March 12, 1901

VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.

?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR J. G.@

PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the right hon.

leader of the government to a paragraph that appears in the Victoria Daily Times, of Tuesday, March 5. It is headed : ' The Duke is coming-Aulay Morrison telegraphs that his visit is practically decided upon' ; and reads as follows :

Upon the opening of the House to-day the premier read a telegram from Aulay Morrison, M.P., stating that the visit of the Duke of York and Cornwall to British Columbia was practically fixed. The announcement was greeted with great applause.

That was on March 5. On March 7, I called the attention of the right lion, gentleman to the fact that the people of British Columbia would like to know whether their Royal Highnesses were going to visit that province or not, and the right hon. gentleman replied as follows :

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

I stated some time ago to my hon. friend (Mr. Prior) that we are corresponding at this moment with the Colonial Office upon the subject of the visit of their Royal Highnesses, that the correspondence is not concluded, and that I would not like to make a statement until the correspondence has been concluded. But in the meantime, I think, without divulging any secret, I may assume to say that it would be,

I think, quite proper and fitting that their Royal Highnesses should visit Vancouver, B.C.

Now, Sir, I cannot believe that the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Morrison) sent that telegram without having some

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I suppose the hon. member will not make any discussion ?

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
CON

Edward Gawler Prior

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. PRIOR.

If I am assured by the right hon. gentleman

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I wish also to state that my mind is not clear that such a question should be brought before the House just now. I cannot see that it is either a question of privilege or a question of urgency. The question may, perhaps, come up later on.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
CON

Edward Gawler Prior

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. PRIOR.

I only want to get some information.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I am simply stating the rule, which is that when the Orders of the Day are called, the only matters which may be brought up are questions of privilege or questions of urgency. I do not see that this is a question of urgency. Besides, if I may be permitted to suggest, when a question of urgency is raised, it might be better to have an understanding with the government, that the question should be answered without notice being given.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
CON

Edward Gawler Prior

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. PRIOR.

Of course, Mr. Speakev if you ruie it out of order, I cannot say anything more. I wish to get the information from the right hon. First Minister as to whether Mr. Morrison was authorized to -send such a telegram as that-

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order.

Hon. Mr. PRIOR-or whether the right hon. gentleman was treating the House in a manner

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order.

Hon. Mr. PRIOR-which, I do not think, was at all proper, in stating that he had not the information to give.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

Mr. Speaker, I gave to the House the only information I could give pending the correspondence, which had not been concluded. I gave no information to Mr. Morrison or anybody else. I never saw Mr. Morrison on the subject at all.

SUPPLY-S. A. WAR-CANADIAN INTERVENTION, &c.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.

S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).

Since I have given notice of the motion which I am now to propose, a double accusation has been brought against me.

On one hand, I am pointed out to the eyes of my English-speaking fellow-citizens as a French demagogue; and, on the other, I am denounced to my own countrymen as a dangerous British Imperialist.

Or course, having made up my mind to say what I think, as I think it, on all matters of national importance, I will not trouble myself with the opinion of this paper or that one: it would be easier to get a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than to bring a political sheet to appreciate an idea with complete independence and good faith.

In the course of my remarks, I will have occasion to deal with the charge of French demagogy, to which, I must say, I never attached any importance. The intention of raising a racial agitation on this matter has always been so foreign to my mind and so totally absent from my utterances, that I never took the trouble to confute that accusation. I thought I could rely on the common sense and straightforwardness of English Canadians to do justice on that slander.

As to my imperialistic tendencies, they should not call for much argument either. Nevertheless, the problem has received so little serious consideration, from the Quebec representatives especially, that some explanation may be required. The preamble of my motion sets out my intention clearly enough, I think. I do not recede for one moment from the position which I have taken and kept from the day the Canadian government decided to take part in the South African war; that position being identical to that occupied by the cabinet till the 13th October, 1899.

This proposition therefore does not imply an admission on my part that the government had a right and a duty to interfere in

South Africa. I shall never admit that the country could be thrown in any war by order in council. I shall never acknowledge that the government was excusable, for the sake of power or popularity, or even in order to avoid the nightmare of racial agitation, to open, by a mere cabinet decision, a new era in our relations with Great Britain, without at least enlightening the people upon the real consequences of their action.

I still assert that Canada is not bound and should not be called to any other military action than the defence of her territory.

Such principles being reserved, there is no necessity for my insisting any more upon them at present. The point I want to make is this: We, Canadians, have been taxed,

some wilfully and some forcibly, to defray the cost of this expedition; we have, therefore, the right to pronounce on the outcome and the settlement of the conflict in which we have been made a party, and we should not allow the British government to presume and decide arbitrarily of our opinion without even consulting us on the matter. As I have stated when I moved my antiimperialist resolution last year ; as I repeated the other day in support of the motion of the kon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Mr. Costigan) requesting the abolition of the anti-Catholic declaration forced upon the King on the day of his coronation:

I believe it is our right and duty, as representatives of a self-governing British community, to express an opinion and to make suggestions on any matter of vital interest to British power-provided always we impair . in no way our full liberty and complete selfcontrol of action.

Strange to say, no traces of Imperialism were pointed out in the help given by Canada to soldiers wounded in the Crimean war; nor in the part played by Sir John A. Macdonald in the settlement of the Alabama claim at the expense of Canada; nor in the three resolutions in favour of home rule for Ireland discussed in this parliament; nor even in the motion of sympathy with the gold miners and speculators of the Transvaal adopted by this House at the request of Mr. Rhodes's agent. But now, Imperialism is declared to be the basis of a proposition asking that a conflict in which we have taken an active part should be settled upon the same principles that have made Canada happy and prosperous and which this parliament wanted, some years ago, to be applied to Ireland. Stranger still,

I am told that Canada has not the right to say that an end should be put to a war in which her required contribution of 500 men has been raised to over 3,000, and her national expenditure of a few thousand dollars to more than two millions. And finally when British authorities are unable i to find police recruits in the United Kingdom, in New Zealand and in Australia, when the Cape Colonists themselves, for the benefit of whom that force is organized, refuse

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

: to enlist-I am denied by Imperialists and by anti-imperialists as well, the right to say i that Sir Alfred Milner and Mr. Chamberlain should not have been allowed and helped to-play any longer upon the candid and enthusiastic naivety of Canadians.

The principles upon which I have based this proposition are not new; they were born with the British nation itself; they were brought by the Saxon pirates from the dark forests of Teutonia to the Celtic island of the north; they were laid down as the corner-stone of the British constitution by a section of that robust Norman race of which the French Canadians are to-day, perhaps, the most direct and thorough offsprings. Many a blow was struck at them; they were reddened by the blood of powerful assailants and of heroic defenders; I hope they will stand the present craze as they stood the attacks of monarehs and mobs, of oligarchists and aristocrats. I mean the right, for all British-subjects, of petition and remonstrance to the Crown, and the right of directing the use that shall be made of their money.

The new Imperialism is the very antithesis of these rights. The tendency of Mr. Chamberlain's ideals, favoured, either wilfully or blindly, by most colonial public men, is to centralize gradually the political, military and economical ruling of the empire, making it as free as possible from independent local action, In order to set asleep the susceptibilities of the Canadian or of the Australian, and to kill their colonial vanity by swelling their jingoistic pride, it is whispered that the capital of the new empire may not stay where it is. But that does not matter: whether worshipped at London or at Toronto, at Melbourne or at Calcutta, the Buddha of the Imperialists will remain the same omnipotent fetich, and the choir of the faithful shall have to howl the same hymn. One of the most remarkable features of the new Britisher is that the more he swells in ambition the less-tolerant he grows towards differing convictions.

It has been said, printed and sung on all times for over a year, that this war has raised the past subservient state of British self-governing colonies to the rank of free nations allied with Great Britain. Eloquent periods have been thrown to the four winds, celebrating the proud position which we occupy now in the British Empire.

Those triumphant effusions of colonial pride recall forcibly to my mind the decadent years of the Roman empire, when poets and rhetors, forgetful of the rude but free life of their forefathers, were extolling the glories of Caesar and worshipping his golden image, because they were allowed to share in his refined debaucheries ; because the old warriors of Gaul and Brittany, of Iberia and Germania had become the best legionaries of the empire, and could help in conquering more lands, in looting more herds, in burn-

ing more farms, in ravishing more women and starving more children for the everlasting glory of ' Caesar, imperator et deus ' Rome held a vaster empire, her provinces were better subdued, she boasted more of her power on the eve of her downfall than at any other period of her history. But we know now, and her clearsighted citizens knew then, that the time of her greatest moral and material strength was when her statesmen thought more of curing evils at home and of keeping the old Roman spirit of liberty, than of plundering the world and worshipping brutal force and insatiable greed in the person of the Emperor.

But I do not want to add fuel to the fire of jingo feelings. I will simply remind the members of the House, those especially who are most proud of the position we occupy in the empire, that, if we do not want Canada to be considered by the British government as a mere colonial field for profitable speculation, it is most urgent that we should make ourselves respected not only on the battlefield, but also in His Majesty's councils. The time has come when we should tell Mr. Chamberlain that, having had at leisure and unreservedly the blood of our blood and the flesh of our flesh, the tears of Canadian mothers and the sweat of Canadian farmers and workers, in order to enrich himself and his brother and his son and the whole of his tribe, by selling guns and ammunition, he should at least respect the language of the Canadian people, and not distort as he pleases the documents which are sent to him by the Canadian government.

I exposed before the House, at the last session, the strange course followed by the Colonial Secretary; his using our Transvaal resolution of 1899 to say that we were in favour of his provoking and arrogant policy; his acceptation of our offers of help before they had ever been tendered ; the publication by the London papers of his official despatch to Lord Minto before it had reached our government ; .and above all, his insolent reply to the order in council of October 13th. Since then, we have had another manifestation of the growing audacity of the master of the empire. Last year, on the 4tli of June, I put the following question to the government :

Has the government, or any of its members, been consulted as to the conditions upon which the South African war should be settled? Is it the intention of the government to offer any suggestion or opinion on the matter?

To which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) replied :

Neither the government, nor any of its members, have been consulted as to conditions upon which the South African war should be settled. They are not considering the advisability of offering any suggestion or opinion upon the matter.

And the reply was noisily applauded by the

opposition. This session, on the 18th of February, I put the following question :

1. Was the Canadian government, or any of its members, consulted by the British government on the South African question since the 1st of June last?

2. Did the Canadian government, or any of its members, offer any opinion or make any suggestion to the British government on the matter?

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

The Canadian government was not consulted, nor any of its members, by the British government on the South African question since June 1st last. No member of the Canadian government offered any opinion on the matter.

Let us now cross the ocean, enter Westminster Palace, the mother of parliaments, the source and safeguard of British liberty, of British justice, of British truth. On the 7th day of August last-I read from the Times' parliamentary report :

Mr. Faber (York) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the part taken by Canada and Australia in the South African war, it was proposed to ascertain the views of the government of those countries in regard to the settlement and government of the Transvaal and Orange State when the war was over.

And remembering the declarations made by the Prime Minister of Canada on the -1th of June, 1900, and on the 18th of February, 1901, let us hear the reply of the oracle of the new British world :

Mr. Chamberlain.-I have already made myself acquainted with the views of the colonies of Canada and Australia in regal'd to the main points of the future settlement, and Her Majesty's government are in complete accordance with them as to the necessity for annexation, the establishment of a government supported by military force, with the ultimate expectation of an extension to both colonies of representative self-government. (Cheers.)

Yes, cheers on both sides of the Atlantic, -but which is which ?

One would he tempted to qualify such a flagrant contradiction in terms that would call for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But, after all, this was not much worse than when being told officially that the Canadian government were permitting the enlistment of the first contingent because they considered that the colony was not committed to any future action, the Colonial Secretary replied officially that the British government were accepting our troops as an evidence of our willingness ' to share in the risks and burdens of the empire,' and as a proof of our sympathy with his policy in South Africa. That first distortion having been tacitly accepted here, the Colonial Secretary was only encouraged in his methods. But I think it justifies me in appealing to the members of this House in the name of Canadian selfrespect to put a stop to that arbitrary treatment. I appeal to those at least who have not reached that point of devotion to Mr. Chamberlain that to be made tools of in his

hands is to he considered a great honour to Canada.

In that new alliance with Great Britain which has changed our state of humble servility into a glorious matrimony, I would like to know how long we are called to play the part of a deceived but contented husband. In national intercourse as well as in private life that role is not yet considered as one to be much boasted about- by the husband at least.

I do not see that I have to apologize for anything I said in the past on this question. My course has been twice endorsed and emphatically approved by my constituents. It has been said that the almost unanimous voice of the people of Canada approved of our intervention in South Africa, and therefore, that we, the few members of this House who condemned that intervention. must be in the wrong. I deny this proposition in toto. It is false both in principle and in fact. First, number does not make right what is wrong. Majority rules, but not always in truth and equity. I am an optimist. I firmly believe that, on the whole, good is prevalent and that right conquers might at the end. But there are periods of moral depression when thousands and millions of men, when entire nations seem to lose the path of justice and even the sense of self conservation. If it is but an accidental attack of fever, a reaction follows which restores health and common sense in the body politic. If it is the last illness, the nation disappears and a new one takes its place under the sun. And the world goes on under the guidance of God. Fortunately for Canada, signs of reaction are already noticeable; and I can foresee the day when the judgment of the people of Canada, English as well as French, will not be so hard on me as the speeches, the votes, the songs and the howlings which illustrated the debates of last session. That reaction is not yet of such a character to warrant the confidence of my Quebec Liberal friends who naively believe that Imperialism is a fake or a dead issue. But the change is strong enough to give hopes to those who dread for our rising nation the brutalizing effect of soldiery rule, the development of the spirit of conquest and plunder, and the heavy burdens of Imperial militarism. Even in England the reaction is manifest. In fact the wave of jingoism never reached there the point it attained here. As usual, the true colonial jingo outdid the loudest London cockney. Before going to the polls, Mr. Chamberlain the master of the British administration, made of his war the main, nay the sole issue of the electoral contest : ' A vote against the government is a vote for the Boers,' said he in his peculiar Bismarckian way. And in reply to this passionate appeal, and in spite of the disorganization of the Liberal party, 1,603,537 suffrages were given for the Boers-to use the Colonial Mr. BOURASSA.

Secretary's own stamping-in 427 divisions, and eighty ridings returned oppositionists by acclamation. And every one admits that the vote would be far more favourable to the Liberals now than last fall. The change effected in the editorship of the Daily News is quite an indication of the change of sentiment. We may see before long a repetition of the anti-war feeling which followed the deplorable Crimean expedition. Now take the result of the London county council elections just held last week. The Moderates, despairing to get a majority on straight municipal issues, dragged the khaki cry in the contest. ' Do you want a pro-Boer council ? ' was their war cry ; and what was the reply ? An increased majority for the Progressists.

As far as Canada is concerned, the verdict of the electorate has been interpreted by the people of Great Britain and of the empire at large with such an ignorance of the real issue that it is most proper to make a short analysis of the situation. In order to give to the House an idea of the way British opinion was misguided on Canadian feelings, by the leading Tory organs, I will just quote a few lines from the London Times. In a letter from its special correspondent in Toronto, dated September 24, and published on the 6th October, the political situation in Canada and its bearing on Imperial affairs is very ably considered. After saying that the French Canadians are more thoroughly Canadian than all others, and consequently less interested in British and Imperial concerns, the writer adds these words, which I commend to the attention of the House :

It was a singularly fortunate circumstance that at this critical time in nati.uial tifiairh a French Canadian statesman was at the head of the Dominion government. Without his leadership, Quebec might have caused trouble. A French member of the cabinet and more than one private member of parliament objected to the conditions on which the Canadian contingents were sent to the front.

Then speaking of the hesitations of the Prime Minister in sending the troobs :

No doubt he (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) felt that his compatriots required to be educated by degrees to the full demands of British citizenship.

I would like to hear from the right hon. gentleman on what lines and how far he is prepared to carry on that course of education. After the elections, the great English Tory organ thought it was good policy to interpret the Liberal majority as a victory for Imperialism. In an editorial dated November 10th, it said :

Both parties in Canada are Imperialist ; and we believe that the Conservatives, if they had been in power, would have pursued, in this respect, the same course that was pursued by the Liberals. Nevertheless, it fell to the Liberals, as a matter of fact, to do the work, and it was done with a promptitude, a gracefulness, and a liberality which could not have been surpassed,

and which Great Britain will never forget. As far as obtaining popularity in this country was concerned, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his cabinet had a magnificent opportunity and they employed It to the full. That they should do so was the more gratifying when we consider that the back bone of their strength is derived from the French population of the Dominion and especially from Quebec which from circumstances which we, perhaps, do not fully understand, was less strongly represented in South Africa than some other provinces.

I think this is rather hard on hon. gentlemen opposite who are mostly stout Imperialists but whose Imperialism would have no doubt been greatly strengthened by access to power, even at the hands of French dominators. But the most peculiar appreciation by the Times of the electoral result in Canada appeared in its Toronto letter, dated November 10, and published on the 24th. I quote the following words :

On one point of national importance the election has cleared the air. It is now manifest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has not been injured among his French Canadian followers by his British Imperialism. So far as Quebec is concerned, the sending of the Canadian contingents to South Africa was fully ratified by the vote of last Wednesday. The Premier had never shirked the responsibility which he assumed in the matter, and the issue was fairly before the French electors. ... So far as Imperial politics are concerned, therefore, the decisive attitude of Quebec is satisfactory.

The conclusions of tihe two last quoted articles are utterly false, and the intelligence of Canadian affairs displayed in the former is an evidence of the wilful had faith of the two others.

The question of Imperialism was put neither squarely nor fairly before the people of Canada. In the English-speaking provinces, it was kept on the ground of sentiment where it had been placed in this House, each party claiming the first prize In their competitive devotion to the mother land ; but the constitutional aspect and the ultimate consequences of our military expedition were not discussed.

In the province of Quebec, when the issue was raised, both parties were simply charging each other with being the cause of that display of jingoism which had forced the hands of the government. What was claimed in one part of the land as an act of virtue, was denounced in the other part as a crime. I may tell, in passing, to all those who are sincerely seeking for peace and harmony between the two races who compose the Canadian nation, that they vainly endeavour to reach that happy result so long as they keep up that double-faced system of treating great national problems. I will come back to this point later on.

Let me now place before the House a few facts which prove that the sentiment of the English-speaking people was not so decidedly one-sided as it has been stated in this House and throughout the country. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) was quoted as having said at a public meeting shortly after last session :

I voted lor the expenditure of $2,000,000 in South Africa, although I admit the justice of the position taken by Mr. Bourassa, and believe there is nothing in the constitution to warrant such expenditure. I simply voiced the wishes of my constituents in this matter.

On the eve of polling day he was bitterly denounced in the organ of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson). The above words appeared on nearly every page of the Winnipeg Tribune in heavy type with headings and comments like these :

No Contingents for Him.

Puttee Stands with Bourassa.

Voted Against his Convictions.

Too British for Him.

If Mr. Puttee had had his way, there would have been no contingents sent to South Africa in defence of the empire. His sympathies were with Mr. Bourassa.

Winnipegers want a representative at Ottawa who is a Britisher at heart and who will stand by the empire on principle.

These are ultra-loyal appeals

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
IND

Arthur W. Puttee

Independent Labour

Mr. PUTTEE.

The paper that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) has quoted was incorrect on that occasion and admittedly so.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I was just coming to that point. I do not say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) used these words, but I simply say, that, on the eve of the polling day, if the passions of the people had been aroused to the point that was stated, if there had been such a current of public opinion, a man simply supposed to be what is called a pro-Boer, and supposed to have said that the government should have hesitated a little before committing this country, would have been swamped by his opponent. What was the result 1 The hon. gentleman was elected by a majority of 1,183, while, ten months previous, when he had the strength of two governments behind him, he was elected by 8.

In the east riding of Lambton the member-elect (Mr. Simmons) was denounced by the local Liberal organ, the Petrolia Topic, as a pro-Boer. True, the hon. lion, gentleman denied the accusation; but the paper kept it up and, in reply to the hon. gentleman's denial, published half a dozen interviews with residents of the town affirming that, in several instances, the hon. gentleman had not disguised his disapproval of the position taken by the British government on South African matters. I do not pretend that the statement was founded ; but nobody will deny that, had the war feeling been overwhelming in that riding, such accusations would have proved hard against the Conservative candidate. And here he is, returned by the majority of the people in a constituency which was represented last session by his opponent, a worthy and honourable citizen no doubt popular in his riding.

But here is a case still clearer. Dr. Weldon, who represented the riding of Albert, N.B., in this House from 1891 to 1S96, is a distinguished professor of international law in the loyal city of Halifax. His disapproval of British policy in South Africa was widely known. He went as far as dedicating one of his lectures to the interpretation of the conventions signed between Great Britain and the South African republic ; and his conclusion was a thorough condemnation of Mr. Chamberlain's attitude. I was told that he even dissuaded his son from starting for South Africa and taking part in a war which he considered unjust. This did not prevent that honourable and distinguished gentleman from being chosen as the Conservative candidate in the county of Albert and from being accepted as such by the very men who nearly fell into fits of apoplexy in this House when I gave expression to similar sentiments. True, Dr. Weldon was defeated; but in a contest where the Liberals have made tremendous gains in that province, he reduced his minority of 243 in 1896 to 116 in 1900.

These are the only three cases where it may be said that there was a slight indication in the English-speaking provinces, of what jingo prophets call pro-Boer feelings on the part of candidates. And I do not think the results show that to differ on this question with Mr. Chamberlain and even with the leaders of both parties in Canada has been considered a national felony.

Other indications of reaction against military jingoism have been manifested in our English provinces since the election. On a previous occasion, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) spoke of the enthusiastic reception tendered in Halifax to volunteers returning from South Africa. I know Halifax to be very sentimental. Even its dry fish and hardware dealers cannot refrain their poetical ardour and introduce patriotic rhymes-not home-made, I must say-in their board of trade reports. But elsewhere, the enthusiasm was not quite so pronounced. Commenting on the arrival of our boys in the metropolis of Canada, the Montreal Gazette of December 25tli last, said very philosophically :

The second detachment of the Canadian infantry received only a moderately warm welcome on its return from South Africa. The country is getting used to heroes, it would seem. It does not esteem them loss, but it is less demonstrative rf its feelings.

Of course this was in disloyal Quebec. But let us cross the Ottawa river and penetrate to the heart of the good old sister province, the bulwark of loyalism. Woodstock is an Ontario town, and if I am not mistaken. not largely peopled with pea-soup eaters-unless my hon. friend from North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has educated his constituents to the taste of that healthy food. Here is a description of the quiet way in which returned soldiers were receiv-Mr. BOURASSA.

ed in Woodstock, according to the Sentinel-Review of December 26th last:

When the train moved in yesterday morning

about one person in twenty cheered; a minute after the men had alighted and before the band recommenced playing, there could hardly have been greater quietness at a funeral ceremony. Have we forgotten how to cheer?

I could contrast that funeral reception with the warm welcome which greeted Major Fiset on his return in the French town of Rimouski. I would suggest to the hon. member for North Oxford (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to get our colleague from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to deliver there some essays on Krugerism and Huttonism. And if these stimulants do not succeed in infusing enthusiasm in the Woodstockiaus, let him secure the musical services of Mr. G. E. Foster and Dr. Montague to sing the National Anthem in Woodstock three times a day in open air for the length of time they used to pass here.

Speaking in a general way, the Toronto Star, one of the Canadian papers which kept best its cool senses during the jingo spree of last year, gave this advice to our returned heroes on December 31st last :

Get Back to Business.

The men who have come from the war have received welcomes that greatly surprised them. People in country places especially are generally very slow to exhibit enthusiasm over young men who belong to their own towns. Yet in a great many cases young man in khaki have been welcomed in royal style, banqueted and presented with watches and sums of money. They should not harbour the hope that they can continue to walk on air.

The wise ones will get back to earth as soon as they possibly can, will put away their regimentals and get to work again. An old saying may be amended to read that nobody is a hero to the people of his own village.

I must beg pardon to the House for multiplying these quotations from English papers. But I am bound to do so. Should X make such utterances on my own account, they would be called ' manifestations of French disloyalty.' In the same copy of the Gazette which I have just quoted appeared a long editorial dealing with the alleged mutiny of some colonial troops in South Africa. The whole thing is a lecture to British authorities on what they should expect and not expect from colonists :

Lord Kitchener's statement, published in our yesterday's issue, makes it clear that all that occurred was the refusal of some time-expired men to go on duty when ordered to do so. . . .

If they are not willing to serve any longer, they cannot be blamed, certainly not by men who were unwilling to serve at all. . . . They were in the field before the C. I. V. and the Household Cavalry, and they have seen the latter return home not without suspicion that social

influence had weight in the preference

It has evidently taken some of the British officers a long time to learn how the colonial troops should be handled. . . . The enthusiasm for the war is waning, and the men are probably right in the belief that the rest of the cam-

paign will be mainly police work

They have done all they promised to do, and have done It in a way to make us proud of them.

But the best expression of sentiment in that sense was given by the Evening Telegram, of Toronto, on October 25 last. It appeared as the leading editorial, under the title :

' Did Well to Come Home.'

It was not exactly Col. Otter's duty to accept on behalf of the Royal Canadian Regiment Lord Roberts' cordial invitation to remain in Africa until the war was technically over. The instincts of a professional soldier like Col. Otter, do not seem to be in line with the inclinations of all the volunteers under his command. They have, their rights and did well to exercise these rights, and not be browbeaten into staying in Africa when they wanted to come home. They gave the empire good service in the hour of danger, and could well afford to leave professional soldiers to complete the remaining stages of the campaign.

This gem of common sense must have been a cause of amazement to all those who heard here its responsible author, the late member for East Toronto, Mr. John Ross-Robert-son, lecturing the government for not voting sufficient money to pay for the total maintenance of our troops in South Africa, even if England refused our alms.

Every man of good faith will admit that we are far from the frantic appeals of October, 1899, for troops and horses, for guns and cartridges.

My conclusion to all this is that loyalty is almost as elastic as a politician's conscience. At the start of the war, when nobody in Canada expected it could last more than a few' weeks ; when the British government wanted only 500 men from Canada -not to fight, but to express our sympathy with Mr. Chamberlain's policy-I was branded as a traitor because I wanted the government to pause a few weeks and give to the representatives of the people an opportunity to discuss the consequences of this new military policy. A year later, when the situation was darker than ever, when the British army found it hard to hold its few positions, and could not prevent the enemy's invasion in British territory, the very men W'bo put me under the ban of Britisli opinion, plainly said to their beloved mother land : ' Get out of the mess the best yon can ; for us, we have enough of the game. Come back home, boys ; God save the Queen ! '

At the end of December last, it was announced that some more Canadians would have a chance to go to Africa, and this time for a long period and a good pay ; with full opportunities to loot cattle, to burn houses and farms, to steal clocks, mirrors, jewellery and money, to chop pianos just for the fun of it, to turn penniless, on the veldt, women and children at the mercy of barbarous and lustful natives. I take all those words from letters from Canadian volunteers. At the risk of being called a 'little Englander,' I venture the

opinion that Lord Wellington's humane methods of warfare will remain in history as more glorious to the name of Great Britain than Lord Kitchener's improved system. And, perhaps also, the military glory of the wise tactician of the Torres Vedras and of Waterloo will not be totally eclipsed by the ferry trade of Sir Redvers Buller.

Anyhow, when it was decided to raise Canadian recruits for the South African constabulary, the explosion of enthusiasm was not defeaning. On December 31 last, the Toronto Star published an article entitled : ' We need our men at home,' in which I read the following lines :

This country cannot therefore regard as1 a favour that a thousand of our young men are to be accepted as volunteers for police duty in Africa, Asia, South America, England, or anywhere else. We need them at home. This country has no reason to consider a kindness, either, that commissions are offered our young men in the Imperial army, for these are prizes that wean them away from the tasks for which this country educates them. We need more young men than we can grow and we grow better ones than we can import.

It is all right for this country to jump into the middle of the ring in a time of crisis and strike a few blows for the credit of the family, hut what we have to remember is that in making Canada what she ought to be, one native is worth a wagon load of immigrants. *

At the risk of abusing the patience of the House, I will also quote two articles which appeared in the Canadian Military Gazette.

I take for granted that this publication is neither an anti-militarist organ nor a French disloyal mouthpiece. The first article was published on January 15 last, and read as follows :

The South African Police.

Now that recruiting depots for the South African police are to be established in different sections of the Dominion, much unfavourable comment is heard. Surely the Canadian government did not express a desire to the Imperial authorities that such should be done, and if the latter acted on their own initiative, they certainly took a step that was ill-advised. Our aim in this country is to get population not to send our young men abroad. It appears that ranchers and other of that class, to be found mainly in Manitoba and the Territories, are the men preferred and by holding out the inducement of big pay it is hoped to entice away one thousand or more of the flower of our manhood. Canada can ill spare these men, and as a term in the South . African police means, in the large majority of cases, that they will ultimately settle in the country, the Dominion is actually being denuded to populate another portion of the empire.

The Imperial government should be plainly told that, if it is absolutely necessary to have men from Canada to fight for British supremacy in the dark continent, this country will send not 1,000, but at least 10,000, but we have no men to spare for doing routine police duty, while millions of acres of the finest land in the world lay untilled for want of population. Until the men are urgently required, the Canadian authorities should not hold out any inducements to recruits in the country. Canadians wishing to join the police of their own free will should be

permitted to do so, but it is not fair to the Dominion that they should be encouraged to enlist.

On February 19, the same paper came again to the front and said :

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
?

The S. A.@

Constabulary. .

According to the Army and Navy Gazette, of London, Eng., usually one of the best-informed service journals published in the United Kingdom, the basis of all applications for membership in the South African constabulary is taken to be that ' those sending in their names desire to settle in South Africa after service with the force.'

Such has been strongly suspected in Canada, although the authority have taken the utmost pains to conceal the fact from the public, and the Gazette, after reading the article referred to in our English contemporary, is more strongly than ever opposed to the action of the Canadian militia authorities in encouraging the virtual deportation from our country of a large number-for us-of the best settlers obtainable anywhere in the world.

As has been said on several previous occasions, this journal is not by any means opposed to sending men to fight the empire's battles, if they are required for that purpose, but in this instance it is not even pretended that such is the case, the statement being that they are required for doing police duty in the conquered country, the ultimate aim and object, doubtless, being at the expiration of their three years' term of service that they will be induced to settle in Africa, to the exceeding great detriment of the Dominion.

In this connection, it may be said that the government of New South Wales, being evidently better seized of the facts than ours at Ottawa, have emphatically refused to permit an Imperial officer to recruit for the force in that portion of the empire, and the Gazette is of opinion that recent developments justify the course.

Let all who desire to join the force of their own volition do so without throwing obstacles in the way, but to cajole and encourage men to enlist is not fair to the land we live in.

A few days later, on February 25th, the Montreal Witness, following along the same line, said :

Canadians seem to be taking all too kindly to the establishment among them of recruiting depots, whose object will be to withdraw the most vigorous of our youth from nation-buildiug to the adventure of war. We presume that in every community as full of virility as the Canadian people there will be a certain proportion irresistibly drawn towards such a life. The wild beast has not yet died out of our human nature. if there are some called by nature to military life, and there certainly are many who seem better adapted to success iu that than [DOT] in any other calling, it is better that they should enlist in the service of their own empire than in that of strangers. We cannot, how-over, look on the whole thing without much regret.

With regard to the attitude of the government of New South Wales, I have gone through the London Times to ascertain the truth ; and the first thing I find is a despatch from Sydney, dated February 17, as follows :-

Sydney, N.S.W., Feb. 17.-Sir Alfred Milner having notified the government of New South Wales of his intention to send an officer to recruit in Australia for the South African con-Mr. BOURASSA.

stabulary, the government has replied that the colony objects to such a proceeding.

From the London Times of February 20, I find the following despatch :

Cape Town, Feb. 18.-There is no foundation for the statement contained in telegrams from London to the effect that Sir Alfred Milner proposed to recruit men in Australia and New Zealand for the South African constabulary, and that the New South Wales government had objected.

For those who have followed the course of Imperial authorities on this war question, it Is easy to read between the lines of these despatches. It is now said that no applications were made in Australia or New Zealand for recruits ; but the fact seems to be that the British government, having confidentially asked for the opinion of the governments of those colonies as to the feasibility of recruiting, and learning that they were not willing to be played upon by Sir Alfred Milner, the statement was put forth that the request had not been made. I may here also read tbe following despatch which came in the month of January :

New York, January 14.-The London correspondent of the Tribune says: The announcement is made by the Post that the scheme for raising a colonial police force has been abandoned for the present. The rates of pay were not considered tempting enough by the people living in South Africa, and of 16,000 men who applied to tbe United Kingdom to join the force, only 500 or so were selected as suitable.

Sir, I was perfectly justified in the opening of my remarks in saying that the British authorities, having found that they could not obtain in South Africa or in Australia recruits for the constabulary organized for tbe protection of South Africa, they came to this rich land of Canada to ask from us what other British colonies declined to give, and what the only colony directly interested in this war is not able to give.

I may add that the attempts on the part of Imperial authorities in South Africa to keep our young men as settlers is not a new feature of this war. As early as the 24th November last the Montreal Herald's special correspondent with the Strathcona Horse wrote from Potehefstrom a letter which appeared in the Herald of January 5. It begins as follows:-

The eye of the Canadian volunteer is turning towards Rhodesia, tbe most northern inheritance of the British South African Company, as a prospective place of settlement, attracted by the exceptional inducements offered by the Chartered Company, and the tales heard on the march or by the camp-fire, of the mineral and agricultural wealth of this portion of South Africa. In the ranks of Lord Strathcona's corps are twenty or thirty Canadians who are at present deeply interested in the country, and may yet make it their future home. . . . The

special inducements to settlement extended by the British South African Company are offered only to Canadian, Australian and New Zealand volunteers and English Yeomanry who will volunteer for the defence of Rhodesia.

With the Military Gazette, 1 regret strongly that the Canadian government, which is taxing the people of this country to bring in foreign immigration, should have assisted British authorities in the draining of our best blood for the benefit of Mr. Rhodes. And again that step has been taken without the consent and knowledge of parliament. The cabinet cannot invoke this time the excuse of popular will. I did not hear of the slightest protest against the articles of the Toronto Star and of the Military Gazette which, I think, expressed the general opinion. And it cannot be pretended that this is another case of urgent necessity. On the 8th of January last, Lord Raglan, Under Secretary of State for War, said to a representative of the Associated Press :

The condition of affairs in South Africa absolutely forbids prophecy. You cannot call it war, yet in some respects this is worse than war.

. . . . The secret of the whole thing consists in horses. We have enough men there, but not enough mounted men.

A strange war indeed ! At the outset, the defeats of the British army were attributed to a lack of strategic science on the part of the mules ; and now we are told that the Imperial forces being unable to conquer this remnant of a handful of peasants, horses only can do it. Anyhow, since horses only were required, why did not the government offer to the British authorities all the horses they wanted, and told them to leave here where they are badly needed the men they do not want.

I go further : I say that the moment the government were convinced that the war was over-and convinced they were as early as the 7th of June last when they congratulated the Queen on the end of hostilities-it was their duty to notify the British government that Canadian soldiers should be sent hack here at the expiry of their first period of engagement, that is, after six months of service. That duty became imperative when Lord Roberts annexed the two republics and every minister in England boasted that the war was over, and that the few Boer desperadoes who were still foolish enough to keep on fighting should not be considered as belligerents. If I understood well that popular voice which forced the hands of the government, our soldiers went to Africa and we paid them for the defence of the empire. But our purpose was not. I presume, to keep there at the expense of Canada a force of men to loot farms and do police work in a war which is not a war, as Lord Raglan termed it three months ago, or but a ' technical war,' as Mr. Ross-Robertson, of the Evening Telegram, would qualify it.

Coming back to those articles of the Toronto Star, of the Military Gazette, of the Montreal Witness, I am most happy to observe the revival of that robust common sense and of that practical spirit which

every true observer of modern nations admires as the backbone of Anglo-Saxon strength, and to which the Anglo-Saxon shall have to come back if he does not want to see his power vanishing. But, to be impartial, I must point out the weakness of reasoning which characterizes those articles. If we admit the desirability of military expeditions outside of Canada, even scarce and accidental, we must prepare for them. Not only must we go in expensive purchases of weapons and ammunitions, we must also develop a military spirit in our peaceful community. If we make ours the quarrels of Great Britain ; if we wish to have at least 10,000 young men ready to start at England's first call in Europe or Africa, in Asia or Oceania, we must prepare the youth of this country for such emergencies. From the cradle, through the kindergarten, the school, the college, the university, the ear of the Canadian boy must be made familiar with the clang of arms and the strident appeal of trumpets. He must be taught to drill and to shoot and to love camping and loafing with spurs at his boots and a sword at his belt. Instead of war being painted to his eyes under its true colors as one of the chastisements of God over a sinful humanity, as one of the worst social scourges, more cruel and detrimental to the welfare of nations than cholera or famine, his young enthusiastic mind must be imbued with the barbarous, anti-Christian notion that war is the true path to glory, the' most healthful and noble aim of a strong people. And the result will be that, not only by loyalty, not only in cases of imperative necessity, not only to defend the flag and the land, hut simply to follow its new instincts, the ' flower of our manhood ' will he ready to start at any time, for any cause, good or bad. In time of peace, that new martial education of the youth will lower to their mind the ordinary but fruitful occupations of life. And thus will be lost to our country the best of its bicod, of its intelligence, of its vital strength. Military passion is brutal, and cannot be controlled easily by reason. I am glad to find out that some organs of the English-speaking community are beginning to agree with me ; but without any desire to discourage their honest and well-directed efforts, I may be allowed to say that if they want to avoid the consequences they must try to extirpate the causes.. They have helped in throwing a bad seed to the national ground ; if they dread the harvest, let them go and unroot the crop ; cutting a few of the heaviest ears is but a childish and useless game.

Coming now to the province of Quebec, the attempt made by the London Times to interpret the almost unanimous vote given to the government in that province as an approval of the war, or of the participation

of Canada in the conflict, is simply preposterous. I regret that some members of the cabinet have contributed to propound that false impression. They may have done it with a good purpose ; but what Is the use ? Not only good intentions, but honesty, clearsightedness, and frankness, are the best policy always.

At a banquet which was tendered to him at Toronto, on the 11th of December last, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) was reported by the Toronto Globe as having said on Imperial issues :

In the province of Quebec the main attack that was made upon the government was on account of the Imperial policy which was followed by our right hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) The issue that was mainly raised there between the Prime Minister and his supporters and their opponents was as to whether Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, the French Canadian Prime Minister, who had inaugurated the British preference, who had sent the troops to South Africa, whether he was to be supported in taking that action ; and we have only to look at the newspapers which were circulated by our Conservative friends in the province of Quebec, at the literature which was circulated by those gentlemen in Quebec, to see that that was the main issue upon which they appealed to the province of Quebec, and their appeal was that the people of Quebec should declare against Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier because he was an Imperial statesman, because he had thrown in his lot with the British empire. (Hear, hear.) What did the people of Quebec decide? What was their verdict? Was it for the men who attacked our hon. friend? No ; it was an endorsement of everything he had done to cement Canada more closely to (he British Empire.

The hon. gentleman appealed to the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to uphold his views. But these two gentlemen remained perfectly silent on that point, and for good reason : both of them were too polite to contradict their colleague and too sincere to strengthen him in his delusion. Of course, this opinion of the Minister of the Interior was an after-Tor-onto-dinner thought, and this may be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance. The hon. gentleman is, I know, a total abstainer. and the very opposite of a jingo ; but it may be he was affected by the Toronto atmosphere in the same way as a friend of mine who was once visiting the London docks : just by passing through the huge warehouses where all sorts of liquors are stored, he was nearly intoxicated by the

and in every minister there are at least three-unless the man is perfectly null by himself and takes all his brains In his portfolio, which is far from being the case with the hon. minister. So that a member of the cabinet may very sincerely entertain and express quite opposite views on the same subject, according to whether he uses his personal brains or his ministerial mind. In spite of his keen experience and sound judgment as a man and as a politician, the Minister of Inland Revenue is officially the Benjamin of the cabinet. I think he relied exclusively on his young and fresh ministerial brains, naturally excited with the joy of victory, when he gave his opinion of the Quebec vote on the 9th of November last. He was reported as follows by the Ottawa correspondent of the Montreal Herald :

, It was not at all a question of race or contingents. Even Mr. Chauvin, who voted in the House against sending contingents, was defeated by Mayor Prefontaine, who supported their going, while the majorities of both Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Monet were materially reduced.

After having referred to the Manitoba school question as one of the most important issues in the contest, he added :

The second topic of most opposition speakers was the increase of debt resulting from sending soldiers to South Africa at a cost of $5,000,000. This was the complaint against Laurier; Mr. Chauvin's defeat was the answer of the people, And by the Ottawa Evening Journal :

The two great issues which the opposition had put forward were the Manitoba school question and the sending of the troops to South Africa. The opposition asked the electors to condemn the Laurier administration because the school question was not satisfactorily settled by the government, and also because the premier had sent the contingents to South Africa. It was Sir Wilfrid particularly who was held responsible for this. The vote ha;.v shown that the government has been endorsed for its action in regard to these questions. Mr. Chauvin, Conservative, who voted against sending the contingent, was defeated. The majorities of Monet and Bourassa were reduced. . . .

I regret, or rather I rejoice, that in my case, the hon. minister spoke under misinformation. My majority was larger by a few votes that in 1890, In spite of tbe fact that the lists were much less favourable and especially that 1,000 voters at least were absent from the localities where I took the strongest vote.

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Mahlon K. Cowan

Liberal

Mr. COWAN.

You were lucky.

alcoholic emanations which filled tbe air. In Toronto, jingo microbes are sucli in quality and quantity that even when stimulated only by Apollinaris water, they can affect tbe most solid brain.

The case of my bon. friend tbe Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) is harder to diagnosticate-unless I call It an outburst of juvenile enthusiasm. Not that I don't acknowledge and respect the experience and solid mind of tbe bon. gentleman ; but in every man there are two men,

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

Yes, I was lucky to represent an intelligent constituency. My friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Monet), whom I am so happy to see here again, ready to fight with me for the Canadian flag, should we even remain for some time yet in a glorious isolation, could tell to the House that the reduction of his majority was due to causes entirely foreign to the war question. In fact, his opponent took the same view as he did of the war question and said he would have voted

Topic:   VISIT OF THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CORNWALL AND YORK.
Permalink

March 12, 1901