Mr. MONK.

My hon. friend the Postmaster General says hear, hear. He has been saying hear, hear, all afternoon. Surely he deserves the knighthood and I hope I will be present when he receives the accolade.

It is the penalty of becoming a nation and which all nations have to hear and which, in course of time, I hope they may dispense with.

Without going any further, because I might multiply these examples, I say it is important to show that in reality there has been an attempt on the part of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his friends to veil and disguise their policy in grandiloquent^ expressions of all sorts instead of putting it fairly and frankly be-for the people. We have, therefore, the right to ask in the first place what is that policy. Now, I lay this as the basis of my argument. It is absolutely impossible to pursue even the very meagre report of the imperial conference, and there can be no doubt that report is incomplete; in fact it was decided at the conference that only such papers as were agreed upon would be put on record-I say it is impossible to read

that blue-book through and have any doubt whatever that the policy is absolutely new and novel, differing in every respect from any policy enunciated or suggested before by either the imperial or this government. There can be no doubt tiiat the policy is entirely novel, and that the people have so far been kept in the dark as to its real meaning and import. Let me point out what in reality is the proposal which was laid before the imperial conference in 1909 and agreed upon by our delegates and the others, and I will do it in connection with this proposition, which it is also necessary in the interests of truth to elucidate, and which is this. A local navy or a contribution of ships .and money is attended with precisely the same political consequences, because, in my province at any rate, it has been held out to the people in a deceptive way, that what the government proposes to do is to organize a naval defence uniquely and solely for our own protection, and it has been hinted every where that this was the first step in the direction of a far larger emancipation than we have hitherto enjoyed. I say that in the first place, it is suggested that in the case of the navy we are arming for our own xiro-tection. The responsibilities, however, are precisely the same, as far as political consequences are concerned, as if we were contributing in money or ships to the British navy. In the first case, as they are, we are arming for our own protection; in the second, we are making common cause with the imperial fleet for imperial defence. That is the pretension set forth in my "wn province, this view has been systematically advanced in the province of Quebec by people who are interested in deceiving the electorate. But in either case, the consequences, now I say, are the same. The only variation lies in the mode of assistance. That was what was advanced at every stage of this discussion as far as the British government was concerned. Of course, my right hon. friend did not agree to that. He who makes such terrible attacks on this side of the House, because there are on this side honest and sincere differences of opinion, has differed so often with himself on this very subject that he thinks he can escape by playing the role of the tadpole which throws mud all round it in order to escape. I am prepared under any circumstances to respect the opinions of my fellow citizens on this subject and that does not seem to be the disposition of the right hon. the Prime Minister or the future Knieht of the Bath, my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). As soon as he is knighted, he will, like the errant cavaliers of ancient times, put a patch on his eye until he has met with some man of noble blood and slaughtered him.

What I say is that this proposition which I venture to lay before the House was abundantly proved by the proceedings of the conference itself in regard to which if my hon. friend, instead of giving us the story of Peter the Hermit, had explained those things, as he should have done, on the second reading of the Bill, I might have been spared the trouble of detaining the House on this point. _

In support of this, let us take in the first instance the declaration of the results of the conference made before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. Asquith, and set out in the proceedings of the conference-a declaration which was absolutely approved by the conference itself, and after one of our own delegates, my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, had moved a vote of thanks to the British government. This is the statement made by the Prime Minister:

The conference, which has just concluded its labours, was convened under the terms of Resolution I of the conference of 1907. In the invitation sent by His Majesty's government at the end of April to the governments of the dominions, it was stated that the object of the conference would be to discuss the general question of naval and military defence of the empire, with special reference to recent proposals from New Zealand and Australia, and to the resolution passed on March 29, by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada. It was further stated that the conference would be of a purely consultative character, and that it would be held in private. It follows that all resolutions come to and proposals approved by the conference which has now been held, must be taken, so far as the delegates of the dominions are concerned, to be ad referendum, and of no binding force Unless and until submitted to their various parliaments.

1 should add, in special reference to the delegates from South Africa, that they did not feel themselves in a position, in regard to either naval or military defence, to submit or to approve positive proposals until the union of South Africa was an accomplished fact. With this preface I will briefly summarize the main conclusions of the conference in regard, first, to military, and next to naval defence.

After the main conference at the foreign office, a military conference took place at the War office, and resulted in an agreement on the fundamental principles set out in papers which had been prepared by the general staff for consideration by the delegates. The substance of these papers, which will be included among the papers to be published, was a recommendation that, without impairing the complete control of the government of each dominion over the military forces raided within it, these forces should be standardized, the formation of the units, the arragements for transport, the pattern of weapons, etc., being as far as possible assimilated to those which have recently been worked out for the British army. Thus, while the dominion troops would in each case he raised for the defence of the

dominion concerned, it would be made readily practicable in ease of need for that dominion to mobilize and use them for the defence of the empire as a whole.

The military conference then entrusted to a sub-conference, consisting of military experts at headquarters and from the various dominions, and presided over by Sir W. Nicholson, acting for the first time in the capacity of chief of the imperial general staff, the duty of working out the detailed application of these principles.

I may point out here that the creation early this year or an imperial general staff, thus brought into active working, is a result of the discussions and resolutions of the conference of 1907. Complete agreement was reached b.v the members of the sub-conference, and their conclusions were finally approved by the main conference and by the committee of imperial defence, which sat for the purpose under the presidency of the Prime Minister. The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are that, while preserving the complete autonomv of each dominion, should the dominions desire to assist in the defence of the empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined info one homogenous imperial army.

Naval defence was discussed at the meetings of the conference held at the Foreign Office on the 3rd, 5th and 6th August. The admiralty memorandum, which had been circulated to the Dominion representatives, formed the basis of the preliminary conferences.

The alternative methods which might be adopted by Dominion governments in co-operating in imperial naval defence were discussed. New Zealand preferred to adhere to her present policy of contribution; Canada and Australia preferred to lay the foundation of fleets of their own. It was recognized that in building up a fleet, a number of conditions should be conformed to. The fleet must be of a certain size in order to offer a permanent career to the officers and men engaged in the service; The personnel should be trained and disciplined under regulations similar to those established in the Royal navy, in order to allow of both interchange and union between the British and Dominion services; and with the same object, the standard of vessels and armaments should be uniform.

A remodelling of the squadrons maintained in far eastern waters was considered on the basis of establishing a Pacific fleet, to consist of three units in the East Indies, Australia and China seas, each comprising, with some variations, a large armoured cruiser of the new ' Indomitable' type, three second-class cruisers of the ' BristolJ type, six destroyers of the River class, and three submarine of ' C * class.

Further on:

Separate meetings took place at the admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and general statements were agreed to in each case for further consideration by their respective governments.

Further on:

Mr. MONK.

As regards Canada, it was considered that her double sea-board rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed, according to the amount of money that might be available, that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the Bristol class, and destroyers of an improved River class-a part to be stationed on the Atlantic sea-board and a part on the Pacific.

In accordance writh an arrangement already made, the Canadian government would undertake the maintenance of the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, and it was a part of the arrangement proposed with the Australian representatives that the Commonwealth government should eventually undertake the maintenance of the dockyard at Sydney.

Will my right hon. friend or any of the gentlemen who sit behind him, from the province of Quebec at any rate, state that, even this has been laid before the people of our province. They have never heard of it, in that shape or in any shape, and have never had any occasion to pronounce their opinion upon so important a matter.

Let us look a little deeper into this matter and see what was laid down in regard to this policy at this conference. The admiralty memorandum-I am now speaking of naval defence-was fully approved by our delegates. I will quote from it as briefly as possible. But I appeal to the good sense and good faith of the House to say whether any man who takes the trouble to read through this blue-book can arrive at any other conclusion than that which I laid down a few moments ago, that under the terms of this agreement we undertook to accomplish the duty that our delegates subscribed to, either by building a fleet of our own, or by contributions of ships or of money. In either case the principle is the same.

In the admiralty memorandum in respect to naval defence, I find this laid down:

Separate meetings accordingly took place at the admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, when the following general statements were agreed to in each case, it being recognized that in the time available it was impossible that all details should be thoroughly gone into and settled. Several administrative and financial points remained still to be decided.

And in the admiralty memorandum, which has our approval entirely so far, this is said at page 23:

2. If the problem of imperial naval defence were considered merely as a problem of naval strategy, it would be found that the greatest output of strength for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command. In furtherance, then, of the simple strategical ideal the maximum of power would be gained if all parts of the empire contributed, according to their needs and

resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.

3. It has, however, long been recognized that in defining the conditions under which the naval forces of the empire should be developed, other considerations than those of strategy alone must be taken into account. The various circumstances of the oversea dominions have to be borne in mind. . . .

4. The main duty of the forthcoming conference as regards naval defence will be, therefore, to determine the form in which the various dominion governments can best participate in the burden of imperial defence with due regard to varying political and geographical conditions. Looking to the difficulties involved, it is not to be expected that the discussions with the several Defence Ministers will result in a complete and final scheme of naval defence, but it is hoped that it will be found possible to formulate the broad principles upon which the growth of colonial naval forces should be fostered. While laying the foundations of future dominion navies to be maintained in different parts of the empire, these forces would contribute immediately and materially to the requirements of imperial defence.

I pass certain paragraphs which go to maintain absolutely the contention which I am endeavouring to support, and I come to the close of the memorandum:

13. Pari passu with the creation of the fleet unit, it would be necessary to consider the development of local resources in everything which relates to the maintenance of a fleet. A careful inquiry should be made into the shipbuilding and repairing establishments with a view to their general adaptation to the needs of the local squadron. Training schools for officers and men would have to be established ; arrangements would have to be made for the manufacture, supply, and replenishment of the various naval, ordnance and victualling stores required by the squadron.

14. All these requirements might be met according to the views of the dominion governments, in so far as the form and manner of the provision made are concerned. But as regards shipbuilding, armaments and warlike stores, &c., on the one hand, and training and discipline in peace and war, on the other, there should be one common standard. If the fleet unit maintained by a dominion is to be treated as an integral part of the imperial forces, with a wide range of interchangeability among its component parts with those forces, its general efficiency should be the same, and the facilities for refitting and replenishing His Majesty's ships, whether belonging to a dominion fleet or to the fleet of the United Kingdom, should be the same. Further, as it is a sine qua non that successful action in time of war depends upon unity of command and direction, the general discipline must be the same throughout the whole imperial service, and without this it would not be possible to arrange for that mutual co-operation and assistance which would be indispensable in the building up and establishing of a local naval force in close connection with the Royal navy. It has been recognized by the colonial

governments that in time of war the local naval forces should come under the general directions of the admiralty.

All this was fully approved by our own delegates. Their conclusions, their decision as to what was going to be built, are to be found fully given at page 26 of the printed report.

But I have said that in order to fully understand the extent of this new scheme, one must also take into consideration what seems to have been lost sight of, and was never alluded to in any way, so far as I know, by my right hon. friend, a most important part of the conference which concerns military defence. I do not wish to quote at length although I have marked certain parts of what has reference to that portion of the conference. The military memorandum is absolutely agreed to by our delegates, and I say it results clearly from that military memorandum that if it is carried out, before long what military forces we have in this country will be absolutely at the disposal of the imperial authorities in case of war. I do not wish to quote at length. I affirm that even for a layman like myself, it is impossible to read over that military memorandum approved of by our delegates without arriving at the conclusion that the whole of this scheme exhibits the constant carrying out of what has been characterized in a vague kind of way since some years, in this country and elsewhere, as the imperialist scheme, the putting into execution, the carrying out of what has been for a long time the dream of some people to which I shall refer presently, of a political union, practically, of the empire and the abolition of what is most important in the autonomy of the dependencies, reducing them in a certain sense to mere municipal institutions and conferring upon the imperial authorities at home, without any corresponding privilege, without any granting of further privilege to ourselves, of the absolute right of control without any consultative voice on our part whatever. All this is most important, all that is most precious in the privileges of self-government which we have acquired under circumstances of great stress and difficulty years ago-

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

I do not wish to interrupt, but I know the hon. gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. I would ask him to return to the statement made by the Prime Minister of England from which he read a little while ago in which the premier uses these words:

The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are, that while preserving the complete autonomy of each dominion, should the dominions desire

to assist in the defence of the empire in a real emergency.

Etc., they can do so.

Mr. MONK.

I read that.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

Yes, but the hon. gentleman did not apparently heed it, did not seem to have understood

it. '

Mr. MONK.

Oh, I understand it. I intend touching on that point in a moment, but I say at once, in order to answer my hon. friend, that if this scheme of centralization of military and naval power is put into execution, that part of the memorandum upon which the minister lays such great stress will become practically inoperative.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.

Oh no, it is the basis of the whole scheme.

Mr. MONK.

I can imagine it goes on a par with the lame excuses advanced by the Prime Minister, betraying to my mind his absolute ignorance of our situation, that in case war broke out under these circumstances, with our naval organization brought absolutely under this policy and everything laid down in this blue-book being carried out, the general staff, with its branches all over the empire having fully organized, he will summon parliament to know if our people are ready then to fight. I think I know the people of Canada well enough that, if all this is carried out they will not take refuge under that most unconstitutional argument which is on a par with what my right hon. friend said in Toronto the other day about the King of England being a suzerain. If the right hon. gentleman is correct in that interpretation, what I learned when a boy about the Crown of England, and what I taught in the university as a professor of constitutional law for many years, would have to be taken back as absolutely erroneous. I do not know what the heroine of Quentin Durward, a very pleasant novel, understood by a suzerain. She was speaking at a time of feudal tenure when suzerains existed. I am not aware that they exist now. But, if I understand the rights and privileges of the British Crown, it is subject to no such accident; it is continuous, it is absolute, it is sovereign; it goes on without any special transmission or succession. The King of England is the King of Canada practically. He concentrates in that power which we call the Crown all executive power, all the pow*er that makes the laws, all the administrative power, subject, of course, in regard to the executive power to the limitation that now he acts through ministers who are responsible to the representatives of the people- Sir. FREDERICK BORDEN

a very important provision and, though he concentrates within himself the legislative power, arid though all laws are really made by him, these laws are made with the consent and advice of both Houses of parliament. The legislative power is in him, as are the executive and judicial powers, and particularly with respect to the armed forces of the Kingdom wherever they are. I speak subject to correction, but I understand that this is a prerogative which has never been diminished in any way. The King is the chief commander of the military and naval forces. The House of Commons, in its widest aspirations, has never thought of depriving him of this special prerogative, nor have the people of England done so, being controlled by that wisdom which has ever characterized them. The King is the master of all armed forces-no suzerain there. But, as we all know-it would be taking up the time of the House uselessly to discuss the matter -the exercise of that power was held under control of the people for a long time in England by the Mutiny Act. This Act was passed every year. Hon. members of this House are familiar with the peculiar machinery which enabled parliament, although the command of the forces was in the hands of the Crown, by this yearly passage of the Mutiny Act to curb and restrain the exercise of that power. This continued until, I think, the year 1881, or thereabouts, when we had in England a regular military law. Moreover, parliament always exercised a very strong control over the military and naval forces by the annual voting of money. To-day, in England, as here, money is voted yearly, and without money you cannot have soldiers or navies. But the right, the prerogative, is in the King. If the King had the money, as he used to have in the old Plantagenet and Lancaster days, he would not require the annual vote of parliament to direct the army and navy as he chose. I may be mistaken, but that is the way I look at it. Therefore, I say this section 18 enunciates a new principle, when it says that the Governor in Council, may if it chooses, place the navy at the disposal of the British government. That is something new. If we could say that it was intended to facilitate the carrying out of the agreement as arrived at in London, if we could say it was in order to remove all doubt with respect to the principle which I enunciated a moment ago, well and good. But my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is a master of circumlocution and deceit, has, I think, placed this proviso in this Bill in order to be able to say to the people what 'Le Canada' printed in such heavy type, and I cited a moment ago, that in reality we-

parliament-control this naval force and it could only engage in war after it saw fit.

Now, I am extremely sorry to take up the time of the House, and I will not insist further upon that point, though I should like to have done so; not in order to instruct the members of this House- I have no desire to take that position- but in order that the people of this country should see behind this measure, which is apparently rather inoffensive, and see what the policy is concerning which my right hon. friend did not make in those explanations which seemed to me to be due, in the first place to this House, and in the second place to the nation at large. What, I say, are the consequences of this policy? If we have, or are about to undertake that we will build a navy or make contributions upon the understanding laid down in good faith by the British government and by the delegates at this conference, if we are going to move beyond the defence of our own country as a legitimate part of our burden-a part that has never been denied by Canadians, never from the first day, never, even at a time when they had against the mother counmost serious grievances-I say, if that is the policy, as I claim it is in the very words laid down in this document, what are the consequences? Let me sum up these consequences briefly:

1. We become more strictly bound by the foreign policy of the British government, its alliances offensive and defensive, for the reason that we engage to support by force the empire's exterior action.

This, I say, is the first consequence: We enter actively into the exterior policy of the British government. We no longer say: We are a dependency; we are a possession; we will not attack, we will continue the role we played for more than half a century and will undertake that burden which will otherwise rest upon you, the defence of this country.

2. If the scheme of the imperial defence conference is approved by us, we are hound to participate as belligerents in all British Wars. I

I say it is impossible for us, under the agreement arrived at, to avoid this; it is a necessary consequence. My friend, Mr. Bourassa, pointed out in Montreal the other day what a number of wars had taken place even since we had undertaken the defence of our own country. On no occasion, except under the peculiar circumstances of the South African war, was it thought by the mother country that we should participate in those wars. We were entire strangers to those countries, entire strangers to the causes that led up to those wars. Some of them were wars of

conquest, I do not say unjust conquest; perhaps some of them were necessary on the part of Great Britain, but we were never asked to take part in them.

3. We become parties to all British guarantees to foreign nations.

Great Britain has undertaken very serious responsibilities, involving possibly very extensive wars, towards those foreign [DOT]nations. I say that we in Canada, under pain of being branded as unfaithful to this agreement, and worse than that, as cowards, would be obliged to take part in those wars, and in those terrific conflicts which may be occasioned by her guarantees, and which may be brought on at any moment. Let me point out what those guarantees are. They result from treaties which, from time to time, Great Britain has entered into, treaties with which we have nothing whatever to do. But they are binding all the same, and I venture to say that, with my small knowledge of history, and of the circumstances which surround these agreements, they will have to be performed, and they will be the occasions of war, and in those wars we must participate. We cannot possibly and honourably avoid them so long as we are bound by this agreement. Let me refer the House to a work by Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, 1856, in which he says:

It is sometimes assumed that the responsibilities of Great Britain begin and end with the defence of her islands against invasion. This is far from being the case. She is in no whit less responsible for the defence of India and of her other possessions and colonies scattered throughout the world. Besides that moreover, she is bound by the most solemn engagements, some of them of great antiquity, with reference to the territories of other countries which she has guaranteed.

She could not allow those guarantees to fail, and we could not allow her to stand alone isolated, after having made this agreement in defence of these guarantees.

Thus she has guaranteed that Belgium shall form an independent and perpetually neutral state by articie 7 of the treaty of 1839.

She has undertaken, in case of the attack of an invader, to protect Chusan (an archipelago off the east coast of China) and its dependencies and to restore it to the possession that end, by the treaty of 1885.

She has guaranteed that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg shall henceforth form a perpetually neutral state, by the treaty of 1867.

She has guaranteed the integrity and perpetual neutrality of Switzerland hy the declaration of 1815.

She has guaranteed, as against Russia, the territories of Norway and Sweden, undertaking to furnish naval and military forces to that end, by the treaty of 1885.

She has guaranteed the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire in Europe, by the treaty of 1856.

She has guaranteed Greece as a monarchical and independent state by the treaty of 1832 and 1863 and the perpetual neutrality of the Ionian islands also by the treaty of 1863.

She has especially guaranteed as against Russia all the Ottoman (Turkish) nossessions in Asia, engaging to defend them by force of British arms, in the treaty of 1878. .

She has engaged to ' respect the independence ' of .the Sultan of Muscat (on the south short of the Gulf of Oman, near the Indian ocean) by the declaration of 1865, and to 'promote the integrity and independence' of Persia by an agreement with Russia embodied in correspondence extending from 1834 to 1888.

And most especially and most repeatedly has Great Britain guaranteed her most ancient ally. Portugal, to defend and protect that country ^itself as well as ' all its conquests or colonies '-an obligation which seems to extend to Delagoa bay in Africa-by various treaties beginning as far back as 1373 and coming down to 1703.

* Thus,' says Mr. Bowles, ' singly or together with other powers, Great Britain is under the most serious and solemn treaty engagements with respect to Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Portugal, Greece, Muscat, Persia and China-engage ments which might at any time only be capable of being carried out by force, and for the forcible carrying out of which all her power might not be too much.

I mention these things because, so far as I know, they present a feature of the case which has not been insisted upon during the discussion up to the present moment. _ Now, I say that we guarantee the integrity of the empire-that is the way I understand this agreement-that is what we do, and why endeavour to conceal the existence of the obligations we are assuming? We receive no guarantee as to the maintenance of the integrity of our own Dominion. Most important of all, we have no voice of any kind in the conduct of imperial affairs, while being bound by imperial obligations towards foreign countries. We become liable to the political and financial results of those obligations, without any representation, or administrative responsibility. I say, therefore, that, by this policy, we associate ourselves with Great Britain as a world power, deeply (interested in and responsible for international happenings in every part of the world, and obliged to exercise continual vigilance upon our part. Let me quote to the House what is said on this point by a newspaper of Ontario, 'The Weekly Sun,' of the 26th of January last:

Some points arise out of the discussion that call for special consideration.

The first was contained in the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; the second in what was said by Mr. Monk.

The premier said that when Britain is at war Canada is at war as well. This has always been true in a theoretical sense, but it will become most emphatically true, in a very practical way, if the proposal to build a Cana-Mr. MONK.

dian navy is gone on with. During the present generation Great Britain has been engaged in a dozen petty wars without so much as creating a ripple on the surface of things in this country. This was because the scene was far away, and Canada was not directly engaged. So long as we confine our forces to land forces Britain may engage in a very considerable war, with a distant country, without Canada also becoming directly engaged unless our parliament and people deliberately decide that Canadian troops shall be moved to the scene of conflict. If we create a navy the situation will be wholly different. A naval force will necessarily be on the sea; its officers, bearing the King's commission, will be under the same direction and control as officers in the royal navy bearing a like commission. The consequence will be that the moment Britain engages in any future war, that same moment, if a Canadian warship is within reach of the field of operations, Canada will, through her navy, become engaged as well. . . . .

The consequences arising from this situation were well stated by Mr. Monk. Canada will thus, without any control whatever over British diplomacy or British treaties, become liable to find herself at any moment plunged into war because of this diplomacy or as a result of these treaties. In other words, statesmen in Britain, who are not responsible to our people, who cannot be called to account at polls held in Canada, will be placed in a position to use forces armed and paid for by this country in any war Britain may choose to wage. We may at any time find ourselves actively engaged in conflict without our consent, and in a conflict, too, of which the Canadian conscience would not approve.

That is possible. The members of this House have heard of the China war which has been called the opium war. It was a war which was waged by England in order to oblige China to open her treaty ports to the opium dealers of India. There may have been some treaty obligation on the part of China, but, at any Tate, that was the object of the war. Applying what I have just read to the case would it be with enthusiasm, that, having convoked parliament, the people of this country would engage in a waT which must necessarily cost us at the very least some $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 for the purpose of forcing Ching-Ching-Chinaman to eat opium? I doubt it. To continue the citation:

Another consequence will arise from this situation, and one that was not spoken of either by Mr. Monk or the premier. Because Canada will be thus made responsible for British policy the attention of our people will be constantly diverted from our home affairs to British affairs. Canadian people are sufficiently complicated already. We have a wide stretching territory; the interests of one section of Canada are not always in accord with other sections; we have representatives of all races under the sun; we have enormous resources to develop. We require the wisest statesmanship and the most carefully thought-out-constructive policy for the purpose of meeting the problems presented. If we are to be continually distracted by old-world poli-

tics and disturbed by old-world quarrels, it will be impossible to give to tbe home situation the careful, painstaking attention that situation calls for.

I must quote also from another article from the same paper on the same date entitled ' Part of a General Scheme ' for. it goes to support what I stated a moment ago as the result of a general view of what had taken place at the conference.

This proposal to create a Canadian navy is but one part of a general plan now being put into operation. It was preceded by a change in the Militia Act giving to the government power, which it did not before possess, to order Canada's land forces on service outside the borders of Canada. It is being accompanied by a reorganization of these same forces which will make these correspond with the organization of the British army to the [DOT] end that British and Canadian troops may (it in together when called upon for joint action in foreign war. The intention on the part of those behind the new movement, is to gradually develop very considerable naval and military forces in this country that will be part of a world-wide war power, and available on call for service in any country to which they may be called by the central authority.

Such a scheme cannot be carried out in its entirety without effecting a fundamental change in the character and ideals of our people.

The writer goes on to point out very correctly and I think wisely that the whole course of thought, the idiosyncrasy, if 1 might use the term, the mental structure of the people of this country will be completely changed and this transformation will be from a new world and a young nation suddenly to the old world with all the vices, embarrassment and troubles that attach to that sudden change.

Therefore I say we have no control over the government and no representatives in the parliament which makes and unmakes wars and controls our destiny.

' Now I wish to say a word or two in regard to the character of this contemplated change and I shall say it briefly. Up to 1894 and even to a later date the British government never for a moment intended that Canada should do more than provide for its own defence. Never up to 1894 was that contention put forth, although the matter had received the constant attention of the imperial government, and although on more than one occasion that government had given to us in authoritative and official form communication of the conclusions at which it had arrived. With regard to defence, we have never, as I stated before, shirked the duty which seemed to be imposed upon us properly of attending to the defence of this country We gave proof of that in 1776. The right hon. Prime Minister alluded to what we did at that time. We gave further proof

of it in 1812 and 1814. No sacrifice was spared by the people of Canada to provide as far as we possibly could against American invasion and we did our full duty at that time as history proves. After we succeeded in obtaining responsible government in 1848, the British government began insisting-I do not say improperly-I say properly-that as a corollary duty of the liberty we then had acquired we should provide for self-defence and that duty should be performed. I stated, that when I, in answer to a call from my electors, gave them my opinion on this question. We took in this country at that time the ground that we must organize our own defence and the attitude of Cartier and his associates is not open to any doubt upon that point. No suggestion was ever made at that time that we should go beyond that. The utterances of Cartier and Macdonald go to prove that. I do not fear to assert that the traditions of the Conservative party, as I read them, point to the fact that that was the policy of the party. It started from the principle that having local self-government we must be ready to assume the duty of self-defence. These statements never went further than that; and when allusions are sometimes made to strong expressions by Sir George Cartier and Sir John Macdonald on the necessity of maintaining British connections, these expressions were always used in reply to the outpourings of friends of the Prime Minister, of the Prime Minister himself, when they ventilated policies such as those my hon. friend the leader of the opposition described to-day, and when they spoke of breaking down the barriers existing between us and the United States and pointed to the inevitable destiny of being absorbed by the great republic which awaited us. But nowhere will you find in the utterances of these great forerunners of the present Conservative party, nowhere will you find in the speeches of Sir John Macdonald or Sir George Cartier or of their successors the formulation of any such ideas as that we should go beyond the maintenance of our actual position. I had the honour, although I was very young at the time, of knowing the late Sir John Macdonald and also the late Sir George Cartier, who was an intimate friend of my family, and of whom I may say with the poet that he danced my infancy on his knee, and I am aware that these men were loyal subjects of the Crown and opposed to any policy which would lead to the severing of the tie that bound us to the mother country and which they deemed so essential to our welfare. But everybody who has studied history, everybody who has read the imperial state papers referring to Canada, from 1860 to 1867, everybody who has read the life of Sir George Cartier knows that he never went beyond that, and

*3011

any attempt to prove that he did must necessarily fail.

I said a moment ago that England herself had laid before us in an official way her contentions with regard to defence; I would like to refer to. what occurred in this country more than half a century ago at the time of the American war. At that time the Duke of Newcastle proposed to the Canadian government-it was during the union of the two Canadas-that we should do three things. He proposed that we should organize in Canada a force of 50,000 men, that we should place it under imperial direction and vote the necessary supplies for five years. Let me point out how that proposition was received by the Canadian government; and I cannot better do this than by referring to a memorandum prepared by the Canadian cabipet in October, 1862, to be handed to His Excellency the Governor General for transmission to the Duke of Newcastle. This memorandum proves that the men of that day, who are taking part in the conquest of our political liberties, were men who realized better than do those who are now controlling the government of this country, what that demand meant. Let me quote from the memorandum :

Another suggestion embraced in his Grace's despatch is well calculated to excite surprise. Your Excellency's advisers allude to that portion of the despatch in which his great purposes to remove the control of funds required for military purposes from the domain of parliament. His Grace is evidently aware that the proposition wears the aspect of ' an interference with the privileges of the representation of the people,' and it is certain that any measure liable to this construction never will be and ought not to be entertained by a people inheriting the freedom guaranteed by British institutions. The imperial parliament guards with jealous care the-means of maintaining the military and naval force of the empire. Its aopropriations are annually voted and not the most powerful minister has dared to propose to the House of Commons the abandonment of its controlling power for a period of five years. If the disturbing action of ordinary politics is a reason for removing the final direction of military preparation from parliament, it is in every sense as applicable in England as in Canada. What the House of Commons would not under any circumstances of danger entertain, is not likely to be entertained by the legislature of Canada. Whatever evils are incident to representative institutions, the peo

pie of a British province will not forget that they are trivial in comparison with those which are inseparable from arbitrary authority. Popular liberties are only safe when the action of the people restrains and guides the policy of those who are invested with the power of directing the affairs of the country. They are safe against military despotism wielded by a corrupt government, only when they have in their hands the means of controlling the supplies required for the maintenance of the military organization.

Mr. MONK.

' A union for defence' is proposed by His Grace the Secretary of State for the colonies. A union of the British North America provinces for the formation and maintenance of one uniform system of military organization aud training, having a common defensive fund, and approved by Her Majesty's government; a union whose details would emanate from the Secretary of State, and whose management would be entirely independent of the several local legislatures. Your Excellency's advisers have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that any alliance of this character cannot at present be entertained.

Your Excellency's advisers now turn to the general principle which underlies the argument of His Grace. That the right of selfgovernment has for a co-relative duty the maintenance of provision for the defence is a proposition which, in the abstract, is indisputable; but it is only indisputable in the case of government of states which are sovereign in themselves, as between a colony and the parent state it cannot be said to exist in the same sense.

The whole memorandum is pregnant with protest against any application of the principle that the military or naval forces of this country should be controlled by any other power than the legislature which established them.

Let me now refer to a memorandum prepared not so very long ago-not by any conference, but by a special committee of the Imperial Privy Council itself. That council itself took this matter into consideration in 1896, and made a report regarding the' defences of the empire, to which the Duke of Devonshire alluded when he spoke at the meeting of the British Empire League on the 3rd of December, 1896. This is what the Duke of Devonshire said:

I have found with very great satisfaction on my return to office, after an absence from official life of a good many years, the large progress which has been made in the consideration of the great question of imperial defence. A body is now in existence, and has been for many years called the Colonial Defence Committee, composed of representatives of the admiralty, the war office and the colonial office. That body has made a complete study of the question of colonial defence as it effects every colony of the British empire. It has studied the question from the point of view of each colony, and every colony, whether it be a Crown colony or a self-governing colony, is now in possession of the views of Her Majesty's government as to the nature of the attack-the possible attack-to which any of them may be exposed, and as to the means of defence which it is possible to oppose to such attacks. Every colonial government now knows what the imperial government is prepared to undertake in their defence, and what must be left to themselves to undertake. Now, although the instructions to this committee, and the plans which this committee has prepared, are, and must be, to a very great extent, of a confidential character, yet I am permitted to make a public announcement of the principles upon which

those plans are based; so that not only the public at home, but every one of our colonial fellow-subjects should know how much it is that the government are prepared to undertake in the defence of the colonies, and the duties which in their turn they think ought to be undertaken by the colonies themselves. These principles are as follows: The maintenance of sea supremacy has been assumed as the basis of the system of imperial defence against attacks from over the sea. This is the determining factor in shaping the whole defensive policy of the empire, and is fully recognized by the admiralty, who have accepted the responsibility of protecting all British territory abroad against organized invasion from the sea. To fulfil this great charge they claim the absolute power of disposing of their forces in the manner they consider most certain to secure success, and object to limit the action of any part of them to the immediate neighbourhood of places which they consider may be more effectively protected by operating at a distance.

It is recognized, however, that Her Majesty's ships engaged in hunting out and destroying the squadrons of the enemy may not be in a position to prevent the predatory raids of hostile cruisers on British ports. The strength of such an attack will vary in the different parts of the world according to the strength of possibly hostile, navies, the proximity of their bases and the troops that are or could easily be brought there in anticipation of war. It also varies from time to time with changing political combination. But it is improbable that this raiding attack would be made by more than a few ships, nor could it be of any permanent effect unless troops could be landed. In no case could a greater force than a few thousand men be collected and conveyed without such arrangements and preparation as would bring the operations under the category of those which the navy has undertaken to prevent.

Against a raid of the nature indicated, it has been considered necessary to make secure those places which are essential to the nary for coaling, refitting, and repairing. Ports for this purpose have been selected by the admiralty, and imperial resources in men and money available for use abroad have been concentrated on their defence. Apart from the harbours fortified for the navy, there are other ports which, though they do not enter into what may he called the -general strategic scheme, are also liable from their commercial importance to predatory raids, and which require measures of defence for the protection of the special interests involved. The resources of places which, in the opinion of an enemy, would justify the very considerable risks which a raid on them would involve, are generally sufficient to admit of the provision of local defence by local means; and where the liability to attack and the resources to resist attack co-exist, it has been held to be the duty of the colony to make provision for adequate defence. In dealing with places of this nature the committee have advocated the creation of sufficient fixed defences to prevent their unmolested occupation by hostile cruisers, but more especially the provision of

troops sufficient to deal effectually with such forces as an enemy must put on shore to enable him to secure any permanent advantage from his attack. Troops without works may detect an enemy and frustrate his object. Works without troops are useless and delusive. It is necessary to lay stress on this fact, as fortifications give an appearance and feeling of security which is not justified unless they are fully garrisoned by welhtrained men and supported by mobile forces, and because expenditure on defences involving a heavy outlay at one time and little at another, can be more easily fitted into the exigencies of fluctuating budgets than expenditure on troops which must be constant to be effective.

I will not continue this quotation, but it results therefrom that the British government itself, in 1894 or thereabouts, formulated a plan which was based on close application and study; and the Duke of Devonshire stated: 'We communicated

officially this plan to the colonies in order .that they might govern themselves accordingly-* That was one clearly enunciated plan under which we did not depart from the policy we had always followed of defending our own shores. But there ought to be added to that the proper equipment of dry-docks and coaling stations and such armaments as would enable us fully to defend ourselves against sudden raids. Nobody that I know of in this country is opposed to that, or would deny-because a raid is always possible-that we should guard against any attack of this nature. What I say is this: That at the conference of 1907, which my right hon. friend attended, and in which he denied absolutely that we should accept any scheme of this kind, no very different plan from this very one was laid before the conference. There was a small addition. Lord Tweedmouth, in addressing the conference, stated first and foremost, and as the representatives of the British government had always stated: We demand as a sine qua non the complete control in time of war of all naval forces, whether colonial or otherwise; but he stated there, what the Duke of Devonshire had stated to the British League in 1897, and what he stated also on a memorable occasion in the House of Lords, when questioned by Lord Minto, that all they asked from us was this very thing. Lord Tweedmouth added that we should have light torpedo boats or destroyers, which he said could not cross the ocean under any circumstances, but which might be used as a complement to this scheme of defence. He did not go any further. And let me point out this to my right hon. friend, who used such violent language in regard to myself at the time of the first reading of this Bill- very violent language. In fact, to use the words of the rhymster;

There never was heard such a terrible curse;

But what gave rise

To such a surprise

Was that nobody felt a penny the worse.

What the resolution of the 29th of March last stated was that we should proceed to organize the defence of the empire how? On the lines laid down at the last imperial conference. Well, the lines laid down at the last imperial conference, with the exception of the light craft to which Lord Tweedmouth alluded, were precisely those of the scheme which was proposed by the Duke of Devonshire, and which I am not prepared to combat. It was a reasonable scheme, I think. At any rate, I am not against our assuming that part of the common defence of the empire. But what we have to-day, I submit, is a totally different scheme, which has never been discussed before in this parliament and never has been discussed before the people. I, therefore, say that it is safe to conclude that this is an innovation, a complete change has been contemplated. And who are the originators of that change? Who, I ask this House, has been so earnest in promoting this gradual advance until at last we are face to face with this scheme, which is totally different from the two others and from the third more ancient, which began in 1862? To my mind it is largely the work, in the first place, of the Imperial Federation Society, which failed because it had no representative character and had proposed boldly in the beginning a scheme for which we were totally unprepared, political union, which is virtually comprised in this present project, and when that society failed and the new one, the British Empire League, was organized, they took it up and the members of that anti-Canadian society, I will call it such, have been ever since moving heaven and earth to bring about this very policy to which many of us at present object. Look at the active members of that league. You will find they are not representative men; they are very respectful men, but if you read their speeches you will find that they have gone to England and stated that this very scheme is popular and accepted with joy throughout the country. What authority have they for that statement? Col. Denison or Mr. Small, at one of their meetings, after congratulating the meeting that it was not open to the press, stated that it was known that war decimates sailors, the British have great difficulty in finding complements of men for their navy, and they could easily recoup themselves here, there were 75,000 men at their disposal as a naval reserve, and the people were anxious to place them at the disposal of the British empire. I say that in making these statements they had no Mr. MONK.

authority and did not represent the sentiments of our people.

I have alleged and it has been said that this scheme, if it is properly shown to the people, will prove that it bears in its flanks the destruction of our right of self-government. I say in the first place it tends to deprive us of control of our land and sea forces. It binds us to the consequences of the external policy of the Downing street government, which we cannot control or hold responsible. It leaves us, I say, practically with large municipal powers. If you take away from a country, from any nation, the Tight to control, at any rate as free nations usually do, its relations with other nations, I say you deprive it of one of its most valuable inherent rights as a nation. I say in respect to this policy that it differs from the suggestion which .began when we obtained responsible government in 1848; it differs essentially from the Imperial Defence Committee's report and it differs entirely from the suggestions made by Lord Tweedmouth in 1907. It is, in fact, a scheme which might be called the scheme presented to the last imperial conference by the Bight Hon. Mr. McKenna, which was far -more extensive and was never heard of or discussed by our own people.

There are many other things to be said in reference to this question, and if I am able to do so I shall express those views at the proper time. But I wish, before resuming my seat, to say one word in regard to the reproach which has been addressed to us in all or nearly all the newspapers of this country, a most unjust and unfair reproach, to my idea. We have been branded, those who hold the views I have just expressed to the House, as ingrates, as wretches with no other sentiment than that of selfishness and egotism, and it has been claimed that what is asked from us to-day, this, to my judgment, unjustifiable sacrifice of our liberty, we owe to the mother country. Without them we would be nothing at all in this country, nothing whatever, and I heard it said to-day that if British supremacy upon the sea was to fail we would disappear at once. It reminded me of the old saying of the fates in Borne; ' While stands the Colosseum Borne shall stand; when falls the Colosseum Borne shall fall, and with Borne the world.' I think the members of this House will admit that during weeks of denunciation, a public man cannot with equanimity see himself charged with these grave failings, of ingratitude and selfishness, and although I do not want to open or unduly extend the chapter I would say one word on this subject.

Is our indebtedness so very great? Do we owe all this to the mother country, and have we done nothing for ourselves in re-

spect to external affairs or in respect to our own political development? Have we been like sponges or jelly fish, occupying a merely passive role in that regard, and has everything that could be done been done by the mother country? One word as to that. Look at the diplomatic handling of our affairs by the mother country ever since 1782, to begin at the beginning. I do not pretend that for what was done there was not fair justification. We had an immense territory, we were a small people, and the government of those days had to look after the interests of a vast empire, and it was then, be it said, under the control of foreign nations with regard to its dependencies which it very soon was obliged to abandon, and had it not abandoned that policy and those notions, not one, I venture to say, of those dependencies would have the British flag over it to-day. I shall not allude to what took place in 1782. Most of the gentlemen 'who sit in this House have read the story of our negotiations with the revolted American colonies, when the British government sent to Paris to meet such men as Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Jay, Mr. Oswald and Mr. Vaughan, who had no knowledge whatever of this country, no diplomatic experience whatever, and who, if they had had their own way-and I think if Lord Shelbourne himself had had his own way- would have taken a course which would have resulted in there being no Canada at all. Had not Mr. Strachey, as every one knows, the special diplomatic envoy of England, arrived at the last moment to save the shreds of British territory which exist on this continent. to-day, everything would have gone by the board. Mr. Oswald was anxious to give up the whole of Canada, Nova Scotia and all the rest of it; he called this country the back land, a swamp that was of no value whatever, and when Mr. Vaughan saw that, he ran to Franklin, that keen old fox, and his associates, who were more than a match for these two men, and induced them to give up mo3t valuable territory.

As I say, the two negotiators at that time were anxious to obtain the consent of the British government to give up Nova Scotia and Canada as of no value whatever. I do not wish to enter into details, but they gave up a territory of over four millions of acres, constituting to-day seven of the most fertile and magnificent states of the American union, to which Jay Adams and the others recognized that they had no right whatever. Thus to-day we are deprived of that fertile region communicating with our northwest and are bound to traverse an arid desert which will ever remain a barrier between our fellow citizens in the west and ourselves. They gave up the Indian territory; that is his-96

tory familiar to all. And when they did that, everybody knew, except these two innocent gentlemen themselves, that the ultimatum of the American congress wa3 reduced to this: Give us independence for the thirteen colonies and ask for no indemnity for the loyalists who have suffered through this waT. That was the ultimatum: But Benjamin Franklin and Jay took it upon themselves, as they themselves afterwards explained and as is explained by their biographers, to insist upon this piece of precious territory which had been conquered by our ancestors, which belonged at one time to France and was ceded by France to England. This was given up in spite of the fact that the American congress never wanted it. I do not see anything in that that greatly shows anxiety to protect our rights. If you go further, what about the sacrifice involved in the Ashburton treaty? Lord Ashburton said it was a mere marsh of the state of Maine, and said in the British House of Commons that it would have been absurd to go to war about that territory. Or about the western territory belonging to us, the state of Oregon. If any man wants to know the value of this territory in Maine, let him read the history of the Intercolonial, by Sir Sandford Fleming, and learn what a sacrifice on our part was involved. I say that anybody who looks carefully through these negotiations will arrive at the conclusion that England was governed at that time by principles of expediency and not purely by a desire to maintain integrally the territory that belonged to us and our descendants. And, as to the Washington treaty, is there anybody in this House, who, knowing what has been published since that time, has any doubt but that there was then seriously debated- even when we had acquired imnortance, when this country was a confederation and was extending westward and intended to cover the whole of the northern part of this continent-is there any doubt in the mind of any man that the question of ceding Canada was discussed as a complete settlement of the Alabama claims and the claims resulting from the civil war? Is there any man who doubts that the British plenipotentiary at Washington

I -think it was Sir Edward Thornton-stated that he was ready to give up Canada but did not like to do it without the consent of the people? If it were necessary to prove this, I would take up time quoting the authorities. But we need not go back even so far as this. Everybody knows, as a matter of the present generation, the history of the Alaska difficulty. We abandoned all our rights under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty for valuable privileges at the very time that this Alaska

difficulty was under consideration and when, as was pointed out, I think, by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) we should hold to all these privileges until we on our side had obtained a just and fair treatment of our claims. Everything was given away without equivalent obtained. And I am wondering this evening after what has been told us, if what happened in regard to the Alaska boundary is true. Is it true that Lord Alverstone, after having agreed with our own Canadian representatives as to the judgment that they were about to give, went, the day after to the final meeting of the Joint Commission, and there to the intense surprise of Sir Louis Jette and Mr. Aylesworth, changed his award and gave out two valuable islands-valuable from a strategic point of view-without having re-conferred with his fellow delegates. How can we explain such a thing as that? Certain it is, in regard to that transaction, that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself stated that our representations were ignored, that the three men named by the Uniied States government were not, as the treaty required, impartial j urists. My right hon. friend stated in this House that his government made representations at that time, and yet the British government proceeded to accept the nomination of these three representatives of the United States without paying any attention to our protest. Members of this House will recollect what the Prime Minister said at that time in a moment of, to my mind, just irritation. I merely mention these facts, and have no wish to go into detail. There are rnanv other facts that might be cited to prove this claim that any man who says that we owe a debt of gratitude to the mother country in respect to these many transactions under which our territory has been greatly fragmentized, is speaking of -what he knows nothing about. But let us look for one instant at the internal work that has been done here. What of this pretension that if British supremacy is not maintained upon the sea, we cease to exist? I think that is carrying assertion a little far. Whatever we have in this country in the way of economic development or in the way of free political institutions is our own work. We built it up ourselves. And my right hon. friend will admit that, in the early days, -we had to wrest concessions from the mother country. The Act of 1774, the Constitution Act of 1791, the responsible government of 1848, the different Constitutional Acts of a later day, confederation itself-were these things originated in England and brought out here for execution? Let us be fair; they were carried out by our own people. Our own Mr. MONK.

people framed the confederation and brought it to England for sanction. Our own people extended the confederation from one side of the continent to the other. And the merit of England is that she recognized, as Spain did not, that, unless she entered upon a Liberal policy with her great dependencies she would have to submit to the fate that ultimately overtook Spain itself.

I would not open the chapter of 1837 as my right hon. friend has done. But I must confess to my friends from the province of Quebec, on the other side, not that I think them more intelligent than my friends of English origin on this side, that it is a surprise to me that they who know what it has cost us in blood, and sacrifices, and money, the liberties which we have earned, should treat so lightly, in such a childish manner, the scheme which has been brought before us to-day, and which, to my mind, inflicts a grievous wound upon the self-government which cost us so dear in the province of Quebec. I say that is to me a subject of surprise. It is not so long ago that (men were thrown into jail for claiming just such things. There is not a man in this House who would continue to live in this country if he did not enjoy what was asked for by the ninety-two resolutions. I would not live in a country which did not possess the full enjoyment of what was claimed by those resolutions. Yet men were thrown into jail for claiming that which we could not live without to-day-no accusation, on suspicion, respectable men, honest men, put in jail for more than a year, and then released with nothing against them. Others were sent to the scaffold. I have been intimately connected and related with men who were not French Canadians, the counsel and defenders of those men at that trial, and I can say this from information received from them, men who have obtained a high judicial position in this country, that that trial left upon them many bitter reflections. Think of an officer, being a good hand at sketching, sitting down and sketching with levity a picture of one of those men hanging on a scaffold, showing it to his neighbour, before the trial was terminated. But I do not want to enter upon those events to-day. I will say this, however, that if this system of branding a public man of honest convictions as an ingrate, as a coward, continues, I will reopen that chapter, and ' say things which I believe will silence them for ever.

In all those discussions at the imperial conferences it has struck me that our representatives seem to have been impressed with the desire of giving every thing and claiming nothing. Whether my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who I regret to see is not here,

were hypnotized and put into a trance I do not know. But at those conferences nothing was claimed. You would imagine that people accustomed to British liberty, to British privileges, when proposals of this kind were laid before them, would ask for some correlative privileges, which every Britisher is proud to possess throughout the world. But no. At one conference there is a resolution proposed by an Australian delegate, and carried, to the effect that in so far as diplomatic and confidential relations would allow, it was proper for the British government to communicate commercial treaties to the colonies. Lord Tweedmouth, Mr. Chamberlain, and other English public men. imbued with the broad principle that responsibilities of this kind carried representation, had stated, as Lord Tweedmouth did at the conference of 1907: We dont ask you to do this without inviting you to share in the representation. That proposal was in harmony with British ideas. But on our side nothing was asked, nothing was claimed. I do not mean to say that if these things were in that shape before us, I would adhere to them. I think that ' sufficient to the day is the evil thereof '. But I am impressed with the idea that nothing seems to have been asked, and that we entered into this unlimited scheme of responsibility in such a manner as to distinguish us completely from the British subject who lives in the British isles, and who himself controls the foreign policy of the empire.

Now, I notice that at a meeting of the Women's Canadian club at the city of Quebec His Excellency the Governor General, in a very interesting speech, spoke as follows, after having devoted his attention for a considerable time to a justification of imperialism:

(Translation). Is there in the world a people more privileged than the people who inhabit the fine province of Quebec? Your laws, your language, are under the special protection of the British Crown. In return for so many privileges and advantages, the Crown exacts nothing from you except sentiments of loyalty. The word ' imperialism ' does not imply active intervention from England in the government of this country; the word ' imperialism ' symbolizes the power of each of the units of the empire and absolute liberty, in each of these units.

Now, I do not for a moment apprehend that these remarks of Lord Grey before the ladies of Quebec would have any practical result upon this very important political question. We have not reached that stage which gave rise to the old French saying, ' Le royaume est tombe en quenouille.' But I would be curious to know in what respect this scheme increases the amount of liberty that we enjoy at present, and in what respect it increases the happiness we have succeeded in obaining in this country, and which we at present enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that I thought from their position and from what I know they know, my friends from the province of Quebec who sit on the other side of the House would look at this question more seriously than they seem to have done. I have been several years in this House and I have been astonished at their conduct sometimes, I am bound to say after what I have alluded to, as to the struggles which took place in our province for the obtaining of the liberties which we now all enjoy and for which I think some credit is due for what was done in the province of Quebec. I have seen these gentlemen in this House vote against the maintenance of the rights that were claimed for the minority in the organization of the new provinces of the west, I have seen them vote against the maintenance of the right which all parties in this House admitted to exist with regard to the French language in these provinces when at one time I moved for the maintenance of the strict right of the French Canadian to speak- only to speak-in that language in both of the assemblies of these provinces. They voted against it when it was admitted in this House by every jurist that that right stood exactly upon the same plane as the right to free education. I have seen them remaining during all these years utterly indifferent to the denial of the rights of the minority in Manitoba after having heard them say what they said in my province before the elections in 1896. I must confess to these gentlemen that their final cheerful adhesion to the scheme now submitted to this parliament is an additional, and I may say, a somewhat painful surprise, I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, although I agree with something that is contained in the motion moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, a subamendment as follows:

This House, while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown, is of opinion, that the Bill now submitted for its consideration changes the relations of Canada with the empire and ought, in consequence to be submitted to the Canadian joeople in order to obtain at once the nation's opinion by means of a plebiscite.

After the long explanation that I have given I think the House will realize that it is the right of the people of Canada to be consulted upon this new policy. I think it is an infamous denial of the rights of the people to pass on and carry through this scheme without even giving them a chance, they, who are the absolute masters, of expressing an opinion with regard to a policy which is new to us, new to them, has never been even mentioned before the people of this country and upon which they have the right without any doubt of expressing their free opinion

Hon. EODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).

Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of emotion that I now rise to give my earnest support to what I believe to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced into this parliament, since it has been in existence. I hope I will be brief in the remarks which I intend to offer, I hope I will be clear and that I will treat this subject, not with levity, but with the gravity which it imposes upon one. Sir, I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches which have already been delivered by my right hon. friend .the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden) and by my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I have listened to what has been said and I believe that as regards the policy of the government, no clearer, no more eloquent statement could be made than the one which was made this afternoon by the Prime Minister of Canada. Let me say, in justice to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, with whom I may differ, that he has placed himself squarely before the House, and that he has presented in a concrete form, the policy of his party. I have listened courteously, I believe, to the statement which has just been made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, who represents one wing of the Conservative opposition. I say that I have listened courteously to him, as I always do. I can never forget one thing. When my hon. friend speaks, I always remember that he was my old professor at Laval University, and I owe him the courtesy which a pupil owes to his professor. I did not interrupt him when he began his remarks and he should have spared me his sneers when he referred to a knighthood dangling before the eyes of the Postmaster General. Mr. Speaker, remember that this is intended for Quebec consumption; it is not for Ontario consumption. I have only this to say in answer to my hon. friend that he might have offered to his pupil a little more of the milk of human kindness and a little less of the cup of bitterness. Sir, I am a reformer, I do not belong to the party which by divine right is called upon to govern all the peoples of this world. I am a reformer, I am a plain man. Unlike my hon. friend, I am not a seigneur, no blue blood about me. Speaking as such, as belonging to that vast army of common people so well described by the late Abraham Lincoln as the race beloved of God, since they were so numerous on the face of the earth-yes, as a plain man and a reformer, with the deep sense of the duty which devolves on me on the present occasion, let me say to my hon.

Mr. MONK.

friend that if, forsooth, I am a knight, I am a knight of labour, nothing more and nothing else. And when I shall have said this evening what I intend saying, my language may be repeated in the smallest hamlet of the province of Quebec. And whether in the province of Quebec or in any of the other provinces, I will tell to the face of my hon, friend, who indulges in sneers at my expense, that let my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the Toof of my mouth if ever I sell my birthright and that of my fellow countrymen for a mess of pottage.

Sir, we had a right to expect that, on a' question of this importance, the two great traditional parties in this parliament would have given to the people of Canada an example of union. This is a matter of the gravest interest, and after the resolution which was adopted unanimously on the 29th March, 1909, one would have expected that we would have united on the principle of a Canadian navy. But the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Liberals have on this, as on other questions, to face the same old opposition. ' Too much ' my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) will shout to his faithful electors at Lachine, ' too much ' will he shout to the electors of Gaspe, when I suppose he will represent me as being a slave of the King and as having sold myself to His Excellency the Governor General for a knighthood; * too much ' will he shout in the province of Quebec. ' Not enough,' my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) will say in Ontario; * not enough ' will he shout in the English provinces of the Dominion. Sir, it is the privilege of the Liberal party to aim always at a happy medium and to steer through the shoals a middle course in questions of this nature. Of course, the loyalty of that party is always impeached when a policy of this kind is presented before the electors. This reminds me of what happened at the time of the French revolution when that famous lady, Madame Eoland, was brought to the guillotine. On her way, as she passed before the statue of liberty, she bowed reverentially, and turning to the people, exclaimed: O Liberty how many crimes are committed in thy name! Could we not with equal reason exclaim, when we hear those shrieks of loyalty from hon. gentlemen opposite: O Loyalty, what many crimes are committed in thy name! Sir, who would seriously impeach the loyalty of the leader of the Liberal party or that of the vast majority of Canadians, who to-day compose the reform party? Were we disloyal when in 1897, of our own free will, as the first act of the Liberal administration, we granted to Great Britain what is called the British preference? At the time of the

South African war, were we disloyal when, in spite of trying circumstances, we sent to South Africa the young men of this country to fight the battles of Greater Britain? Are we disloyal to-day when we are the first in the history of this Dominion to give His Majesty the King a navy, as the Conservative party of old gave Her Majesty the Queen an army? Mr. Speaker, let us not talk of loyalty, but let us practice loyalty. We are denounced as ultra loyal in the county of Jacques Cartier, and as ultra disloyal in the county represented by my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule). In the province of Quebec, already, my hon. friend and his allies have started meetings of indignation against what they are pleased to call the great treason of the Liberal leader. The Blue press, which has been quoted this evening by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), is stirring up the worst prejudices of our people against this policy. The leader of the Liberal party is represented as sacrificing his compatriots, the French Canadians, on the altar of Moloch, meetings have been organized and resolutions have been passed protesting against the navy. Sir, it is the same old story. At the time of the Boer war, these shouts and shrieks were heard, as they were again heard when the Autonomy Bill of 1905 was introduced. But, thank heaven, there is a majority in this country of men of common sense.

I shall not delve into old books, I shall not quote to the House what happened fifty or sixty years or a hundred years ago. The privilege of a reformer is to face every difficulty as it presents itself and it is the beauty of the British constitution, that while it is based on precedents, it adapts itself to every circumstance and difficulty. Sir, why a navy for Canada? Because it is a natural evolution of the country. Take the marvellous increase of our population- thanks to the wise policy of the_ Liberal party, thes population of Canada since 1896 has nearly doubled. Thanks to the Liberal party-thanks to Providence first and to the Liberal party afterwards.

Oh, oh.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

There has been an enormous increase in our natural wealth. I have it from the hon. gentleman who presides over the Census Bureau, the Minister of Agriculture, that at the time of the next census, a year from now, the population of this Dominion will be nearer 8,000,000 than it will be 7,500,000. Our vast territories have become the refuge, the happy refuge, of thousands and hundreds of thousands of settlers. Do not our hon. friends opposite, who I verily believe are as patriotic as we are on this side of the House, not agree that it is good policy to instil

into the minds and hearts of the new settlers who come from the United States, the idea that this country should defend and protect herself? The financial position of this country is extremely sound. As was stated this afternoon by the Prime Minister, the revenue of this year has reached the high-water mark of over $100,000,000; surpluses have followed each other since 1897, since we established the British preference. Our total trade, which in 1896 was $249,000,000, has reached the enormous figure of $750,000,000. The savings banks deposits, which in 1896 were only $250,000,000 have reached in 1909 the sum of nearly $800,000,000. The production of western grain in 1900 was only 32,000,000 bushels; in 1909 it reached 330,000,000 bushels. The mineral production of this country has also far exceeded our expectations. So I am not amiss when I say that our population has doubled, that our wealth has trebled, that our trade and our industry have increased by leaps and bounds since 1806. To use the language of the Toronto * News,' I can say:

Unexampled prosperity has dawned upon this confederacy. Our foreign trade surpasses $700,000,000 annually, our railway mileage is enormous, our prairie lands are filling up rapidly, our financial institutions are strong and vigorous, our industries are growing enormously.

From an economic point of view the Dominion of Canada of 1896 is represented by the value of two Dominions of Canada. It is not, I suppose, contrary to any constitutional doctrine of which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is such a brilliant exponent, to say that Canada has become the leading overseas dominion of the British empire. We make and unmake our tariffs; we control our defences; we practically make our own treaties. Not later than the first of February last came in force the Franco-Canadian treaty, which was negotiated through the diplomacy of our own Canadian statesmen, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Sir, I can repeat the words of the right hon. the Prime Minister, who said in the presence of His Majesty the King in 1897: Canada is a nation within the empire. There was no question at the time as to whether or not the Prime Minister had used the words equivocally, whether he recognized the sovereignty or the suzerainty of the King, On this point let me say one word. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has been a professor of constitutional law. It so happens that in the same university I myself was a professor of the history of law, and I happen to know the difference between suzerainty and sovereignty. In England, in France, in Germany, the King is the suzerain- why? Because they were feudal countries. Under the feudal system, barons, mar-

quises and counts had become very powerful, until in France for example, the day came when Louis XIV. became the suzerain of all his grand vassals, the barons, marquises and counts. So it was in England and in Germany. It is silly indeed to pick a quarrel over the use of the word suzerain or the word sovereign. Sir, we are a nation within the empire, and why I pray, should we not have a navy of our own? Does any one dispute the right of this country to have a militia of her own? If there are objections to a Canadian navy, are there not also objections - to a Canadian militia? _ My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier excited the merriment of his friends opposite when he opened his remarks; but I must say that when he concluded it looked as if the other side of the House was rather gloomy. Let me say to my hon. friend that he has not played the game fair. He has represented the thousands and hundreds of thousands of readers of the daily press in the province of Quebec as an ignorant lot. He insinuates that we, on this side of the House, have been bluffing the electorate of the province of Quebec, and he has quoted partially from a leader published in ' Le Canada ' newspaper. Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to translate tiiat leader. Not a word can be found in it that is a reproach to the man who wrote it. It is ably written, and to every word in it any man could subscribe. It is written in French, and my hon. friend translated it into English only partially. I hope that some of my friends who will speak on this question will read the translation of this article. It is headed ' Les Quatre Manieres de Voir,' ' The Four Different Views.' and explain the policy of the Liberal party, as voiced this afternoon by the leader of the government. The editor states that in case of an emergency it is in the power of the Canadian parliament to say whether or not the navy can be used by His Majesty the King. My hon. friend excited hilarity of that side of the House on the word ' may.' ' May,' he said with emphasis, the Canadian government ' may ' lend that tin-pot navy to the King of England. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was in the House some years ago when the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) introduced his Bill to revise the Militia Act. Did he play with the words used in that Bill? Had he scrutinized the various clauses of that very important Bill he would have read a clause quite similar to the clause referred to. Clause 69 of the Mmtia Act reads:

The Governor in Council may place the militia or any part thereof on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada for the defence thereof at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Mark well: not the House of Commons but the traitors, who compose the cabinet. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we traitors' may, if we so choose, lend the militia of Canada to the King of Great Britain. Has my hon. friend read that Act? Did he move any amendment when it was proposed in the House of Commons? Did he notice it? Was he absent? I believe he was not present and judging by the language he used this evening, to say the least, he was deficient in his duty.

Sir, it is of this argument of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, as Tegards the words: ' They may lend the navy to the King of England ' that we shall hear in the present debate, particularly from my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), thundering denunciations, because forsooth the Canadian parliament is to meet and to deliberate whenever an emergency arises. But, Sir, this principle is in the Militia Act: parliament, according to clause 71, must meet when there is an emergency and when our militia is on active service. There are things which are said in the province of Quebec, and others in the province of Ontario and thus, various comments are made on the clauses of the Militia Act. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier referred to the heroes of 1837 and 1838. He appealed to the French Canadian members in the House af Commons, he, the descendant of one who was fighting against the patriots of 1837. In his historical reminis-censes, has the hon. gentleman forgotten that the father of the Militia Act was a great leader and a knight at that, of the French-Conservative party, Sir George Etienne'Cartier? Has he forgotten that Sir George Cartier was on the battlefields at St. Charles and St. Denis with the grandfather of the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who signed with his own blood the Magna Charta of not only the French Canadians but also of the English-speaking Canadians of this country? Sir, the Thirty Seveners as they call them in the county of York, did not fight only in the Queen's bush of Quebec, but fought also for the same cause not very far from Toronto. But this is not only a question of sentiment, it is above all a question of business and hard facts and I hasten to revert to hard facts and business. Why should we not have a navy as we have an army? En passant, it is well to remember, that our militia force is not the skeleton of an army. I have heard more praise to the Canadian army during my peregrinations abroad, and from higher authorities than my friend suspects, certainly more praise than I have heard falling from the lips of my hon. friends opposite. Who were the men who thus praised the

Canadian army? His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the old General, the hero of South Africa, Lord Roberts. I say there is a beginning to everything. My hon. friend quoted a French axiom a moment ago. Let me quote another: ' Rome ne

s'est pas bati en un jour.' ' Rome was not built in a day.' The Canauian militia was organized fifty years ago. It is now a fighting force. It is a credit not only to Canada but to the empire, and when the time of danger comes, the Canadian militia will give a good account of itself. Might I not prophesy the same happy results for a Canadian navy? Sir, speaking for my country, I do not shrink at being great. No, I do not shrink at being great. My hon. friend, a moment ago, quoted the words of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada in Quebec the other day. He did not say what he had in his mind; he simply gave expression to a few flighty, elastic, pliable thoughts. I know, Sir, what will be said. Nay, I know what is already being said in the province of Quebec by my hon. friend's friends, about His Excellency. He is represented, very courteously, very chivalrously, by my hon. friend's companions and knight errants, as the commercial traveller of the empire. Sir, His Excellency the Governor General took occasion the other day, speaking before the Canadian club of Quebec, to define what the word 'imperialism' implied. I was very pleased to be present to applaud, and to see many of the leading citizens of Quebec, Conservatives and Liberals applauding also and cheering His Excellency. Let me translate into English what His Excellency said on that occasion. It is a lesson which should have' been bead by my hon. friend for his own benefit, and, now that I translate it, it will be a lesson to all those who misrepresent the attitude of the Governor General of Canada:

Is there in the world a people more privileged than the people who inhabit the fine province of Quebec? Your laws, your language, are under the special protection of the British Crown. In return for so many privileges and advantages, the Crown exacts nothing from you except sentiments of loyalty. The word * imperialism ' does not imply intervention from England in the government of this country; the word ' imperialism ' symbolizes the power of each of the units of the empire and absolute liberty in each of these units.

Sir, speaking the language of the old Normans, which is still spoken in the British House of Commons, I say: J'assente. If that is the bogey represented by my hon. friend to the electors of Lachine and Jaequesi Cartier, I say: Happy electors of Lachine and Jacques Cartier, to be powerful as a unit of the empire, and also

absolutely free as a unit of that empire! Sir, have we not a sea-board to protect? Nay, we have two sea-boards to protect. We have also trade routes to look after. We have a sea-board on the Atlantic ocean with its prosperous and thriving cities; we have a sea-board on the western coast at Vancouver, at Victoria, at Prince Rupert, where, before many years have elapsed, maTts of commerce and industry will develop. Not to speak of as possible conflicts with the United States of America-for I may well echo to the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister of England, when, in a very recent debate he stated that, in his two-standard-power policy he never contemplated the possibility of conflict with the United States of America,-and neither do we contemplate the possibility of conflict with the great nation to the south. We would not, however, be true to ourselves, true to our traditions, if we did not exhibit to the Americans the same traits of courage, the same fighting qualities, that our ancestors have shown, should the hour of danger arise. We desire as a colony- nay, as a Dominion-we desire to be respected: let us begin by respecting ourselves and thus obtain the respect of the great neighbouring republic. But, Sir, not to speak of the United States of America, I say there is on the Pacific ocean a great power-two great powers. There is Japan, whose navy at the present hour a navy organized by a Quebecker, Sir Archibald Douglas-is second only to that of Great Britain. As the Prime Minister stated this afternoon, fortunately for us, England in her many blunders-if I should use the word of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier-has secured a treaty of alliance with Japan. We have nothing to fear from Japan so long as that treaty lasts. But treaties do not last for ever, they are, so to speak, negotiable instruments: they change hands; and it is well to be prepared lest a change should take place. There is also a great power, China, which is looming large in the world's affairs, which sent, no longer ago than during the month of November last, a dozen picked naval officers to study in England the conditions of the British navy. Therefore, Sir, as I stated a moment ago, every one who does not shrink from thinking of his country being great, should think of our future and not cast aspersions on our efforts to build a navy. Mr. Speaker, I 'stated a moment ago, that we had trade routes to protect. I notice that some gentlemen are referring to resolutions which were adopted by the Grain Growers and the Grangers against the expenditure for a Canadian navy. Let me say this: I do nor wish to lecture the Grain Growers and the Grangers, but some facts should not be ignored. If there is one class of people in this country

who, in case of war, would require the protection of the_ Canadian navy, iti s the farming community. I speak from a purely material noint of view, because from the national point of view, I assume that we would all be happy to defend this country and to co-operate loyally with the imperial navy if need be. Let me give a few figures. In the calendar year 1908, the Canadian farmer sold his products outside of Canada to the extent of about $308,100,000. Briefly, if you took it in bulk to Great Britain in that year, we sold to the value of $97,400,000; to the United States, $3,200,000; to other countries, $7,350,000. In other words, the mother country took from us 90 ;2 per cent of all our agricultural exports. In view of these figures, does not the security of the British market mean something to us, and especially t>

our farming community? Great Britain takes from us nine-tenths of the products of our farms. Those who believe that the farmers will be led astray by the do-nothing policy, are strangely astray themselves. I know that the farmers of this country are intelligent enough, in case of danger, to defend the trade routes, so as to protect the cargoes of food supply conveyed from Canada to the mother country.

Now, what are the objections made to the naval policy of the government?

1. It is stated in the province of Quebec by the friends of my hon. friend, that there is no need of a navy for Canada, because we are protected by the United States through the Monroe doctrine;

2. That we have no obligations towards ' Great Britain;

3. That the Prime Minister of Canada and his party have not kept their pledge on the question of militarism;

4. That Canada will not control her navy; :

5. That there should be a plebiscite be- 1

fore any policy is affirmed. ,

Let me answer briefly to the objections I have enumerated. It is contended in Que- < bee that we do not require any protection 1 because in case of war, we will be protected 1 by the Monroe doctrine; if we were attacked, j Uncle Sam would come to our rescue.

Mr. MONK.

Would my hon. friend men- I tion the name of anybody who has ad- < vanced that theory? <

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I read it, in the first 1 place, in the Blue press of the province of Quebec; in the next place, it was expounded the other evening, during a three hours' ! speech, by the ally of my hon. friend, the ex-member for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa. If that is the policy of the little Canadians, i how undignified that language is, especial- ; ly if it is endorsed by a gentleman in whose c veins runs blue blood; how undignified it is that we, a free people on this con- < Mr. LEMIEUX.

tinent, should dream of relying upon the United States for defence in case we were attacked. Mark well, Sir, those who invoke the Monroe doctrine claim that they are better Canadians than we are; they denounce us as traitors to our country and our constitution. What is the effect of the Monroe doctrine? Does it apply to Canada? Every one who has read history knows that between 1811 and 1823 the Spanish dependencies of South America and of Central America declared their independence. That was at the time of the congress of Vienna, quite an historical event, at the beginning of the last century, in Europe. Then, was formed among the large nations of the world what has been called in history, the Holy Alliance. It was feared in the United States that the Bourbon dynasty, :whieh had been ousted from its throne in Spain, might be represented in South America or Central America by one of its descendants. Then it was that President Monroe, backed by the diplomacy of Great Britain, through the strong hand of one of her best diplomats, Canning, issued the famous message which has since become historical. Let me quote from that message to see how it would apply to Canada:

The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favour of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that, of America. The difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it therefore to candour and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any position of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

And then the President adds:

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere.

So, if the Monroe doctrine is the consolation of the so-called anti-militarist party, let me say to them that in case of the invasion of Canada by a foreign power, we could not rely on the help of the United States. There is nothing

in the message of a nature to guarantee to European sovereigns the maintenance of their American possessions intact against any possible attacks from the others in the event of a European war. There is no warrant is history and it is a simple distortion of the facts to pretend that we are in the least protected by the Monroe doctrine. The acceptance of that doctrine under such circumstances would be unworthy of any true patriotic Canadian. In case of war, say, between Germany and England, we would be belligerents according to international law, Monroe doctrine or no Monroe doctrine. Our young men would enlist, and Canada would be the chief source of food supply to the mother country as she partially is to-day. We all know that the food supply of a fighting nation is contraband of war, and therefore we would find that our ships would be seized or attacked and we could not rely upon the Monroe doctrine to protect these ships carrying the food supplies of Canada to the mother country. There is no warrant in history for the assumption that the Monroe doctrine protects us and it is, I repeat, unworthy of any true, patriotic Canadian to utter such a fallacy. It has been stated that we have no obligations towards Great Britain. My hon. friend said in so many words that what we have secured, we have secured through our own energy, through our own courage, through our own blood and through our own grit. I admit that our ancestors fought, but did they fight against Great Britain? My hon. friend referred a moment ago to 1837 and 1838. The patriots who rebelled in 1837 and 1838 did not fight Great Britain, or British institutions, or the British Crown. They rebelled against the Family Compact. They were only too prone and too happy to claim their privilege of British citizenship and if my hon. friend the member for Jacques Cartier will read one or two of the first paragraphs of the famous 92 resolutions presented to parliament by Papineau and Bedard he will see that the men of ' 37 and 38 ' were only claiming their rights as British citizens. I say, Sir. that we have obligations towards the motheT country, that we are interested primarily to see her in the future, as she has been during the last century, the mistress of the seas. We are interested primarily in maintaining her supremacy, because we know that that supremacy has been the means of vindicating throughout not only the British dominions, but throughout the civilized world, wherever there were small nations curbed by tyranny, the principles of right, of justice and liberty. We pay no tribute. We contribute nothing towards her navy. We enjoy absolute autonomy, and it is through that autonomy, and of our own free will, that we to-day undertake to

build this Canadian navy in order to help the mother country in first defending our own coasts and co-operating loyally with her in case of emergency. The Conservatives say that the Liberal party and the Prime Minister have altered their policy. They quote in the province of Quebec, one iine from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in 1902 in which he stated that this young country was not to be drawn into the vortex of militarism. To that expression of the Liberal* policy I assent as I assented a moment ago to the words spoken by His Excellency the Governor General. We are not a military party. We are a Canadian party. If we were for militarism we would accept the doctrine propounded by some of the hon. gentlemen opposite. We would throw our money into the British exchequer without counting, without discussing; we would send our men, without calling parliament, and without putting the regulations of our militia and of our navy under the control of the Canadian government. But, Sir, the Canadian constitution, give us, as British subjects, a salutary check-a check which we can impose even on His Majesty the King. Yes, Sir, that is no new doctrine. Let me quote from Lord Camden:

I will maintain it to my latest hour; taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or his representative.

That is sound British doctrine, the doctrine for which Hampden fought, but I suppose he was only a pedant according to my hon. friend. Hampden and Pym stood and fought for such a principle and it is embalmed and ingrained in the British constitution of to-day. Yes, parliament can impose a salutary check even on His Majesty the King. I am not disloyal, Mr. Speaker, in uttering such words. Let me read again from Lord Camden:

To fix the era when the Commons began is perilous and destructive; to fix it in Edward's or Henry's reign is owing to the idle dreams of some whimsical, ill-judging antiquaries; but this point is too important to be left to such wrong-headed people. When did the House of Commons begin? When, My Lords? It began with the constitution. There is not a blade of grass growing in the most obscure corner of this kingdom which is not, which was not ever, represented since the constitution began. There is not a blade of grass which when taxed was not taxed by consent of the proprietor.

Lord Camden must have been a very disloyal subject indeed, and I am surprised he did not leave his head on the block in those dark days of despotism. Happily, the doc-

trine he propounded is engraved in the British constitution.

We are told in the province of Quebec that this naval policy is a new idea, that it is being sprung on the electors of the Dominion. My hon. friend made that statement in the county of Jacques Cartier. Sir, I read the other day, on my return to Canada, with the greatest pleasure the very able speech-worthy of being called an essay-in which my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) gave a synopsis of the various imperial conferences held in London since 1887. I read that speech carefully and would like to have it read by every youth in this country. I commend it not only to the young men of the English speaking provinces but to the young men in the province of Quebec. They will there learn that the idea of a Canadian navy is not a new one, that it is not a new fancy of the Prime Minister. They will see that as far back as 1887 the question was mooted at the imperial conference. It was not discussed at Ottawa in 1893, because, as stated by my hon. friend, that conference had been summoned, not by the British government, but by the colonies. But it came up very prominently at the conference of 1902, and in the light of that conference, those who say that this policy of a Canadian navy is a new one and that the people ought to be consulted regarding it, are singularly ignorant of the facts. Why, the policy embodied in the Bill we are now discussing, the very ideas expressed in that Bill, are to be found in the declaration made in the name of Canada during the imperial conference of 1902. I hope I am not detaining you too long

Go on.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

But as I intend this speech of mine to be circulated among the French Canadians of the province of Quebec, I wish to make this quotation which is to be found in the appendix page 73 of the return for 1902:

The Canadian ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborne respecting a navy, and by Mr. St. John Brodrick respecting the army. The ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much frbm the expense involved, as from a belief that the acceptance of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial government. Canada values highly the measure of local independence which has been granted her 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 ap-Mr. LEMIEUX.

preciate the duty of the Dominion, as it advances in population and wealth, to make more liberal outlay for these necessary preparations of self-defence which every country has to assume and hear.

At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the-naval system of defence as well. On the sea coast of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early date a system may he devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.

In conclusion, the ministers repeat that while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purposes of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures should be so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which she now hears; and have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of the experienced imperial officers, so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self-government, which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.

Reading that state paper, left in the hands of the secretary of the imperial conference of 1902, one can find the very principle, the very theory of the Bill we are now discussing.

I say that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he declared to his electors, a few days before the session that the country had been taken by surprise, either had not read the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister in 1902 or laid himself open to that other reproach of having assented during the session following the imperial conference of 1902 to the policy then advocated by the Prime Minister.

Mr. MONK.

I have read very carefully not only that, but the different views expressed by the Prime Minister during the conference of 1907.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

In this document, the right hon. the Prime Minister anticipated, so to speak, the legislation being presented to the House to-day. In 1907, he refused to he led by the Hon. Dr. Smart and by Mr. Jameson who were then propounding a militarist policy. The right hon. gentleman differed from them, but he adhered firmly to his declaration of 1902, and when the affairs of this country became more prosperous, when he found that the financial crisis and its effect had passed away, he came out boldly with the policy advocated in 1902. I say further that the resolution unanimously adopted on the 29th March, 1909, is based on that state

-paper. My hon. friend should blush before declaring war on the government, as he is doing in the province of Quebec, when he himself was here and agreed to that resolution. My hon. friend says and his friends in the province of Quebec contend that we should submit this question to a plebiscite. Sir, I have only one answer to make to my hon. friend, and it is the answer of the knight-errant of whom he spoke a moment ago. When there is arising in this country a question of duty, not only towards the Crown, but towards the native land, there is no need of a plebiscite. A knight-errant is impelled by a deep sentiment of loyalty and chivalry to accomplish his duty, and has not to consult the country, because he knows fully well that the country is at heart with him, just as the city of Ottawa was at heart with the government on Saturday last.