March 13, 1903

LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

There are four or live reciprocity treaties, among them the Cuban treaty, which would be highly advantageous to the United States, but their ratification cannot be secured. It requires a two-third vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty, and so far, local and private interests have succeeded in preventing ratification in many instances. The question of the Alaskan boundary the administration of the United States desires to get out of the way. It is a source of irritation and danger and it is highly desirable to have it settled, and in order to get the treaty ratified and the first step taken towards the settlement of the question, it was necessary to get the support of the Senate. I am not in a position to say that Senator Lodge was promised a place on the commission if the treaty should be got through, but from the little I know about politics, no doubt the President of the United States would be anxious to secure the assistance of the only man who could get the treaty through the Senate. The treaty went through, and it is acknowledged on all hands that it went through in consequence of the support given it by Senator Lodge. Well, when the treaty was through, it was claimed that the final result had to be ratified at last by the United States Senate, that the United States Senate was a body with appellate jurisdiction, that the treaty must come before them, and would stand or fall in accordance with their decision, and it was claimed that it was a proper thing to have the body, which had the ultimate and unrestricted jurisdiction in the matter, represented on the commission. Whether that is a good contention or not it is not for me to say, but that is the contention that was made. It was contended that the United States Senate, which is the highest power in the United States, which must ratify every treaty, without whose concurrence no treaty can become law, was entitled to representation upon the Alaskan commission. That contention has been accepted by the United States, and two members of the Senate appointed, and besides these two members, Secretary Root.

I do not think it can properly be claimed that these are not all men of high character, that they are not nil of them jurists. They may not be impartial jurists.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I do not suppose that there are half a dozen out of the twenty million able bodied men in the United States who would be impartial on this question. They would all stand on the American contention. But Senator Lodge has expressed opinions on the question. He expressed those opinions in an electoral contest, and my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, knows what weight should be attached to statements made on the stump. He knows they can be put into one shape and then another to meet the exigencies and circumstances. Senator Lodge, when

on tlie stump in Massachusetts, appealed to popular prejudices by making certain statements with regard to the Alaskan boundary question. But he indignantly repudiates the idea that he is not impartial, that he is impervious to reasoning, that he cannot judge the case on its merits after having heard the evidence. 1 think it would be an aspersion on his character and that we would be entirely unwarranted in supposing this to be the case. I would just as soon trust the question to Senator Lodge as to a member of the United States Supreme Court. In fact I believe he would be more likely to take an impartial view of the ease from the circumstances that as his character and his judgment and his methods have been impugned, he would be therefore more desirous to give a judicial and proper decision on the matter. The same language would apply to a large extent, if not to so great an extent, to Senator Turner of the Pacific coast. And as to Secretary Root, I am unable to understand how the slightest exception can be taken to his serving on the commission. The matter, so far as we are concerned, is in this shape. I presume we all desire to have this question eliminated fr m the great questions that promise difficulties and friction between the two countries. We have in our hands the choice of commissioners, and it should be our duty to select the very best men we have, as the leader of the opposi-( tion has said. We want to set the Americans the example of giving the best jurists we have in the British empire to sit on that commission.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
IND
LIB
IND
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I do not know that we are in a position to dictate to the United States the course they should pursue or to give an opinion as to who is fit to sit on that commission or who is not. We are dealing with a nation of SO,000,000 people and we are but a nation of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000. Great Britain is anxious to maintain friendly relations with that people, and for us to say that these men are not satisfactory would defeat the consummation desired and put an end to all negotiations. We may regret that men not entirely acceptable to us were not appointed, but it is not for us to say who should be appointed, and we are deficient in the sense of proportion when we suppose that five million people can dictate to eighty million the course they should pursue. Whether we be satisfied with the commission or not, there are circumstances which, in the opinion of the United States, have rendered it proper and desirable and politic to appoint these men on that commission, and we are prejudging the case

when we assume that they are not fit to perform the functions and not capable of giving an impartial decision. I am sorry myself that the Supreme Court judges of the United States declined to act. I am sorry the commission is not one that suits our purposes and desires, but it is a matter for the United States to select their own commissioners to attempt to adjust, and I hope and anticipate a favourable and satisfactory result from the appointment of this commission.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition quoted to us this afternoon a large number of extracts from American papers with regard to the character of the commission and the views entertained by the commissioners. Well, I do not attach a very great degree of importance to extracts from American, or Canadian newspapers either, for that matter. Editors, sitting in their sanctums, write with an air of supreme wisdom and authority, but they are often very much mistaken, and I look at the matter from a broader standpoint than the opinion of editor this or that, or any other scribbler in an editorial sanctum, who prejudges the case himself and imagines he knows all about it. Of course I do not intend any reflections on any editor present. Present company is always excepted. But what I say is that these quotations from American newspapers are entirely unreliable and not worthy of consideration.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

Hew does the hon. gentleman prove that there is a better feeling in the United States towards Canada.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB
IND
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I do not know that Canadian papers, even the one managed by my hon. friend opposite, are an exception to the rule. I notice often a tone which 1 greatly regret-very flippant, cynical and unfair-with regard to things American, which does not elevate the paper in my opinion and certainly does not tend to create good feeling. And that thing, to some extent, has existed in the United States. The tone of the Canadian newspapers I know, produces irritation, and those who desire better relations between the two countries look upon this matter with regret. And I can say, Sir,-and I think that perhaps no person in this House is better able to give an opinion on the subject than myself-that the sentiment in the United States towards Canada is rapidly growing more friendly, and that their ideas as to the relation between these countries have grown broader and more correct during the last three years than they were before, that the knowledge of Canada, the absence of which gave them false ideas, as to the relations of the countries previous to that time is growing. And I believe it is to our in-

terest to cultivate friendly relations and ascertain how far that growth of sentiment favourable to Canada in the United States will lead, and whether the outcome may not be something desirable. If we find we cannot get it, if we find that there is not a feeling in the United States friendly to Canada sufficiently potent to bring about favourable relations, it will be time to take the position that many parties in this country assume it is best to take by prejudging the case now.

So far as the other points made by my bon. fi'iend from Jacques Cartier are concerned I do not know that it is necessary to allude to them now. As I said at the outset, I think it is premature to discuss the fiscal policy of this country. I rose, as 1 have said, for the purpose of correcting what I considered to be misapprehensions with regard to matters that require delicate handling and that can be best understood when regarded in the spirit of fairness and concession.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).

Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose speaking at length upon the various subjects that have been brought up in this debate, but I wish to say a few words upon the subject of the imperial conference.

I may say at the outset that the view I take of this matter is just the opposite of that expressed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and his first lieutenant, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). Both these gentlemen have expressed the opinion that the results of that conference were very poor. Of course one's opinion would depend altogether on the point of view taken at the commencement of the conference last year. Those who founded hopes on the past attitude of the British parliament or the British government, and upon the past attitude of the Canadian parliament or the parliaments of other British colonies, may be disappointed. But those who, all through the discussion of imperial progress that has been going on for the last three or four years, have entertained the hope that the moment will soon come when the true principles of real British imperialism will take hold of the common sense of the people, have no reason to be disappointed. For my part, I entirely agree with these words that have been put into the mouth of His Excellency :

I feel assured that much good will result from bringing the leading public men of the great self governing colonies into direct contact with each other and with the statesmen of the motherland.

That bringing together has been the means of clearing the clouds, the delusive clouds, that have been raised by the conference of 1S97 as well as by the South African war. Colonial statesmen have had reason to see that the only practical British imperialism, as it existed in the Mr. CHARLTON.

mind of Mr. Chamberlain and his associates, meant simply and solely a contribution by the colonies to the British army and navy with a few compliments here and there to satisfy them in return. And British statesmen have been made to understand that we have passed the period of excitement, to which I do not wish to refer now, when popular feelings were aroused to the highest pitch by excited speeches .of public men in this country as well as in other parts of the British empire. Then perhaps the British public and the British parliament had been led to understand that we were ready to sacrifice something of our autonomy and self government, and of the respect we owe to the past and the future of our country; but now those delusions have been dissolved by the firm, discreet and dignified attitude of the colonial statesmen and especially the statesmen of Australia and Canada.

In that report which has given so little satisfaction to the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier there are many interesting things. I have read that document with care, and I have found that though, in the resolutions adopted, very little of new policy is proposed for Great Britain or the colonies, yet, a good deal of common sense understanding has been arrived at between the imperial authorities and the colonial authorities. 1 must, however, express immediately my dissent from one decision which was arrived at unanimously by the members of that conference-and in this I agree with the leader of the opposition. I mean that the discussions of the conference had better been made public at once, and that a full report of the discussion should have been published ; especially when I see that a motion was proposed and adopted unanimously that like conferences should be held every fourth year. If the colonial representatives are to meet the representatives of the British government to discuss matters of imperial interests. I hold that the principle should be laid down at once- at the very least it should be insisted upon by the Canadian parliament as well as by other self-respecting parliaments of the British empire-that no discussion that may have as a result a change of policy of the empire shall be carried on in secret. I think it should be a well understood principle of imperial conference that the people of the British empire at large should know from day to day what is going on among their representatives.

The speech that was delivered at the opening of that conference by the Colonial Secretary is a very interesting one, as all the utterances of that statesman are. And I think it is quite illustrative of what I said at the opening of these remarks as to the real aims of the British imperialists, and the real meaning of British imperialism as it exists in the mind of Mr. - MARCH 13, 1903

Chamberlain. As the hon. member for Jacques Cartier says, Mr. Chamberlain referred to three main subjects that were to be discussed-the political relations, the military relations, and the commercial relations. So far as the political relations are concerned, he thought that we should allow matters to more very slowly indeed. As to the military relations, he thought the time had come when the colonies should tax themselves to contribute to the British army and navy. But in commercial matters, he thought that Great Britain could do nothing for the colonies unless the colonies should adopt a policy that, admittedly, it would be suicidal for them to adopt.

As I have said, the only resolution that was adopted, so far as political relations were concerned, was one in favor of a conference being held every fourth year between representatives of the colonies and of the British government. I may say at once that I have no objection to conferences being held when they are required. But I say that no Canadian statesman should leave the soil of Canada to represent the Canadian people in any assembly of that kind, without having previously stated clearly to the people of Canada what policy he was prepared to support, what propositions he was ready to make or to oppose. Before leaving Canada on such a mission, Canadian statesmen should have from this parliament a clear mandate to guide them, which should definitely point out what conduct they are to pursue. That is what was done last session by this government, that is what was done by the government of Australia on the last occasions ; but unfortunately that was not done before the conference of 1897.

On the ground of military relations, the right hon. leader of the government stated this afternoon that propositions were made by the British government for contributions by the colonies in support of the army and navy. These propositions were strongly supported by the first Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Selborne, and by the Secretary of War, Mr. Brodrick. The Prime Minister of New Zealand supported Mr. Chamberlain on this occasion and moved two resolutions, found on pages 9 and 27. of the blue book, one referring to the army and the other to the navy. The reply of the Canadian government was exactly what was expected of it by the Canadian people. This afternoon we heard from the member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) the conclusion of that reply, and I will read to the House the first paragraph, which indicates still more clearly the position of the Canadian government:

The Canadian ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborno respecting the navy, and by Mr. St. John Brodrick respecting the army. The ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much from the expense involved, as from a belief that the acceptance

of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial selfgovernment. Canada values highly the measure of local Independence which has been granted it from time to time by the imperial authorities, and which has been so productive of beneficial results, both as respects the material progress of the country and the strengthening of the ties that bind it to the motherland. But while, for these reasons, the Canadian ministers are obliged to withhold their assent to the propositions of the Admiralty and the War Office, they fully appreciate the duty of the Dominion, as it advances in population and wealth, to make more liberal outlays for those necessary preparations of self defence which every country has to assume and bear.

To this, Mr. Speaker, no Canadian has any objection to make. For my part I may say tliat as long as tlie Canadian government remains within the bounds fixed by themselves on this occasion, they will receive my hearty support. But the course is not yet clear. Every one knows that Mr. Chamberlain is not a man to abandon, upon the first repulse, any scheme upou which he lias set bis heart. Even recently, during bis trip to South Africa where he went to enlighten himself upon some problems which, unfortunately for bis country and tlie honor of tlie empire, lie did not study sc-me three or four years ago, be has thought proper to address what X may call a lesson of warning to the other self-governing colonies, stating that they must realize what tlieir duties are. The Minister of Militia and Defence, since liis return from tlie old country, has clearly stated upon two or three occasions what he thought the duty of Canada was in regard to defence. With the general tone of his argument I agree entirely. I would have no objection whatever to the Canadian government taking hold, for example, of the fortifications of Esquimault and Halifax, and relieving tlie British government of the expense of defending those fortifications. I have no objection whatever, on the contrary I am desirous that the Minister of Militia and Defence should, take steps to put the Canadian militia upon a proper footing, provided always that he sticks to the principle he has laid down himself that these preparations and this expense are made with the sole view of enabling Canadians to defend the soil of Canada. Well, Sir, in the very report we have here, In tlie paper which was presented to the conference from Col. Al-tliam, Assistant Quartermaster General, we find these paragraphs.

In the event of war with the United States it is oil this Canadian militia that must depend the entire safety of Canada until reinforcements arrive from England. It may, therefore, be concluded that the best way in which Canada can co-operate in imperial defence is by making her militia an efficient force. It is more important that the Canadian ministers should he strongly pressed to take this reasonable precaution than that they should maintain

contingents for general imperial service. . . . The strategical position of Canada makes it however, unwise that any very large contingent should be drawn from her defence force unless the strength of that force should in the future be increased. It is suggested therefore that if a Canadian imperial force be organized, it should be limited, for the present, to a brigade division of field artillery and a brigade of infantry. The force might be organized on lines similar to those suggested for Australia.

So we find in a report from one of tlie officers of the British army, made at the request of the British Minister of War, who was so anxious to obtain a permanent contribution from Canada, that the only safe way in which Canada could contribute to the defence of the empire was by looking alter her own militia and keeping her soldiers at home.

But as I have already said, we must not be too confident. True, the wind has changed, and I am glad of it. There are many people now in Canada saying exactly what I said some three years ago. But when .we speak of the defence of Canada, even then we should not lose our heads, and should not ask the Canadian people to make a large expenditure of money upon the organization of their militia without having some idea of what that militia would be required for. In one of the speeches that we find coming from the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) he has gone a little farther than that. He has gone to the point of saying. if we are to believe the reports of his speech published in the Canadian papers, that not only should we organize a proper militia force for the defence of this country but that we should put it upon such a footing that in case of an imperial war we would have an army ready to go to the defence of the empire elsewhere also.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).

I was not correctly reported.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I am glad to have given the hon. minister an opportunity to deny that report, because it was received with confidence by some people in Canada. Some few years ago General French made a similar suggestion under the inspiration of the enthusiasm then prevailing in the colonies. To quote his own language, he said : Having had an experience of a dozen years in Canada, and a similar amount in Australia, mostly with colonial forces, I would like to make two points clear : (1) It is idle to hope or expect that any large force of imperial troops, paid at imperial rates, could be raised in these colonies for ordinary garrison work or duties in peace time. (2) It is equally certain that thousands of men can be raised in war time, who will engage for the war at a fair rate of pay.

The real way, in my opinion, to help Old England to keep the flag flying all over the empire is to form war reserves in the colonies. In doing so the specialities of the colonies

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

should be borne in mind. Thus Canada, with her 75,000 sailors and fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard, should provide a large war reserve for the fleet, and probably would do so if the Admiralty, instead of framing cast-iron regulations suitable for Great Britain, would appreciate the fact that the most suitable time to carry out the training of these fishermen would be the time of year when they could not carry on their usual avocations.

According to General French and several other authorities in England, the best way to carry out their scheme is not to go further with a straight demand or request from the colonies and from Canada in particular to supply them either with contributions or an organized imperial corps to be at the disposal of the imperial government; but the scheme is to stir up the spirit of militarism, to increase the number of the militia, to create a large naval reserve and thereby to have always a prepared ground in order to fill the deficiencies which they find increasing every day in then-army and navy. We have seen a delegate from the Navy League of England who came to Canada to organize a branch of the league. Of course, I suppose gentlemen who have been lately in England knew that the Navy League is not taken very seriously in the old country; in fact, I might say it is considered a little ridiculous, and therefore I do not think that by joining the league several of our nubile men have acted very judiciously.- But if the matter is going to be no more ridiculous, it is simply because it will become obnoxious. The now avowed purpose of that league is to come and find in the colonies the men for the army and the navy which the people of Great Britain refuse to supply. Seeing that they cannot find among the English and Scotch population the required recruits for the army and navy, their purpose is to come into the colonies to further the sentiment of militarism, to work upon some of that imperial sentiment which was raised by the South African war, in order to find amongst the sturdy population of the colonies what they cannot find at home. Therefore, as far as that matter is concerned, though I do not imagine that great results will come out of it, I regret to see that the names of four of our ministers are connected with it. In one of the reports it was said that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was the honorary president and the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence was the ice-president; in another report the positions were reversed, the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence being at the head, and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries coming after. Perhaps it is that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not quite ready yet to take the lead of the army and navy and I have no doubt that the league has relied more on the soldierly disposition of the Minister for War. I also find the names of the hon. Minister of

Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the bon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). I would simply beg of these two gentlemen to wait a little before going into the Navy League. I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice to wait and see what the result will be of the Alaskan tribunal, to wait and see what is the policy of the British government as regards Canadian interests towards the United States, before he shows too much zeal for the British navy; and I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to await the results of our efforts to have the embargo removed from Canadian cattle before he accepts any high position in the navy of the empire.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
IND
LIB

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Liberal

Mr. BOURASSA.

I may say that the whole movement, as far as military defence is concerned, and as far as British interests in that defence are concerned, may be summed up as an imperialistic policy as Lord Rosebery put it so well some nine years ago when he left the Liberal party and before he made up his mind to become himself one of the upholders of the imperialistic movement. The British government have trebled the area of the empire and have therefore increased in a great way the burdens of the British people as far as military defence is concerned. The land owners of England stick to the most stubborn and the most antiquated land tenure which now exists in any civilized country. They have been the cause of depopulating the farming districts of England, of sending to the colonies the most energetic and intelligent men of the kingdom, and of dividing the others between the skilled labourers and the inhabitants of the slums of the big cities. The skilled labourers and farm labourers will not enter the army and navy ; and therefore the British authorities have to rely on the slums to supply recruits for the army and navy, and British politicians are scared at the idea of adopting the only jmlicy that is possible for an imperial country which is bent upon conquest and the acquisition of territory, and that is conscription. Now, because of the indifference or incapacity of the British people, because of the selfishness of the British land owners, because of the timidity of the British politicians, we, the settlers of the colonies, we, who have so many sacrifices ahead of us yet to make in order to develop our country and to contribute to the real glory of the empire, we would be bound to make up for these deficiencies and to bleed ourselves in order to do what the British people are either unable or unwilling to do.

Now, Sir, as far as the requirements of defence in Canada are concerned, without giving any advice to the Minister of Militia, I simply say this : That as Colonel Altham says, and as any man who is a little observant of the politics of the world would say, the only enemy which Canada may possibly have to confront is the United States. Is the hon. minister, or is any man of common sense in this House, prepared to say that by increasing our militia by 25,000 or by 50,000 men, we are going to lessen the danger of invasion by the United States V We might benefit by that increase for a fortnight cr for a month, but when every one knows that the state of New York alone could throw upon the soil of Canada as many soldiers as we could enlist to defend our frontier from Halifax to_Victoria, it is just as well we should not lose our heads when we speak of defending ourselves against the United States-even with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) and his whole family in the trenches. As to a war with the United States being caused by Canada, is there any government either Conservative or Liberal that would act so foolishly as to bring about such a calamity upon the people of Canada ? And so far as the motherland is concerned, when we see that year after year our interests in connection with the United States have been sacrificed by the imperial government in order to secure the friendship of the United States, we need not be too much excited as to the danger of war between Canada and the American republic. Sir, if the day should come when we shall be able to withstand an attack from the United States, it will be when we have developed our resources, and increased our population; and the best way for us to do that is not to induce the young men of Canada to enter the militia or the navy, either British or Canadian; not by expending the money of the people upon military preparations; but it is by devoting every cent we can take from the people to develop Canadian industries, Canadian agriculture, Canadian manufactures, Canadian transportation, thus increasing in so far as we can the population and wealth of the country. That is the best way to contribute to the defence of Canada; it is the best way to contribute to the defence of the empire, and it is the way by which we will prove that we are not only true Canadians, but also true imperialists in the real sense of the word.

Now, Sir, in so far as trade relations are concerned, I may say that I was pleased at the position taken by our delegate at the imperial conference. In his opening address, the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain referred in a somewhat patronizing way to the policy which had been adopted by Canada towards the motherland in trade matters. He said that, of course, as a matter of sentiment lie was quite happy that Canada had adopted a preferential policy, but he intimated in so many words that he did not care much for it. I am very glad that the Canadian representatives gave the proper answer to the Colonial Secretary when they said:

If after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally, or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions. 1

The leader of the opposition has found fault with this reply. lie says that it was not clear enough, that it did not intimate the course that the Canadian government was going to follow. Well, Sir, it is not too strongly expressed to say that It would have been a piece of impudence on the part of our representatives to announce the policy of the Canadian parliament to the Colonial Secretary without coming back to Canada and taking parliament into their confidence before deciding what course they were going to follow. The language of the reply of the Canadian representatives is exactly what it should have been. It intimated to the British government that under a change of conditions, the position of the British government being different from what it was when we adopted our preferential policy, that the Canadian government would remain free to adopt whatever course it thought best. Of course, I am not in a position of a minister of the Crown, and consequently I may express my opinion more candidly, and so I say that in the face of the declaration of the Colonial Secretary, in the face of the liow clear policy of the British government not to sacrifice one iota of their foreign trade in favour of the British colonies, I hope the time is not far distant when we will prove to the British people that we are as much attached to our interests as they are to theirs; and if we do not repeal immediately the preferential treatment of British goods, 1 hope we will at least come back to the common-sense policy that was adopted by this government in 189T, when they offered the preference to any country which would give in return fair trade arrangements with Canada. That was a true liberal policy. That was a true liberal stand to take, when we said that we were ready to deal on fair terms with any country, foreign or British, that was ready to deal on fair terms with us. Under a wave of loyalty, we changed that policy; but having come back to our senses, we should also come back to that common-sense policy as originally adopted in 1S97.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has found fault with the Canadian representatives because they did not bring before the conference the matter of the embargo. 1 am afraid that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has been too busy lately in the counties of Maisonneuve, Two Mountains, Argenteuil and Terrebonne, to study the report carefully, or else he would have found that the question of the embargo was brought before the conference by the Canadian repre-Mr. BOURASSA.

sentatives. At page 41 of the report he will find :

The representatives of Canada desired to bring before the conference the question of the law under which live cattle imported into this country from Canada are required to be slaughtered at the port of landing.

It was considered, however, that the matter was not of sufficient general interest to be dealt with by the conference, and arrangements were made for its discussion privately with the President of the Board of Agriculture.

Therefore, if fault there was, it did not lie with our representatives but with the other members of the conference, who put that matter aside. Of course, I suppose informal negotiations were held between the president of the Board of Agriculture and the Canadian representatives, but the result is, as hon. gentlemen know, fhat the British minister declared positively and bluntly that he would not change the law, and put Canadian cattle on a fair basis, but that he would still go on stamping Canadian cattle as diseased, when it Is a well known fact that Canadian cattle are perfectly free from disease, while British cattle are diseased. But there Is something which was not known then and which is known now, and which throws a clear light upon the conduct of the British government, and especially of Mr. Hanbury. That is, that cattle from the Argentine Republic are now admitted to the British market on better terms than are Canadian cattle. Without wishing to hurt the feelings of any members of this House who have found fault with my attitude towards the mother country during the past three years, I may be allowed to ask them : What is the result of our great loyalty ? Where is the return for our great sacrifices, when we see that a foreign government which has contributed nothing else to an imperial war but agricultural products for which they got well paid, is now receiving better treatment from tbe British government than is loyal Canada ?

But Sir, this is not the only instance which should prove to us that if we want to have our own interests protected we should ourselves look to our own interests and not expect any great favour from the British government. What did we see last fall ? After the treaty of peace was concluded In South Africa, after the British government had pledged themselves to restock the farms In South Africa, 18,000 ploughs were bought from a single manufacturing house in the United States. I ask my good friends, the representatives from Ontario, either on one side of the House or on the other, what they think of that action of the British government, in passing over all the good Canadian manufacturers, to go and ask our American neighbours to help them in re-stocking the farms in South Africa which our soldiers helped to conquer for. Great Britain ? We have also seen,

in tlie month of September last, a cattle dealer from the Argentine Republic coming to Montreal and boasting that he with some of his associates had made a contract with the British government for $1,000,000 worth of cattle to be sent to South Africa for the purpose of re-stocking the farms. We have seen also that with a single milling house of the United States the British government made a contract for 75,000 bags of flour ; but we do mot hear that any contract has been made with any Canadian house. We have also seen in the papers that since last session our flour dealers made an application to the British government, through the proper authorities, for exemption from the registration duty on the flour shipped from Canada to European ports, and simply passing through England ; just as we allow goods from England to pass in bond through Canada to the United States without charging any duty upon them. But our dealers have still to pay the duty of 18 cents to the British government on flour which is not to be consumed by the British people, but is shipped to the markets of continental Europe. Lord Strathcona applied to the British government, and was told that nothing could be done.

But I think that good will which was to be secured for us by our loyalty was shown in an ironical way when it was announced by some of the Toronto papers last year that the mule camp which had been established in Montana during the South African war, was to be transferred to Canada. In fact, it was transferred, but a few days later peace was concluded ; so that the American dealers had the good fortune of making profitable contracts with the British government without contributing a cent or a man to the war, while Canadians are still waiting for their profits.

I need not refer to the reception which was given to our Canadian officers and soldiers in London at the time of the coronation. We have heard a great deal of that in the press. We have been told, though I hope that before the session is over we shall be informed that the statement is not true, that our representatives on the Canadian contingent were quartered near the Alexandra palace, and that the good Londoners were charged [DOT] a shilling apiece to see them. I hope at least that we have the proceeds of that show, because I think that they should be used to put up a monument in Canada in remembrance of the great reception accorded to our soldiers in London. We were told also that had the coronation taken place at the time fixed for it, it being delayed unfortunately by the sickness of the King, our soldiers, who had gone there in the expectation that they would parade nobly along with the other representatives of the colonies in London, were going to be used as a police force at the corners of the London streets in order to prevent the rowdies of Whitechapel from

obstructing the members of the British aristocracy in passing through the streets.

I was told that this was so true that our representatives had to protest strenuously, and that it took them a long time to bring the British officials to understand that our men had not been sent there to act as policemen.

The question of treaties has been dealt with at length, and I am not going to speak at any length upon it. I have already spoken, during the last two or three sessions, on the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and on the Alaskan boundary treaty. On the Alaskan question especially, I am not free to say all I would like to say. I merely wish to add this, that taking the situation that was made for us by the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without any compensation being granted to Canada in the way of a fair settlement of the Alaskan boundary, the Canadian government could not do otherwise than accept the constitution of the tribunal as it is now. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has made a slight mistake in his reply to the Prime Minister. He has stated that the Prime Minister, in accepting the constitution of the tribunal as it is, simply removed from the present treaty the impediments which existed in the Venezuela treaty. But there is something more than that which the hon. member has forgotten or perhaps does not know-that there were not only those impediments in the Venezuela treaty, but that still more impediments were added by the American commissioners on the Joint High Commission- that in the last protocol which has been read in this House by the Prime Minister himself, it was stated that the American commissioners would not consent to any tribunal of arbitration, either of six jurists or of any other number, without the condition that any territory occupied by the United States, not only for ten years or thirty years, but at any time,-such as Dyea and Skaguay.-should remain the territory of the United States, wherever the line of demarcation might be fixed by the tribunal of arbitration. Now, I am not prepared to say that the proposed tribunal will give us satisfaction or that the treaty is the best that could have been secured two or three years ago ; but what I am prepared to say is this, that taking the position in which the British government placed themselves when they denounced the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the Canadian government achieved a great success when they secured the removal of the condition which had been fixed by the Americans four years ago.

We must not forget one thing, that the position of England towards the United States is not to-day what it was four years ago. When I am making references to the bad will of the British government towards Canada, especially in connection with our relations to the Ameri-

cans, I am simply stating the facts as they are. If I were called upon to pass judgment on the policy of the British government, many things could be said in favour of that policy. The government of England and the people of England do not occupy a position in which they can do as they like. The last war in South Africa has not made for Great Britain throughout the world such a glorious and safe position that she is able, for the sake of a strip of territory claimed by Canada, to exact from the government of the United States conditions which she might have exacted some years ago.

And the Canadian people, who did so much to fortify the position of the British government, at the time of the South African war, and the Canadian parliament who supported the British government in its South African policy, must abide by the consequences of that policy. And, if today, Great Britain is not in a position, either from a diplomatic or military point of view, to take a self-assertive policy towards the government of the United States, the people and parliament of Canada cannot have much to say. I have no desire to develop among Canadians any feeling of hostility to Great Britain, but we may as well realize once for all that, so far as our relations with the United States are concerned, it is perfectly useless for us to expect any strong support from the British government. Great Britain is not in a position to give us that support. All our public men who went to London last year, whether ministers of the Crown or ordinary members of parliament, whether in favour of an imperial policy or against it. would, if they were free to speak their minds, admit that their intercourse with British public nren has convinced them that the one great object of British policy for many years to come is to secure at any cost the friendship of the United States. ' When in England myself, I was told by Liberals and Conservatives and even by men close to the government, that it was useless for Canadians to indulge in the expectation that Great Britain would do anything in the way of treaties or trade which would offer the slightest impediment or friction to her relations" with the United States. Therefore we may as well at once make up our minds to look to ourselves alone, save what we can and sacrifice what we cannot help.

There is one point upon which I regret somewhat that a resolution was not adopted by tiie imperial conference. I refer to the subject of martial law and the suspension of the constitution of Cape Colony, which involved the right of the imperial authorities to suspend the constitution of any free British colony. Unfortunately the subject of martial law has not been discussed in this country. It has been a subject of discussion in England, and came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Mr. HOUR ASS A.

which gave a decision that reversed the hitherto recognized principle of colonial selft-government The agitation for the suspension o>f the constitution of Cape Colony fortunately was stopped. Although no resolution was adopted by the conference, I was glad to read in the London newspapers that our representatives were consulted as well as the Australian delegates, and that they gave Mr. Chamberlain their straight opinion that the policy of suspension would be most improper. We are interested in that question because it involves the right of the British parliament to suspend or alter in any way the constitution of any British colony. I agree entirely in the opinion of Mr. Haldane, one of England's authorities in these matters, that once a free British colony has been given representative institutions these institutions cannot be altered or suspended by any authority other than its own parliament.

On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied with the result of the imperial conference and the position taken by our representatives. That position may b1 criticised in certain quarters, but the vast majority of our people will say that our delegates did their duty as Canadian statesmen and British citizens. We may differ on many points of the imperial question : we may have differed bitterly on the policy of the government during the South African war, but those days have passed. As my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has said, peace is made in South Africa, and I am glad that peace was concluded on terms that were acceptable. For my part, I am anxious that peace should also prevail in Canada. Whatever may be our theories as regards imperialism, we should all meet on one common ground and that is that our only policy should be to protect our interests against those of any other part of the empire, even Great Britain.

The reaction of Canadian sentiment against imperialism has made itself felt, not only upon this side of the House, but also the other side, and is particularly noticeable on the part of the two leaders of) the Conservative party. This afternoon the leader of the opposition referred to the question of Japanese immigration, although he did so in much milder terms than when he spoke in British Columbia. On the 8th of September there was a meeting in Victoria, at which he made a very eloquent and able speech. Referring to the disallowance of the Immigration Act of British Columbia by this government, he said :

I venture to think that so far as this province is concerned, and dealing with the question of disallowance of your statutes, there is no imperial consideration which should prevail against your views or your wishes, as there was no imperial consideration to prevail against similar legislation in Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Natal. Why was not

the Natal Act disallowed ? And if there he no answer to this question, why should the federal authorities disallow your Act.

I am liappy to see that the hon. gentleman is becoming an anti-imperialist. And as far as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is concerned, I was glad also to see that at two meetings held in the province of Quebec-at St. Eustache and St. Jacques tie l'Achigan-he opposed the scheme of imperial defence and protested against any other than trade questions being discussed by the conference.

I hope that this sentiment of Canadianism will prevail on both sides, and that in matters of political and military organization and fiscal policy, the one object we shall have in view will be to safeguard the interests of Canada above every other.

Motion of Mr. Thompson (Haldimand) agreed to.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :

That the said address be engrossed and be presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


SUPPLY.

March 13, 1903