February 3, 1910

CON

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Has the government leased to any person the right to take gravel from lot 379, on Coquitlam river, at New Westminster Junction, British Columbia? If so, to whom, for what period and on what terms?

2. Does the government claim title to the beds of non-tidal and non-navigable, except for canoes, streams in the railway belt of British Columbia?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BILD-TITLE TO STREAMS.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. OLIVER: (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

1. No.

2. The government is advised that so far as the beds and banks of rivers in the railway belt in the province of British Columbia are Crown property, they are Dominion lands, and may be administered by the Department of Interior.

ROST OFFICE, NEW WESTMINSTER. B.C. Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:

1. Is the post office at New Westminster about to be placed on the basis of a city office, with appointments to the staff directly from the government rather than from the postmaster?

2. If so, to whom should applications for employment be addressed, and what endorse-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BILD-TITLE TO STREAMS.
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

ment is required to secure consideration by the department?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BILD-TITLE TO STREAMS.
Permalink
LIB

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX: (Postmaster General)

Liberal

1. and 2. No. The office is, however, being changed to a semi-staff basis by which the salaries of the clerks will be paid by the department direct. Applications for employment should be addressed to the Postmaster General. The endorsement required is qualification and ability to do the work of thb office.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY BILD-TITLE TO STREAMS.
Permalink

STANLEY BARRACKS.

CON

Thomas George Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WALLACE:

If the Baby farm is to be sold, is it the intention of the government to buy other property in or near the city of Toronto on which to build a new barracks in place of Stanley barracks?

Topic:   STANLEY BARRACKS.
Permalink
LIB

SOUTH AFRICAN PATRIOTIC FUND.

CON

Mr. WALLACE:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Has the government any control of the South African Patriotic Fund? If not, who has?

2. Have any complaints been made to the government that certain persons who are entitled to receive benefit from the fund, have not received any consideration?

3. Has the government any knowledge of how much was paid into this fund?

4. What persons have received benefit from this fund, and what amount in each case?

Topic:   SOUTH AFRICAN PATRIOTIC FUND.
Permalink
LIB

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN: (Minister of Militia and Defence)

Liberal

1. (a) No. (b) It is controlled by the Canadian Patriotic Fund Association.

2. No.

3. No.

4. The government has no information on this point.

Topic:   SOUTH AFRICAN PATRIOTIC FUND.
Permalink

NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada. He said: When, three weeks ago, I had the honour of presenting this Bill to the House, I entertained the hope that by this time my hon. colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr Brodeur), would be sufficiently restored to health to permit him to undertake the duty which now devolves upon me. To my deep regret, this hope has not been fulfilled. It is the misfortune of the House that it has to be deprived of the wealth of information, attention and care which had been accumulated by my hon. colleague in the preparation of this measure and for the exposition of the policy of which it is the expression, from its basic principle to the minutest detail. Perhaps the House will agree with me at the outset that it would not be amiss to cast a retrospective glance upon the attitude which has been maintained up to the present by the two parties that now stand face to face on this question. In so far as the present government and the Liberal party are concerned, that question arose for the first time at the imperial conference of 1902. At the conference the subject of defence was very carefully discussed. The discussion repealed the fact-which indeed was hot unnatural, which had often taken place before-that between the advisers of His Majesty the King in Great Britain and His Majesty the King in the dominions beyond the seas, there was a divergence of views. The Secretary of State for War requested-or I should say suggested-that the dominions beyond the seas should equip and maintain a body of troops for Imperial service, which, in case of war, would be turned over automatically to the war office. Some of the Dominions, through their representatives, to this agreed; others disagreed, among the latter being Australia and Canada. The Secretary for the Navy suggested-I don't say requested-that the dominions beyond the seas should contribute yearly to the maintenance and equipment of an imperial navy. Most of the dominions there represented to this agreed, but the ministers who represented Canada could not give their assent to this proposition. They gave expression to their views respectively before the conference, and embodied them in a state paper with which the House and the country have long been familiar. They recognized at once the obligation of Canada to relieve to a large extent in so far at all events as the means of Canada would allow-the burden which has hitherto been on the shoulders of the British tax-payer alone. They declared that as Canada increased in wealth and population it would go further in the matter of defence, and that in everything that we would undertake in that direction, whatever might be done would be done in co-operation with the imperial authorities, but always and ever under the control and responsibility of the Canadian authorities, in accordance with our right to self-government in this as in all other matters. This was in 1902, nearly eight years ago, and for eight years this policy of the present government has been before the country. From this policy the present government has never deviated. This policy we affirmed again at the imperial conference of 1907. We affirmed it again last year in this House when the question came up for concrete and immediate action. This policy is embodied in the Bill now before this House, and by this policy the present government stands or falls. But fall we shall not. This policy is in the best traditions of the Liberal party. This policy is the latest H ...


REVISED


link in the long chain of events which following the principles laid down by the Reformers of the old times, Baldwin and Lafontaine, step by step, stage by stage, have brought Canada to the position it now occupies, that is to say, the rank, dignity and status of a nation within the British empire. This policy is the full maturity of the rights asserted, the obligations assumed, by Canada, which inspired the imperial poet whom, after Canada had given a preference in her markets to the products of the mother country, he put in her mouth these proud words: Daughter am I in my mother's house, But mistress in my own; The gates are mine to open. As the gates are mine to close, And I set my house in order. Sir, if we adopt to-day this policy, if we have put it in the form in which it is now before the country, it is because we lay it down that Canada is a nation, but a daughter nation of England. Such has been the strong and consistent course of the Liberal party from the time this policy was initiated. And I may ask now, what has been the policy of the Conservative party? I think I am not offensive or unjust to the Conservative party when I say that upon this question their attitude has been what it is to-day-divided in counsel and divided in action. So far as this House is concerned, our policy more than once has received the assent, at least, the tacit assent, of the members of the Conservative party. It has been more than once reviewed or commented upon, but never challenged or dissented from. Outside of this House it has received the open commendation of the best and most experienced minds in the party. I am bound to say at the same time that it has been censured and criticised - severely censured and severely criticised-by those who within the party boast of their imperialism, who carry abroad upon their foreheads the imperial phylacteries, who boldly walk into the temple and there loudly thank the Lord that thev are not like other British subjects, that they give tithes of everything they possess, and that in them alone is to be found the true incense of loyalty. Was it, Sir, because of the proddings of these very zealous and very officious men that my lion, friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster! brought up this question of imperial defence last year? I know not? But on the first day the House met my hon. friend gave notice of a motion designed to bring the matter in concrete form before parliament and the people. I understood the motion of my hon. friend to be an en-dorsation of the policy which we had always pursued, and in so understanding it I do not think I did him an injustice. I


EDITION.


meant to pay him a compliment. At all events, this is the motion he offered: That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self-help and selfrespect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibilities and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great sea ports. I repeat that as I construed the language of this motion-unless my hon. friend is a disciple of Tallyrand, who said that language had been given to man to disguise his thoughts-this meant nothing but an en-dorsation of our policy. It was so interpreted on the other side of the House. If we are to believe the tardy disclosure that we heard the other day from my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who told us that this motion created some stir in the ranks of the party, and that he at once had taken the position that he could not support it. Whether it was for this or some other reason, the fact is that my hon. friend from North Toronto, whilst he had been hasty in putting this motion on the notice paper, was very slow to move it.


CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

My hon. friend knows exactly the reason why. Will he state it?

Topic:   EDITION.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I do not know; perhaps my hon. friend will tell me.

Topic:   EDITION.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

My right hon. friend knows quite well that the motion was postponed from time to time because of conference with my right hon. friend.

Topic:   EDITION.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I am not aware that my hon. friend-

Topic:   EDITION.
Permalink

February 3, 1910