right hon. friend's Government and the then Parliament which he led ever had to pass any of the important measures which he put through this Parliament during his whole fifteen years in office. If any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will point to any important measure that they ever put through this Parliament in respect of which they had as direct a mandate from the people of Canada as that which we hold in regard to this important question, there might be some force in the argument which they adduced. These proposals of ours will afford immediate aid to the naval forces of the Empire from a material standpoint. But there is the other standpoints to which my hon. friend alluded, the moral support and strength which they bring to the Empire. It is to be regretted that a few hon. gentleman on the other side of the House have seen fit to speak with some exultation of their efforts in destroying that moral support and influence which otherwise would be drawn from this measure. This is not, it seems to me, the spirit which should animate men who are earnestly and patriotically desirous of doing something which we regard as necessary and urgent in the interests of the whole Empire, because this proposal is not for Great Britain alone, it is not for Canada alone; our proposal is to build three battleships of the most modern and powerful type and to place them at the disposal of His Majesty the King for the common defence of the whole Empire. That is our policy. If hereafter, the people of Canada should decide upon the policy of establishing a fleet unit on the Atlantic and another on the Pacific; the ships we propose	to construct
could be utilized for that purpose. They might in all probability be so utilized even before they were put in commission. It is most unfortunate that this view has not impressed itself upon hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. So far as we are concerned, we believe that when half of the forces of the Empire which uphold the flag in all the oceans, and upon all the seas, have been withdrawn to protect the heart of the Empire, when even the Mediterranean itself has been left very largely unguarded, the time has come when in a spirit of self-respect, Canada should assert

her place in the Empire, and should proclaim to the world the unity of that Empire for purposes of defence. The time has come when our friends opposite should no longer quibble about this proposal, but should join with us in bringing immediate and effective aid, as we propose by the measure which we have placed before the House.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew): The question that we are discussing tonight is one in which the parties have been divided since 1909, but on which they were unanimous at that time. In taking the view I do with hon. gentlemen behind and beside me, we do not admit for one moment that we are less loyal than the men on the Government benches. We may not talk so much about it. We may not present each other with Union Jacks every time we have a meeting; the actions of the Liberal party speak louder than the words of my hon. friends opposite. My right hon. friend a moment ago spoke of the dilatoriness of the Liberal Government for many years in not doing something for the British Empire in the matter of naval defence. He forgot that Canada has been growing and developing along lines of nationhood, and that years ago she was not in a position 'to do what she is able to do to-day. Every reader of history knows that. But speaking of dilatoriness in regard to the British Empire, the friends of my right hon. friend were in the ascendancy in this House for 18 years, and with all their professions of loyalty they never gave the Mother Land a preference for her goods in the Canadian market, and it remained for the Liberals to do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They opposed it.


George Perry Graham: I might go further and say they opposed it, and I presume they would oppose it now. My right hon. friend discussed pretty freely the powers of war and the duty of men to be warlike. Canada, he said, should take her place in the firing line, whenever that may be. It is a movable feast now apparently. While he was speaking my mind was attracted to the other side of the question, and I desire to ask the members of this House whether it is not worth while to halt a moment, and whether, as a young country, in co-operation with the great British Empire, we should not dwell a little more on the blessings of peace in this country, rather than dilate on the triumphs of war. At the present moment we are joining with the other parts of the British Empire, and with the United States, in preparing for a celebration of peace, and Sir, while we have to maintain our equipment as a nation, we ought to hesitate before we go beyond the line of that equipment, and talk of putting ships in the line of aggressiveness, to provoke war, according to some hon. gentlemen rather than to prevent it. Lord Morley, in the ripeness of his years, is going to Germany, and, I think, will be an important factor in the discussion of the question not of building more great battleships, but of decreasing them. I think we ought to hesitate before we lay all the stress of, all the strength of our argument on the necessity of preparing for war. After all, in a coun. try like this, where, for 100 years we have lived side by side with another great country without any sign of disturbance, without the need of a gun pointing either way, for aggression or for defence, we ought to lay the lessons of peace to heart more than the lessons of war. In the years to come, no matter how much we may prepare, no matter how much attention we may pay to the defences of the country, I predict that the monuments in Canada will be to the triumphs of peace, and not to the aggressiveness and bloodshed of war.
My right hon. friend's remarks were under two or three heads. One was the emergency. That emergency is very elusive. It has been gathered to its fathers, and it has departed unwept, unhonoured, and unsung. Notwithstanding the attempts of my right hon. friend to work up enthusiasm over it, he could not place his finger anywhere in the British Empire where there is an emergency at the present time. It started in the North sea, and the First Lord of the Admiralty has moved_ it to Gibraltar, and attached it to a flying squadron, and I really do not know where it will arise next as the Prime Minister tonight chased it to Bulgaria. We might as well admit and hon. gentlemen in this House and the people of the country know it, that there is no emergency. I admit there is a need. What is the need? For a temporizing policy? No, it is for a permanent policy for Canada as part of the British Empire. Why temporize? Why have a makeshift policy? The -people of Canada know why, hon. gentlemen on this side of the House know why, and hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House know why. Had there been no Drummond-Arthabaska election, this policy would never have been before the Canadian people. Why, Sir, in the formation of my right hon. friend's Cabinet he admitted the alliance. No person takes seriously the assertion that there was no alliance between the Nationalists and the Conservative party. They walked hand in hand by night, and stalked side by side in daylight. There was no pretense even on the part of my right hon. friend that they were not bosom companions. When the time came to form a Cabinet what happened? Who are in the Government? Where are the Forgets, the Casgrains, the Marechals and the old-line Tories from

the province of Quebec? They are not in this Government. Why? Because the leader of the Nationalist party demanded his pound of flesh under the unholy alliance, and he got it. And what was the pound of flesh? That not one of the old-line Tories from the French-speaking portion of Quebec should be taken into the Cabinet, but that the members of the _ Cabinet from that province should be Nationalists. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, after being in the Government himself, admitted that that was the case, because he said that the Prime Minister had not only selected him, but had allowed him to select his colleagues in the province of Quebec. That, Sir, is why we have this policy, and what is this policy? Let me look at it for a moment. My right hon. friend, reading some quotation I think, said, it is time we stopped sponging. I say so too. It is time to stop sponging and to sit up and act like men in the Dominion of Canada. We are sponging and hanging on to the apron strings of the Mother Country for protection, and yet he suggests that we have not the strength or virility to undertake our own defence. Then we are to send over these ships but we have not a man to send over with the ships. We will send them without men. Whose policy was the empty ship policy? It was the Nationalist policy, it was stated all through the province of Quebec that they opposed a Canadian navy because Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposed to send the sons of the people to be disembowelled on the ships that were to be sent to fight for the great British Empire. WTen the time came for the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) to announce his policy, he would undoubtedly have been prepared to send men, but with the Nationalist pledge in his hip pocket and a Nationalist sitting beside him, he was powerless to carry out this policy. His Nationalist friends said: Send ships but not a man; we have said that our sons shall never fight for the British Empire or run the risk of being disembowelled. Hence, we have the unmanned, or the manless policy. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), when he replied to me a few weeks ago, broached that part of the subject before he had been speaking five minutes. He charged me even with wanting to have the blood of Canadians shed and I see that a newspaper called La Semaine, that the hon. the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Blondin) will know something about, charged me again with being a man who wanted to shed the blood of our young Canadians. The sons of Canada will in the future, as they have been in the past, be prepared to shed their bloqd for the defence of the great British Empire should such sacrifice be required.
Here is a party that will, for a little poli-Mr. GRAHAM.	>
\
tical game, and to get a certain wing under its fold, say to young Canada: We will take your money, we will send ships to be placed in the firing line, but we will send no one to do the firing. Suppose these ships were sent out to fight in the shape in which Canada has presented them-what would happen? There is not one dollar for maintaining the ships, they could not coal up, they could not get a pound of powder, they could not get a ball to shoot, they could not get a man to fire the guns and yet this policy is presented to this House and the country as doing something for the defence of the great British Empire. What is it doing for the great British Empire? It is sponging. We send over ships to the Mother Country and we say to the British taxpayers: We are helping you to fight the battles of the Empire. Are we? We are sending over three empty ships to be manned by the sons of the British Isles and not by us. We say to them that although you put your men on these ships, we will not supply a man, we will not furnish the money to pay one of these men and the British taxpayer has not only to sacrifice his sons to man these ships but he has to contribute more money to pay the men who go from his family to take charge of the vessels. Yet that is what we call helping the great British Empire. When the British taxpayers and workingmen come to consider this offer they will find that Canada has merely been hoaxing them instead of giving them valuable assistance in the defence of the Empire.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have said that we take a narrow view because we want these things done in Canada. Is true, sterling, Canadianism, that believes in doing for ourselves all we can, to be called narrowness? It is the strength of manhood, it is the power of developing manhood, it is what makes men and carries them to the goal of maturity.
I want to introduce my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to an hon. gentleman that no doubt he is very well acquainted with. He referred to addresses of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in times past.	I am glad he did so
because I would not have had the courage to go back to bygone days if I had not been invited to do so. I want to introduce the Prime Minister of Canada to a gentleman who was known by the name of Mr. E. L. BoTden in 1909, and I want to point out that the words of Mr. Borden in 1909 are a complete refutation of the Prime Minister's speech of to-night and that in 1909 he opposed the position which the Prime Minister has taken tonight. Just let me read. On march 29, 1909, page 3513 of 'Hansard' and speaking of the then Prime Minister, he said:

Now the right hon. gentleman has spoken of the relations of Canada to the Empire, and I for one am prepared to go as far as he, as far as any hon. gentleman in this House, in absolutely maintaining in this country of ours the full control of our own affairs, wtiicli we have enjoyed for many years m the past. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between the two political parties in Canada in that respect. It might be wise to refer for a moment to the circumstance that Great Britain, by giving to Canada! and the other great dependencies of the Empire, absolutely full control of their own affairs, an absolute autonomy in respect of self-government, has, I believe, increased! and strengthened the ties which bind these great dependencies to the Empire as a whole, in a measure which would not have been practicable by any other policy. I believe also that the ties which bind Canada to the, Empire to-day are firmer and surer and morel enduring than they have been at any time in the past.
I just want to point out that this is exactly the position we took in 1909 and it is the position we take at the present time-that by managing our own affairs we maintain our self-respect, we develop our manhood and our nationhood and, furthermore, we maintain our self-respect in the British Isles and in the hearts of British statesmen. Let me go a little further in quoting from the same eloquent speech:	,
In so far as my right friend, the Prime Minister to-day outlined the lines of naval defence of this country I am entirely at one with him. I am entirely of opinion, in the first place, that the proper line upon which we should proceed in that regard is the line of having a Canadian naval force of our own. I entirely believe in that. The other experiment has been tried as between Australia and the Mother Country and it has not worked satisfactory in any respect.
My right hon. friend when he was rather criticising the Naval Service Act of Canada was asked if it were the same with respect to control as the Australian Act. I have read both Acts. I have them in parallel columns in my room but I cannot lay my hand on them at the present moment. The Acts are practically the same. I quote from a speech delivered by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) a few weeks ago in which he gave a quotation from a statement of the Prime Minister of Australia speaking on September, 6, 1911, in the Australian Parliament:
Mr. Eyrie:	I am not clear on the point
whether under the naval agreement-
That is, the naval agreement with the' Mother Country, to which Canada was a1 party.
-under the naval agreement, our fleet unit, in time of war is to he subject absolutely_to the British Admiralty, or only so subject with the consent of this Parliament.
What did the Premier of Australia say? Only with the consent of this Parliament.
If we are separatists they are all wrong then in Australia and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), who is there and complimented them within the last few days on their naval policy, is all wrong and be ought to be called home for making these blunders. Let me quote another sentence or two from my right hon. friend-I mean from Mr. Borden of 1909, not from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I quote from 'Hansard' page 3522:
I do not think that I am making any statement in breach of confidence when I say that I am thoroughly aware that the late Raymond Prefontaine thoroughly intended to establish a Canadian naval militia or- naval force of some kind. He told me so about a year before his death. Mr. Prefontaine was a man of large views and of great courage, and it may be-I am not intending to cast any reflection upon my hon. friend the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries -that a policy which would have been carried out otherwise has not been carried out owing to the present head of that department finding it necessary to devote his attention to other matters. I suggest to my1 right hon. friend that we should put something in this resolution which would point to prompt action. In 1902 we told the Imperial Government that we intended to do something; but up to the present time, seven years afterwards, we have done nothing. If the resolution of my right hon. friend were so amended, I think it would commend itself to the unanimous approval of the members of this House.
I might add that, being so amended, it commended itself to the unanimous approval of the members of this House. What has caused the change? My (right hon. friend wanted speedy action. The speedier action he wants, the longer he wants to put off the action. He complains that, when a Canadian navy was completed, we would not have any men to man it. The way in which he hopes to get ready for it is to discontinue trying to get any men to man it. I charge this Government with deliberately stopping recruiting and with telling the young men of Canada that they are not wanted. Had the recruiting gone on; had the young men not been stopped; had the Government proceeded under the Naval Service Act and allowed these young Canadians to become recruits, what would be the condition when these dreadnoughts, that my right hon friend proposes to purchase are completed. We would not have to send them over to the Old Country unmanned, unless the Nationalises insisted; but we would have trained men ready to go on board and help man these dreadnoughts. A good deal has been said of the Niobe and the Rainbow. The Niobe and the Rainbow were purchased from the

British Admiralty on their advice, for the purpose of training young men and not for battleships. The Admiralty foresaw that, if we were to have a Canadian navy, we would be compelled, as the right hon. the Prime Minister has said, to spend several years in training men and we purchased the ships for that purpose. To give them up and ito cease training young men for the Canadian naval service is nothing short of a calamity, and I might call it by a much stronger word. I said there was a reason for the abandonment of this policy of 1909. I said the reason was Drummond and Arthabaska.
How is this policy looked upon at the present time by hon. gentlemen who have formed a coalition Government with my right hon. friend, who have sidetracked every loyal French-speaking Conservative in the province of Quebec, and who have taken possession of the treasury benches themselves, with the advice of the leader of the Nationalist parity and by the consent of the present Prime Minister. Wdat are these men saying about this policy? Are they saying what my right hon. friend said to-night in his loyal utterance: I want to do something now? Oh, no. La Semaine, a paper published in the county of Champlain represented by the hon. Deputy Speaker, a paper said to be influenced at least if not controlled by the Deputy Speaker, goes a long way in this respect. I want to read an article from this paper under date of April 24. It will throw some light upon the past as well as upon the present, because the people of Canada must understand that we have this policy at the present time only as a makeshift, because the Prime Minister gave the control of the province of Quebec over to the Nationalists when he formed his Government. This is what La Semaine says:
How many times during the naval debate has the Liberal party offered Mr. Borden a compromise? How many Liberal papers, how many a prominent man in both parties, even from different parts of the Empire, have expressed their desire 'to see both parties come to an understanding upon the question of 'the navy? Mr. Borden has only to wave his hand to bring the Liberal party in line with him, if he had consented to put this question above party politics by linking together the gift of $35,000,000 and the Laurier proposal.
This Nationalist paper says that Mr. Borden would not put this his policy above party, but I shall read from the Nationalist standpoint why he did not, and what is being told of the Nationalists in the province of Quebec:
Had not Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated: 'If $35,000,000 are required, nay, three or four times $35,000,000 and even all the wealth of the country to help England, I am ready to give them; but let us 'begin the construction | Mr. GRAHAM.
of a Canadian navy.' Mr. Graham, Mr. Guthrie, and all the Liberal leaders after him have repeated the same offer, going even so far as to say that we should also give the blood of the Canadians. Why has Mr. Borden refused all compromise with the Oposi-tion, preferring instead the bitter and protracted fight of three months' obstruction? Would not, perchance, the answer be that he had given a pledge to the Quebec members, and that he did (not want to he false to them?
The organ of the Deputy Speaker of this House says that Mr. Borden would not place this question above party politics; he would not yield his policy on any consideration-why?	Because he had given
the Nationalists a pledge that he would not do it, and he did not want to be false to them. (Reading):
Let those who ligthly qualify as cowards andi traitors, the supporters of the Government from the province of Quebec pause and reflect, and let them say what would have happened if those fourteen Conservative supporters had) banded themselves together against the Government.
Let us see, according to this Nationalist paper, what would have happened:
Do they not believe that Mr. Borden, betrayed by his allies

Why surely not allies? The Nationalist paper says they are allies of the Prime Minister, and they are. They are his colleagues; they are his advisers, to the exclusion of the men who fought the battles of the Conservative party in Quebec for many long years. Let me go back over that, as it reads fairly well:
Do they not believe that Mr. Borden, betrayed by his allies, would have been justified, in order to replace them, to look after Liberal alliances, and do they not realize that for fourteen votes lost he would have found as recruits all the Liberals of the House united to the Conservatives, as happened in the Hochelaga election, to trample upon a group of illogical irreooncilables ? The result would inevitably have been the ruin of that very Nationalist policy whose principles Mr. Borden has kept and respected in the present Bill as well as in all his speeches.
What do hon. gentlemen think of this paper when it tells them, in the midst of this debate, that this policy, fathered by the Prime Minister, is the policy of the Nationalist party. (Reading):
Time will justify those whom Mr. Bourassa condemns so severely, and the people will appreciate before long the reasons of profound wisdom which have guided the Quebec members in that dangerous pass.
If that is not enough, I want to read a little further from this paper, because it is edited pretty well although it is edited at long range. It shows exactly what the Government and their Nationalist supporters are telling the Nationalists in the

province of Quebec. This paper, being edited as it is, has greater influence than the ordinary publication. Those of the people of Ontario who are talking so loudly against the Nationalists must understand that the Nationalists are telling their friends: We must stand by the Prime Minister, because he has adopted our policy, and, if we leave him, he may join the Liberals and unite with them on this question. Let me read some more:
Yes, let us suspend the armaments. With the adoption of the closure, the agitation against the Naval Aid Act will stop, and public opinion will be in a better frame to appreciate the object and the bearing of the Bill. It is sufficient to read it to realize that its object is not to send one red cent to England, but purely and 6imply to vote a fixed amount which the Government can spend where and when it pleases, and which it is even at liberty never to spend if circumstances were to vary some day or another, as the Bill does not state any date, any place, any conditions nor any obligations to that end.
Now, my right hon. friend has got anything but notions of speed into the head of his Deputy Speaker, who control this paper. His Nationalist friends are telling the province of Quebec and this may be the reason my right hon. friend could not accept amendments concerning the control of the expenditure of that money: We are only showing our good will, but the Government need not spend the money, it is a kind of * moral aid.' Just how 'moral' it is, let us see:
People who are not afraid of words and who understand that the Cabinet is not bound to put their opponents in their confidence, must bear in mind two considerations so as to be able to judge the situation.
There is another part of this article which seems to show co-operation between the writer of this article and my right hon. friend. The right hon. gentleman has said there would be an election before this Bill really becomes operative. I want to show who is the father of that idea:
Though the Laurier Naval Bill was adopted in 1909-1910, a year and a half elapsed before the tenders,of the contracting firms were considered, and two more years would have elapsed had they been accepted before the beginning of the construction of the ships. Would it be otherwise with the ships that the Dominion Government is authorized to construct by the present Bill, if it ever decided to put that law into execution? The Liberals themselves admit that the navy yards of England are actually overworked, and that the construction of the Canadian dreadnoughts could not be started before two years if they are ordered. The logical sequence of those two facts is 'that the Naval Bill is a pure and simple demonstration of friendship to England, and nothing else, and that should it be put into execution it could not be anyway before two years; that is to say, before the
people have been consulted at a general election. A moral aid is all that this law means.
Then a little further down:
It will then be time to act and to start; until then the Government wishes to temporize, and the present Bill has no other object.
And 1 say that' sentence is true. This Bill is merely temporizing. Temporizing with whom? Temporizing on one side with the jingoes who insist on aid to the British navy, and on the other side with the Nationalists who declare they will do nothing for the British navy. And I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister understands that pretty well.
Now, I have quoted the words on one side from bosom oompanions of my right hon. friend and hon. members will have to take their choice between what is said by his press in Quebec-for it is his press- and what is said by the jingo press in other provinces. I desire to oatl the right hon. gentleman's 'attention to what was said by another friend of his. I know he would rather have me quote the words of his friends than to use my own. I want to put a few friends of his on record. What is said for the Nationalist I have already pointed out; I propose to point out what was said by a friend of his on the other side. I have here a letter from Mr. Arthur Hawkes in whose hands was placed the task of educating the British born vote to believe that the Liberals were not as loyal in 1911 as were the Conservatives. This is a letter addressed to the right hon. gentleman:
Arthur Hawkes to It. L. Borden.
March 8, 1913.
Rt. Hon. R. L. Borden, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Borden,-I am sure you will not be sorry to have an inquiry regarding Canadian defence from one who worked in the last general election without reference to what may have been said as to submitting any aspect of that question to popular vote'.
In joining those memorialists who desired' to remove the whole matter from the dangers of partisan politics I hoped it would be understood that, whatever might be determind as to an emergent contribution the only solution of the question from the point of view' of Canadian nationality as an increasing power within the British Empire (which was the whole inspiration of any aid I was able to render you in 1911) is worthily to implement the resolution of the House of Commons of 1909 which I have always believed to be the charter of Canada's naval development; a final reversal of which would be a declaration to the Empire and the world that a course taken by Parliament in a vital matter of national evolution need not be regarded* as conclusive evidence that Canada is bigger than the partisanship which too often bedevils her politics. The situation that has recently -developed on both sides of the House


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Is there any more Nationalists?


George Perry Graham: It is rather hard to say; it depends upon whether they are here or at home. I desire to point out that we as a young nation, in our strength, development and increasing manhood, should not continue to ask the Mother Country to do for us what we are clearly able to do for ourselves. Let us undertake to do the work that falls to us as a part of the British Empire; let us take a course which will demonstrate to the world that we are an integral portion of the Empire. Let us do our duty like men, not only by engaging in the construction of ships, but in the protection of our own shores, our -own commerce and our own trade routes. Let us be ready when duty calls to fight side by side with the Motherland not with empty ships, but with ships manned by Canadians, built, so far as possible, in Canada, and maintained by Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. W. A. CHARLTON (Norfolk):: Before the Bill passes into the unknown future, I feel it my duty to say a few words with regard to this very important matter.

This discussion, which has recurred at intervals during a period of several months, has been engaged in on the assumption that war is a necessity, and that active preparation for war is a means of preventing it. Wars have always engaged the active attention of mankind, and yet men have always believed that some day wars would cease. I am of the belief that that day has now come, and in the few remarks I propose to make will keep that consideration in view. We have heard during the course of this de-oate of the wonderful development in the art of building armoured battle ships. Eighteen nations are actively engaged in building battleships, and fourteen of these nations commenced their construction within the last twenty years. The tendency is to build larger ships all the time and to increase the number. In England there are battleships of 25,000 tons; in Japan, where they never built one of these ships until 1897, they are now building three of 27,500 tons and in some of the South American republics they have still larger ships of 28,000 tons In the United States they never built a battleship until 1893, in 1897 they had only six but since that they have built eighty-three. All the civilized nations are straining every nerve to increase the number of battleships they possess. Immense armies and navies are kept in readiness to fight and defend, the whole world a battlefield, war inscribed on every banner and peace forgotten, Canada alone standing out so far, like a bright star in a dark sky, but liable to fall at any moment. These are impressions that one must get in listening to the discussion which has been going on. I said that fourteen of these nations only commenced building battleships in the last twenty years. I find in that time the nations have spent for army and navy purposes the immense sum of thirty-one thousand millions of dollars; just think of it, thirty-one thousand millions of dollars wasted within the last twenty years, and the annual expenditure to-day is twenty-five hundred million dollars, That total warlike expenditure among the nations ranges from 10 per cent in some nations to nearly 50 per cent in otheT nations of the total expenditure for all purposes of these nations. What is the cause of this? Why is it that there is this mad feeling of waste in all the nations? Why is it that before any naval appropriation is made in any legislative assembly in the world it is preceded by a war scare? It is because the people listen to the voice of the inhuman gods of war and of the navy leagues the world over, who are willing to traffic in the blood of their fellow men for gain. They play one nation against another. When a battleship is built it is a notice to other nations to build. We build, you build and so the mad waste goes on. Does anyone suppose that armaments are Mr. CHARI/TON.
an insurance premium of peace? They are more justly called a menace to peace. It is mutual distrust that keeps the nations in arms and what more surely creates distrust' than the building of battleship after battleship? What is it all for anyway, the building of these ships? There is an old saying: In time of peace prepare for war. That is an old adage of a pagan age, when every foreigner was an enemy and every stranger a foe. We know what the cause is, we know what it is supposed to be for. After all, what protection is it, what protection are these immense engines of destruction we have talked so much about? We have heard a great deal about the construction of dreadnoughts and it has been said that by the time a dreadnought is constructed it is obsolete. What does the First Lord of the Admiralty say about that? He said on the 18th day of March, 1912, in his speech in the House of Commons on naval estimates:
It is wrong and wasteful to build a single ship for the navy before it is wanted. Up to the moment when a contract for a battleship has been definitely signed, the vessel is the heir to all the expanding naval science of the world; but from the day when the design has been finally fixed she becomes obsolescent and so has become a wasting security. Nearly three years of her brief life have been lived before she is born; before she is even launched the vessels which are capable of destroying her have been projected.
What security is there in building ships that are obsolescent after the day the contract is signed? We learn that there is a sort of understanding between Great Britain and Germany that armaments should remain stationary at about the same proportions that now exist with the hope that in the near future they will be decreased and finally done awa^Swith. Under those circumstances what are we doing, peaceful Canada, no blood stains on our garments, making preparations for the celebration of one hundred years peace; under those circumstances we are proposing to build three of the largest battleships in the world to be placed in the forefront of the largest navy in the world and so fan the war flames and make it more difficult than ever before to secure peace. It seems to me that this is really a crime, that this Parliament has no right to do such a thing; and I feel certain that the people of this country are not in favour of such a policy. I say that at the very least the people should be consulted before action is taken. There is war now in some of the smaller countries of Europe and, aside from the horrors of war, how is it affecting the financial conditions of the world? What is the financial condition of the world to-day? There is a financial crisis, almost a financial panic. I have it on the

authority of two prominent bankers of this Dominion that you could not borrow $50,000 for a new and legitimate enterprise if you would lay down one million dollars worth of assets in security. The money could not be furnished. I have been told that, by the president of the Bankers' Association of Canada. Why is this? It is because the stream of supply is blocked up, money coming from the Old Country. Why? Because of distrust, the people holding and withdrawing their money. And what is the cause of it? This war and the fear of more war is the cause of it. Unless theisie immense armies and navies are abolished, except in so far as they are necessary for police service, or possibly coast defence, one of two things will happen in the near future. The crushing debts of the nations will cause bankruptcy and disaster and panic such as the world has never seen, or a great war, on account of its horrors and expense, will impoverish the nations. War must cease, if for no other than financial reasons. It will break down of its own weight. Think of spending $12,000,000 to construct a battleship, which is obsolete the day before it is built, and which, as the First Lord of the Admiralty has said, is a wasting security, not only after it is built, but before. Under those circumstances it is impossible that war can go on. Now what is the remedy? The only remedy is peace, and arbitration of the differences between nations. What influences in the world are in favour of peace at this moment? The whole commercial interests of the world, and the labour interests of the world are in favour of it, and the educational, moral, and spiritual forces all recognize that it is more honourable for a nation to be great in peace than in war. A university is a more glorious sight than a dreadnought, and it will not be thrown on a scrap heap in two or three years or more. In the year 1910 two of the most remarkable meetings ever held in the world took place, one in the city of Edinburgh and the other in the city of London. At Edinburgh the World Missionary conference met. The delegates were in session for over ten days, and there were representatives from all parts of the world. Throughout, the meetings were held in marked unity. At the opening, the whole assemblage rose and sang: ' All People that on Earth do Dwell,' and so on, and then Lord Balfour of Burleigh called the meeting to order and said:
I am charged with a message from the-King. His Majesty the King expresses his
deep interest in the World Missionary conference, and his gratification at the fraternal co-operation of so many churches and countries in the work of disseminating the knowledge and principles of Christianity throughout the world, his appreciation of the supreme importance of this work in cementing international friendship, the peace of the world, and the well-being of mankind. His Majesty welcomes the great gathering in one of the capitals of the United Kingdom, and hopes their deliberations will be guided by Divine wisdom and be the means of promoting unity among Christians and of furthering the high and beneficent ends which the conference has in view.
Then the assembly sang ' God Save the King.' The other meeting, the International Congress of Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce of the *world met in London, and unanimously passed this resolution :
That this congress emphatically recommends to all nations the establishment of a permanent international court of arbitral justice, of free and easy access, composed of judges representing the various juridical systems of the world and capable of ensuring continuity in jurisprudence of arbitration.
That International Congress held their fifth meeting at Boston in September, 1912, and passed a similar resolution with the greatest enthusiasm. Forty-five nations were represented there. This meeting has been described as the most important meeting of business_men ever held in any country. Arbitration is the only sensible way of adjusting difierences between the nations. Peace is the only remedy for unrest. Commercially speaking, the world is a united world to-day. Merchant ships sail on every sea unmolested, and enter every port unhindered. Every progressive movement in science or commerce has been making for peace. When the telegraph was discovered, the first mes-sage_ that went over the wire was from Baltimore to Washington in these words:
' Behold what wonders God hath wrought.' That was in 1843, and in 1866 when the Atlantic cable was established the first message that passed under the sea was from the noblest Queen that the world has ever seen, Victoria, to America and these were her words: 'Glory to God in the highest; peace on earth, good will to men.' That was her benediction to progressive commerce. The world has had three his-. torie scourges-famine, pestilence, and war. ' Commerce has slain the first, and science has overcome the second. Who is to destroy war? Christianity; sensible people.
I have said that all the commercial interests of the world are in favour of peace, and all the labour interests, all the educational interests, all the moral and spiritual interests are working for it today. There is an international organization in favour of peace, and more and more the nations are beginning to favour it. What about the churches? What are they for? In every pulpit and congregation in Christendom they are praying for the peace of the world, that the kingdoms of this world



may 'become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. Is this all for nought? Is it a mere mockery in the service? No, surely not. It must be that we are to have peace in the world, and I believe that what was long ago foretold, is coming, that:
It shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow' unto it. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. With righteousness shall he judge the poor. Kighteousuess shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
That was foretold and that time is here now, if we will accept it.
And now here we are looking out upon the nations of the earth, in turmoil, waiting for a message from somewhere, from anywhere; and who is more fitted to give them that message than the people of Canada, this young nation alone without bloodstain, and at peace with the whole world? Oh Canada, Canada, God's child among the nations, speak to the world peace, sound the glad note and it will echo from throne to throne, from sea to sea, from the river to the ends' of the earth and will be the opening of the door and the ushering in of the day of peace on earth and good-will to men.	.
House divided on amendment (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Achim,
Barrette,
Beland,
Bellemare,
Boivin,
Boulay,
Be ur ass a,
Boyer,
Brouillard,
Buchanan,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Charlton,
Chisholm (Inverness) Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Ethier,
Fortier,
Gauthier (St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,
German,
Graham, .
Mr. OHABiLTON.
Lapointe (Montreal,
St. James),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's), Michaud,
, Murphy,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Robh,
Guilbault,
Guthrie,
Kay,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
LanctGt,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Seguin,
Tobin,
Turgeon,
Verville,
Warnock,
White
(Victoria, Alta.), Wilson (Laval).-66.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong (Lambton) Armstrong (Xork, O.) Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Beattie,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simeoe),
Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Chabot,
Clare,
Clarke y(Wellingbon), Clements,
Cochrane,
Coekshutt,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Currie,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe) Fowler,
Garland,
Gauthier (Gaspe), Girard,
Green,
Hazen, .
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, O.) Jameson,
Kemp,
Lalor,
.Lancaster,
. Lavallee,
Lesperance,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
Maclean (xork, U.), McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), McLean (Sunbury), Marshall,
Merner,
Middlehro,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Perley,
Porter,
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaflner,
Sd vigny,
Sexsmith,
Shar.pe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
, Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (JUunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace,
.White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-99.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Morphy,
Steele,
Meighen,
Thompson (Yukon), Weichel,
MbCurdy,
Champagne,
Nesbitt,
MacNutt,
Sinclair,
Clark (Red Deer), Maclean (Halifax),

Bristol,
Aikins,
Barnard,
Clark (Bruce),
White,
Wilcox,
Nickle,
Davidson,
Nicholson,

Foster (Kings, N.S.), Foster (Toronto), Alguire,
Hartt,
Tremain,
Elson,
Fripp,
Roche,
Bickerdike,
Turriff,
Martin (Regina), MeCraney,
Emmerson,
Cruise,
Ross,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Hughes
(King's, P.E.I.), Lovell,
Cash,
Clark (Essex), McMillan,
Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Knowles,
Brown,
Gordon,
Molloy,


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I was paired with the
hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


George Henry Barnard: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ALGUIRE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. McMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment,


Mr. WEBSTER:: I was paiied with the hon. member for Stanstead. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
House divided on motion of Mr. Borden for the third reading of the Bill:
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,	Kemp.
Armstrong (Lambton), Lalor, Armstrong (York, O.), Lancaster Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball, Barker. Beattie, Bennett Bennett Best, Blain,
(Calgary),
(Simcoe),
Lavallee, Leererance,
Lewis,
iMaedonell,
Maclean (York, O), McKay,
McLean,
(Queen's, P.E.I.), McLean (Sudbury),
Blondin,
Borden,
Bowman,
Boyce.
Boys,
Bit.bazon,
Bradbury,
Bi oder,
Burnha m,
Burrell,
Chabot,
Clare,
Clarke (Wellinton), Clements,
Cochrane,
Corkshutt,
Coderre,
Crocket,
Ciomwell,
Crothers,
Currfie,
Davidson,
Doherty.
Donnelly,
Edwards,
FI Hot,
Fisher,
Forget (Sir Rodoliphe) Fowler,
Garland,
Gauthier (Gaepe), Girard,
Green,
Hartt,
Hazen,	.
Henderson,
Hepburn.
Hughes (Vivtoria),
J ameson.
Marshall,
Meiner,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nantel,
Ncrthrup,
Osier (Sir Edmund), Paquet,
Paul.
Pelletier.
Perley, '
Rainville,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Robidoux,
Regers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny.
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario). Shepherd,
Sr. ith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg). Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Walker,
Wallace.
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-101.
I
NAYS:
Messieurs
Achim,
Barrette,
Beland,
Belslemare,
Boivin,
Boulay,
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Bi ouillard,
Buchanan,
Eureau,
Cardin,
Carroll,
Carvell,
Charlton,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Belisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Ethier, ,
Foitier,
Gauthier (St. Hyacinths), Gauvreau,
German,
Graham,
Guilbault,
Guthrie,
Kay,
Kyte,
Lapointe (Montreal
St. James),
Lanrier (Sir Wilfrid), Law,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
McCoig,
MeCrea,
McKenzie,
Marcil
(Bonaventure). Maroile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste. Mary's), Michaud,
Murphy,
Neely,
Oliver,
Paeaud,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Power,
P:eulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Robb,
Seguin,
Thomson
(Qu'Appelle),
Tobin,
Turgeon,
318i

Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Verville,
War nock,
White
(Victoria, Alta.), Wilson (Laval).-68.



SAVINGS BANKS IN QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), it was ordered that the House go into Committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Ministerial.
Opposition.
.Murphy,
Steele,
Meighen,
Thompson (Yukon), Weichel,
McCurdy,
Bristol,
Aikins,
Barnard,
Clark (Bruce), White,
Wilcox,
Nickle,
Nicholson,
Webster,
Foster (Kings), Foster (Toronto), Alguire,
Tremain,
Eleon,
FrirP,
Roche,
Champagne.
Nesbitt.
MaoNutt,
Sinclair,
Clark (Red Deer), Maclean (Halifax), Biokerdike,
Turiff,
Martin (Regina),
MicCraney,
Emmerson,
Cruise,
Ross,
Hughes,
Lovell,
Cash,
Clarke (Essex), MicMillan,
Knowles,
Brown,
Gordon,
Molloy.
Mr. KNOWLES:: I desire to say that I
was paired with the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Tremain). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


Michael Clark: I was paired
with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel). Had I voted, I should have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 11.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 16, 1913.
That it is expedient to revise the laws respecting certain savings hanks in the province of Quebec, now carrying on business under chapter 32, of the revised statutes; to continue until the first day of July, 1923, the charters of these banks, and to authorize the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of' remuneration to auditors for such special examinations of the affairs or business of these banks as the Minister of Finance may require to be made.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), it was ordered that the House go into Committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
That if is expedient to authorize that the provisions of chapter 43 of the Act of 1908, an Act respecting the payment of bounties on lehd contained in lead-bearing ores mined in Canada shall, subject to the modification herein set forth, be extended until the thirtieth day of June, 1918, and that provisions of the said Act limiting the payment of such bounty to five hundred thousand dollars in any fiscal year, be changed to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in any fiscal year; provided, however, that the total sum to be paid by way of bounties, under the said Act of 1908, and antecedent Act (chapter 31 of the Acts of 1903), and under any Act to be founded on this resolution, shall not exceed the sum of two million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. Crothers (Acting Minister of the Interior), it was ordered that the House go into Committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution: