February 24, 1910

FIRST READING.


Bill (No. 146) respecting the Kingston, Smith s Falls and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.


QUESTIONS.

NEW YORK CANALS-USE BY . CANADIANS.

CON

George Halsey Perley (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY:

Have Canadian vessels carrying freight the right to use the canals of the state of New York? If so, what statute authorizes it? If not, what statute or regulation prevents it?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEW YORK CANALS-USE BY . CANADIANS.
Permalink
LIB

Allen Bristol Aylesworth (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH.

By the treaty of Washington the government of the United States engaged to urge upon the state governments to secure to British subjects, the use of the several state canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by, or contiguous to, the boundary line on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, but this government is not aware that such urgency has, up to the present time, been productive of any practical result.

The matter is, of course, not governed by Canadian legislation, and the government is not in a position to answer as to the legislation on the subject (if any) there may be in the state of New York.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NEW YORK CANALS-USE BY . CANADIANS.
Permalink

INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SHED AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.

LIB

Charles Arthur Gauvreau

Liberal

Mr. GAUVREAU:

To whom did the Department of Railways grant permission, if any, to erect a coal shed on the property near the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup. Who gave the permission, and when?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SHED AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Hon. G. P. GRAHAM.

In August, 1908, Mr. Doucet met Mr. T. C. Burpee, engineer of maintenance, of the Intercolonial railway at Riviere du Loup, and suggested that he be allowed to shift his coal sluce from

where it was originally (that is from the . west side of the dump to the east side) stating, that he could unload and release cars much quicker if he were allowed to do this. Mr. Burpee consented to Mr. Doucet making the above change, as it would be in the interest of the railway, 'but no authority was given to erect a coal shed at the place mentioned.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SHED AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.
Permalink

PETAWAWA MILITARY REVIEW.

CON

Gerald Verner White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GERALD WHITE.

I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Militia is not in his seat, as I wish to draw his attention to an article in last night's 'Journal' as follows:

The arrangements for the great review of Canadian troops at Petawawa military camp when General Sir John French, one of the idols of the British public, visits Canada, are becoming more definite.

The expectation is that Sir John French will be here next June, and that the occasion of his visit will be utilized to have a review of as many troops as it is possible to gather together at one time at Petawawa.

It is likely that all city and rural corps from Toronto on the west, and Quebec on the east at least, will be assembled, during June, and be reviewed by the famous commander. This will mean, if the arrangements are perfected, that there will be no camps at such places as Rockliffe or Brockville this year.

The question of transportation of the troops is one of the chief problems, but it is learned that the railways have been consulted, and that this portion of the arrangements will be negotiated with thoroughness.

It will be remembered that last year when the 'Journal' made this announcement first, its contemporaries rushed into fierce denials, based on interviews with unnamed ' high officials ' of the Militia Department.

I would like to ask if this statement is correct, and if so, when this review will take place and how many troops will take part in it?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PETAWAWA MILITARY REVIEW.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.

I am sorry my colleague is not in his seat, but I will see that the question is put to him, and he will probably answer it to-morrow.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PETAWAWA MILITARY REVIEW.
Permalink

NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.


House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.


CON

Charles Joseph Doherty

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (Montreal, St. Anne).

May I be permitted, in opening, to express the gratification, which I am sure is felt by all the members of this House, on seeing the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in his seat, thus indicating my right hon.

friend's complete recovery from his recent indisposition, which we all regretted an i in which we all sympathized with him. But, to my regret, I have to follow that expression by the admission that I felt somewhat pained that my right hon. friend should, so soon after his return, be called on to listen to my contribution to that dissonant cacophony, which emanating from this side, has had such a jarring effect on the right hon. gentleman's musical ear. That euphonious expression, by which he characterized our contribution to the discussion of this subject forms part of a scolding which the right hon. gentleman thought necessary to bestow on hon. members on this side with perfect impartiality when he introduced the Bill under discussion. He scolded us for talking and producing thereby a dissonant cacophony; he scolded us also when we were silent, because our silence gave rise to all sorts of apprehensions in his imagination with regard to the thoughts that were passing through our minds; but he scolded us most severely because, when we proceeded to deliberate upon this important question, so frought with serious consequences to our common country and the empire of which we form a part, he found that we had gone quite beyond anything he could be expected to forgive. I am, therefore, at some difficulty to conceive precisely what line of conduct would, under the circumstances, have won for us my right hon. friend's approval. And it occurred to my mind that he might perhaps have expected us to follow the line of conduct, followed in his parliamentary career by a certain great naval hero, who once occupied the position and played the role of the First Lord of the Admiralty in the British cabinet, and which is aptly described in that great naval composition, familiar to most of us in the days of our youth, entitled, 'Her'Majesty's Ship Pinafore.' That very distinguished gentleman, as he strode his deck in all the pride and pomp of power, was wont to tell admiring audiences of his previous parliamentary career, and how he specially prided himself that throughout that career-

He bad always voted at bis party's call And never thought of thinking for himself at all.

But the right hon. gentleman should not have expected that line of conduct from us, even if he had expected us to live up to the record of that great naval hero; because he should have remembered that that distinguished man went on to add the reason and explanation of his conduct, and to tell his aforesaid admiring audiences that:

I thought so little they rewarded me

By making me the ruler of the King's navee.

On this side we could look forward to no such enticing consequence of our following the example of that very great man. I do not mean to insinuate, because I desire to refrain from any insinuation that might be in the slightest degree offensive, I do not mean to insinuate that, in consequence oi that natural human feeling prevailing among all my distinguished and hon. friends who sit on that side of the House, they may hope, by following the example, to attain the reward that came to that distinguished man, and all find themselves rulers of the King's navee-or, perhaps, I ought to say, under this Bill, of the Governor in Council's navy.

After the right hon. gentleman had administered to us that powerful castigation in the course of which, with his rhetorical bludgeon, he came [DOT] down heavily on the phylacterial foreheads of the Pharisees whom he saw sitting opposite him, as well as on the bare brows of the unrepentant publicans whom he also suspected of taking a view adverse to the measure he was introducing, he seemed to be in the humour which is sometimes attributed as peculiar to my own fellow countrymen, namely, whenever he sees a head to hit it. And so he hit all those bobbing up heads on this side of the House with perfect impartiality; and then, I have no doubt, he looked round on his own side of the House, to see if there was not an odd one that he could give a whack to, and as he did not find it, why, he evoked the ghost of our dear old friend, that holy man, Peter the Hermit. I have been wondering ever since whether that holy man has had time to get his halo on perfectly straight since the right hon. gentleman came down so heavily on him. But, Mr. Speaker, my reference to this scolding, which ended by a contrast which the right hon. gentleman drew between the gentlemen who s't on this side of the House and himself in particular, and those who entertain the same opinions with him, was merely to point out that so far as that scolding applied to myself, I have nothing to say but to plead guilty to the reproach that was levelled at me. Fortunately for me, I was not among those who had spoken, I had not as yet, at that time contributed to the dissonant cacophony he complained of. If I had had that misfortune, I do not know that I would have recovered as perfectly as I have from the effects of that scolding. I have wondered how the gentlemen to whom it was applied had managed to recover so completely. I do not know anything that could be more awful than to be so accused of creating this dissonance, unless indeed it were that one should find himself in the awful predicament of having been named by yourself,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY.

Mr. Speaker; and even then, I have the most absolute confidence that if you ever found yourself under the painful necessity of naming, say, myself, your kindness of heart would prevent you from calling me any such awful names. But, Mr. Speaker, I was among the men who ventured to think; there were many others, I think I may say all those on this side of the House, who were entitled to share the right hon. gentleman's scolding for having thought. We deliberated in the morning, and we deliberated in the evening, and I am not quite sure that some of us did not even lie awake at night thinking about this great question. For my part, I confess my share of guilt in that respect, and I say it with that legitimate pride that a man may take in the conscientious performance of as solemn a duty as any member was ever called upon to fulfil in his capacity of a representative of the people of this country, and as such to take part in the decision of probably the most momentous question that has presented itself for decision by this House since this House has existed.

Having said so much with regard to what was said in opening this debate, it is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to go into any other matter that might rise to a difference of opinion upon any question, either of party politics or personal conduct. We are in face of a question that is quite beyond any considerations based either on the past personal conduct of any individual in this House, or the past record of either of the parties who sit face to face before you. It seems to me that the question before us imposes on each and every one of us the duty of approaching it so far as possible free from the influence either- of party feeling or of race feeling, or of those feelings that may be engendered in the human heart by difference of creed, or by differences resulting from points of view of the different sections in the community to which he belongs.

We are the parliament of Canada. It is as such that we are called upon to deal with the momentous questions that are involved in the project of the government and in the amendments to it that are proposed. .What Canada has a right to expect from us is the calm, the most judicial exercise of the best judgment which Heaven has conferred upon each one of us. We are here as the parliament of Canada, charged, in the first place, so far as we are a legislative body, with the making of laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. But we are here also as the parliament of Canada charged with something that is more important than that-charged with the protection, the preservation of the rights of this great country, whose destinies an all-wise and beneficent

Providence has committed to our hands. We are charged with the defence of the interests of that great country; but charged -and this is even more important still- with seeing to it that the duties of that great country are so performed as to preserve before the eyes of the world intact and above suspicion, our country's honour.

Mr. Speaker, the Tight hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), after he had condemned others for standing in the temple and claiming, Pharisee-like, to be the only right exponents of the true doctrine of what our duties are toward the empire of which we are a part, and for having take to themselves credit for possessing alone the true incense of loyalty, proceeded, as it seemed to me, to almost out-Pharisee the Pharisee as he thanked God that he and others who thought with him were Canadians-and consigned all the rest of us to outer darkness, where, though there be not weeping and gnashing of teeth, yet, according to him, there is nothing but ultraloyalty, ultra-imperialism, and, above all, the most fierce hostility to the autonomy of this countrv. Mr. Speaker, I desire to protest against the drawing of the line which the right hon. gentleman thought he could draw between those who support him and those who find it their duty to object to the measure that he has proposed. I claim no special quality or virtue for myself when I say that I, too, am a Canadian in as full, as complete, as wide a sense as the right hon. gentleman may seek to give to the expression. I think that we in this House are two hundred and twenty-one Canadians, each of us realizing with pride what it means to be a Canadian, and none of us forgetting what it means to be a Canadian. Because, Mr. Speaker, when I say that I am a Canadian, I say it with the memory clearly in my mind of the answer that was given, about a hundred and fifty years ago at the capitulation of that great city in which I had the honour to be born, and a portion of which I have the greater honour to represent in this House. When to the general representing the .conquering army was put the question as to what was to be, in future the status of the inhabitants of the territories which then constituted the province of Quebec, his answer was: 'They become subjects of the King,' Sir, that means that from that day, to be a Canadian, while it implied the right to profess oneself a son and devoted citizen of this country, also carried with it _ the right to proclaim oneself a British subject. For' my part, I know no dividing line between the two. That answer, when it was given, perhaps fell with a harsh sound on the ears of those who had put the question. But that answer contained in itself the charter of the liberties that we in this country enjoy to-day and that, for my

part, I trust we and our children's children shall, through the ages that are to come, continue to enjoy under the same title. No doubt, there were at that time some disabilities that affected certain classes of persons who might be British subjects, but they have long since been brushed away until even their memory has been forgotten, and, to-day, as Canadian subjects of the King, we are entitled to the enjoyment of as wide a plentitude of liberty as is enjoyed by any people on the face of the earth. It is for that reason that I say that the right hon. gentleman was not acting the part of the publican- not confessing himself in all humanity a sinner-but playing rather the part of the Pharisee, when he claimed as his own, exclusive possession the title of Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I approach the consideration of this question as a Canadian. At this stage of the debate, I do not think that it can possibly be questioned that the main feature of this measure is that it makes of it a measure for contribution on the part of Canada to imperial defence. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). in his very eloquent speech of yesterday afternoon, was at pains to minimize what the government propose to do until he got it down to so small a thing that he felt justified in describing it as a maritime police.

I do not know what conception the hon. gentleman had of what the functions of this maritime police were going to be. So far as I know, piracy on the high seas is not very prevalent. So far as I know, no great country, or little country, in this world finds itself to-day called upon to establish and maintain a maritime police for the protection of its trade and commerce. Why, Sir, the protection of the trade and commerce of Canada, in common with the protection of the trade and commerce of the world in general, is found in the fact of the existence of the great and powerful navies of the great civilized countries of the world, the very existence of which navies serves to protect the universal commerce against any danger from depredators and malefactors. As far as I know, the function of a police is to attend to people of that character. But in spite of all the efforts which are made for the purpose with a view of affecting-it is not for me to indicate or point out with what view it is done-of making this thing that is proposed appear something which it is not, I feel absolutely safe in saying that this measure comes before us as a measure intended, or professing to be introduced, for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation on Canada's part to contribute to the defence of the empire. Now, with the question of whether what is proposed is or is not effective to that end I do not propose to deal. It has been exhaustively, if not exhaustingly dealt with, I think,

already, but I say as a basis of what I desire to present to the House, that to my mind it is an uncontrovertible proposition that this Bill is before this House because it purports to be the first step on the part of Canada in the direction of establishing a permanent policy of participation in and contribution to the maintenance of an imperial naval force and of sharing in the naval defence of the empire as a whole. I wish it to be well understood that I do not desire to object to this measure because of that fact, but because, to me, it is absolutely clear that that fact carries with it consequences-I desire to correct myself, because that fact implies-necessarily implies-compliance with conditions precedent to the carrying out of. this proposed policy, to which conditions the right hon. gentleman and his government, who pride themselves on being in a very special and particular manner the guardians of the autonomy of this country, have never given a thought, at all events, so far as we can hope to trace the result of -their thoughts in their actions. Mr. Speaker, a navy is essentially a force that finds its field of operations on the high seas. To talk of a purely defence navy, that is a navy that is always to stay at home, is to speak of a navy whose usefulness is to be reduced, if not abolutely, almost to the vanishing point. A navy, since it does not seem to me that in times of peace we need it for that police duty which looms up so large, and forms such an important part of the measure in the eyes of the hon. member for Beauce, is a something that is to he used in war, and a something that is to be used in war upon the high seas. I do not pretend to speak with any authority upon this subject, but I think I may invoke in support of the proposition which I have laid down the testimony of as competent an authority as is known by any hon. member, or members, of this House, and an authority which is invoked in support of their respective contentions by hon. gentlemen advocating the one or the other of the propositions which are before the House. I mean the British admiralty. We find a memorandum on sea power submitted by them to the colonial conference of 1907, in which they set forth the principles which are involved in sea power. After a long disquisition upon the different functions of the navy, we read the following: -

In the foregoing remarks the word ' defence ' does not appear. It is omitted advisedly because the primary object of the British navy is not to defend anything

We are evidently going to have a navy that is not going to be on the plan of the British navy, and still the British navy has to its credit some successes.

But to attack the fleets of the enemy, and, by defeating them, to afford protection to Mr. DOHERTY.

British dominions, shipping and commerce. This is the ultimate aim.

To use the word defence would be misleading, because the word carries with it the idea of a thing to be defended, which would divert attention to local defence instead of fixing it on the force from which attack is to be expected.

I lie traditional role of the British navy is not to act on the defensive, but to prepare to attack the force which threatens-in ocher words, to assume the offensive. On one occasion England departed from her traditional policy, and acting on the defensive, kepc her ships in harbour unrigged and unmanned, with the result that the Dutch fleet sailed up the Medway and burnt the ships of war ac their moorings.

I think that justifies me in saying that the navy is not a weapon of defence, it is a weapon of offence. And I think there is something almost prophetic in the declaration of these distinguished gentlemen that to use the word ' defence ' would be misleading. But, Mr. Speaker, the word 'defence' is used by hon. gentlemen on the other side with redundant reiteration and repetition, as an excuse for the creation of this navy. I need only say, in the words of the Lords of the Admiralty, that the use of the word 'defence' is misleading. I shall not take it upon myself to say for what purpose or with what intention hon. gentle-ment opposite say that this navy is for defence. I am not concerned in this or in any other discussion with mens' motives. If a measure a man proposes or the thing a man proposes doing commends itself to my mind as a desirable thing to be done, I shall support it no matter how bad his motives may be. On the other hand, if the measure proposed, or the thing suggested as a thing that ought to be done, does not commend itself to my judgment I shall not advocate it no matter how good may be the motives of him who proposes it; I am, therefore, not concerned in the slightest degree with what may be the motives that underlie either the terms of this measure itself or the terms in which it is supported and defended. But I do say, and in that sense I do not think my language can be taken as offensive, that the word 'defence,' as applied to this navy is misleading. One might properly apply to naval warfare, and indeed to any warfare, the theory which that very shrewd and very entertaining Yankee horse trader, David Harum, found of direct application in his own business. True, it is a very unscriptural rule, but after all war is a very unscriptural thing-and so is horse trading. David Harum said that the one rule to which you must always adhere when you went out to trade a horse was to do unto the other fellow as the other fellow would like to do unto you, and do it first. Mr. Speaker, the navy that is going to be

exclusively for defence and to wait until the other fellow comes over to do it first won't do very much second. In the very nature of things, therefore, it is impossible to conceive of a navy that is purely for local defence. The field of a navy's operations, the very purpose of its existence and that which is necessary in order that its operations should be effective puts the idea of mere local defence out of the question. And, when we propose to establish a naval force-call it what we like and talk as much as we like about absolute and exclusive control of it, and about keeping it absolutely for ourselves and about letting nobody else get any good out of it unless this parliament says in each particular instance what it shall do-unless we are going to condemn it to absolute uselessness we shall find that we shall have to submit to its going from beyond the control of the governing authority of this country and taking its share in whatever operations may be necessary in war time upon the wide field of the ocean. If these operations are going to be carried out effectively at all they must in the very essence of things be carried out under one central control. I am not advocating that this ought to be so or that it ought not to be so, but we are face to face with the fact that if we are going to have a useful navy wo cannot have a stay-at-home navy. And, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a useless navy, why, we might a little better keep our money. Therefore, Sir, the overshadowing feature of this measure by which we intend to create a naval force is that it of necessity leads us into the situation that we cannot avoid participation in the wars which may result from the foreign policy of the mother country, and, by that foreign policy we are absolutely bound because the mother country exclusively-and under our existing conditions absolutely rightly-has control of the foreign relations which pertain not only to herself, but to all her colonies. After all, a navy is a weapon that is used to enforce the respective rights of the different nations, to vindicate the rights of one nation may consider that there has been a violation of its rights. It seems, therefore, to follow as clearly as can be that the control of a navy force is a function ol the power which controls the foreign policy-the policy that governs the conduct of the nation towards other nations - that a nqvy is called upon to enforce. From that it would seem to me fairly to follow that the condition precedent to our undertaking to participate in the naval defence of the empire is that we should be given an effective voice in the governing and determination of the foreign relations of the empire. When I lay down that proposition I am not saying something merely on my own

authority. You will find repeated statements of very distinguished British statesmen recognizing the absolute correlation of participation in naval defence and participation in the control of the policy which the naval forces of the empire are called upon to defend. In the conference of 1907, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, a statesmen whose memory I am sure is revered on both sides of this House, expressly declared, in language which was perhaps not the most elegant in the world, although it was essentially forcible:

It is, of course, possible to over estimate the importance of the requirements of the oversea dominions as a factor in our expenditure; but however this may be, che cost of naval defence and the responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs hang together.

The language, though not very eloquent, could not well be more concise or forcible. Then we have the declaration of Lord Tweedmouth, in which, speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, and quoting words which he attributed to the right hon. leader of this government: ' If you want our aid, call us to your councils', his lordship expressly recognized that that was a perfectly proper requirement, that the two things corresponded absolutely, and expressed the readiness of the United Kingdom, if the dominions asked for it, to call them to her councils. Now, I want to say that I do not share his lordship's views in pointing out how that calling to the councils could be done. I am not here to propound any theory or to lay down any plan bv which what I consider the condition precedent to our undertaking the policy which is proposed may be carried out. What I desire to do is simply to make clear that the finding of a way by which we may have a voice, and a real voice, in the control of the foreign policy of the empire, is an essential condition precedent to our embarking upon any permanent policy of participating in the maintenance of naval forces, that that is an essential condition precedent, if our autonomy, to which the right' hon. gentleman attaches such great importance, and to which I may sav he does not attach one whit greater importance than I do, is to be maintained. Again, we find that the government of so small a colony as Cape Colony in presenting her resolution found it necessary at the conference of 1907, to point out that 'prior to accepting the burden and expenditure of such a responsibility (participating in the naval defence of the empire), the colonies would require to be represented on an imperial council at which questions concerning, inter alia, the peace of the whole empire be discussed*. And, finally, I may cite an authority which I may say, with me, carries very considerable weight. It is a work written by Professor Lawrence Lowell, pro-

fessor of the science of government at Harvard University, and, if I am correctly informed, its present president. It is a work written in a spirit which certainly no one can suspect of being hostile, which on the contrary is manifestly most friendly to both the mother country and all of her colonies, and a work which evidences a careful study of the principles and operation of British institutions, which entitles the conclusions reached to the acceptance of any one who has carefully read the premises upon which they are based. Dealing with this question of the relations between the mother country and the colonies, Professor Lowell, says:

While, therefore, the tie with the self-governing colonies might conceivably be put to a severe strain by war, that is highly improbable so long as England maintains a sufficient navy. But, in spite of her wealth, the burden of holding the seas against all the world has grown so heavy as to make her want the colonies, for whose joint benefit she conceives that she carries it, to bear their share, and this cannot be done without giving them a real voice in the foreign policy which the navy may be used to enforce.

Now, Mr? Speaker, I am not using this argument for the purpose of reaching the conclusion that we should never do anything to contribute to the maintenance of England's naval forces, or that we should never do anything to so contribute by means of a navy which we would provide ourselves. I am not seeking to invoke this principle as a ground upon which I would desire to see Canada, my country, shirk any duty or any obligation which the highest sense of honour might lead her to feel was incumbent upon her.

What I desire to point out is that, under our constitution, there is no obligation on the part of Canada, legally or constitutionally speaking, to contribute to the naval forces of the empire, and that position will continue to exist so long as the United Kingdom alone has exclusive control of the foreign affairs of the empire. It does not follow, however, that there is an insuperable obstacle in the way of our ever doing anything to aid the naval forces of the empire ; but what follows is that there is an obstacle to be removed before" we do that, if we are both going to aid the imperial navy' and continue at the same time to enjoy our own autonomy. It is most essential, right and proper, that the portion of the empire which charges itself exclusively with the burden of general imperial defence, and more particularly the naval defence, should have exclusive control of its foreign policy. To the hand that wields the sword of empire essentially belongs the right to wield the sceptre of empire. But it is represented that time has come when we should begin to take our part in the general defence of the empire, Mr. DOHERTY.

particularly the naval defence, and it is because this is recognized by the present government that we have before us the Bill that we are now considering. I have no desire to controvert that proposition. I am quite prepared to recognize that whereas Canada, up to the present, has been in the position of a protected colony, while she has been in the position of a child in the nursery or a youth just emerging from the nursery and therefore entitled to look to its parent for protection, or at most had reached that stage where it might properly be expected that she should take care of herself, she has now advanced to the position of a young man who has reached a certain maturity, who has gone out and established his own home, but is still under the advice, guidance and protection of his parents, and who has amassed for himself a certain competency and power. I am quite willing to concede that under those circumstances, it is perfectly proper that the parent should say to him: It is time that you should aid me in carrying the burdens which I have to bear; it is time that you, as a man, should aid me in the difficulties that may be created for me by troublesome and litigious neighbours ; it is time that you should stand by me and aid me, even at the expense of some portion of your wealth, and that you should bear your share of the consequences of the enterprise in>

which I am engaged- enterprises which, as they redound to my benefit and advantage directly, must indirectly redound likewise to yours. This proposition I would be quite prepared to accept. But it seems to me that the youth who, on reaching maturity, is asked to share in the consequences of the operations of his parents, should also have the corresponding, inseparable right to have his say in the control of the operations for which he is to be held jointly responsible. Should he take that position, I do not think it can be urged that he would be going beyond his rights. But it may be argued that even although that be Canada's right, she is within her right if she should choose to renounce it. I question that proposition. I have said that that was Canada's right, but I think I would have described the position more correctly had I said that that was Canada's duty. I realize that Canada, in taking upon her shoulders her share of the responsibility for the control of foreign affairs would be assuming a burden possibly more onerous even than a contribution to the forces of the empire.

I recognize that she would be taking an immense responsibility from which, I can well understand, men might shrink to the extent of saying that Canada had better take her shaTe in the defence of the empire, had better contribute to that defence in one way or the other, had better

contribute her share in tiding the mother country in the wars of the empire without asking for any voice in the control of foreign affairs, that it would be better for her to have nothing to do with assuming any such grave responsibility. That would be easier for Canada. I do not deny that proposition. It certainly would be easier for Canada, but we, in this parliament, are charged with something that is of vastly greater importance than the interests or even the rights of this country. We are charged with seeing to the performance by this country of its duties; and I say that for us to undertake to create a force to be used in war, and to declare at the same time that we divest ourselves of any responsibility, with regard to the wars in which this force might be used, is not simply to renounce a right, but it is to shirk a duty.

And, of all the things that we should not stand by and see our country do, still less so conduct the affairs of our country as to place her in the position of doing, I know of none that we should guard ourselves more absolutely against than that of either acquiescing in or aiding in her shirking of her duty. I have said that the autonomy of this country is as precious to me as it can be to any gentleman in this House. I include, however, in the autonomy of this country something more than the exclusive control of her material resources and the exclusive holding on to and retaining for ourselves of her money. There are things that, to a man as well as to a nation, are of value far surpassing worldly goods, far surpassing wealth, whether it consist of the ostensible wealth of money ot of those other things which go to constitute the real wealth of the world. If we are to have our autonomy, it seems to me that not only the control of our own internal affairs must be our own, not only must we keep it in our hands, not only must we retain for ourselves the administration and direction of the affairs of this our country, our particular portion of the empire to which that country belongs, but we must retain for ourselves and for our nation the right to claim that her soul is her own, that her conscience is her own. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to have it concluded that, because I say this, I am expressing any distrust in the authorities who now control the foreign affairs of this great empire. I do not wish to have it supposed that I desire to imply that there is reason to apprehend that they will try to call us into war that shall be absolutely unjust and inequitable. Nothing is further from my mind than that. The proposition I lay down is this: I may have the most implicit, the most unbounded, confidence in another man-I am glad to say that I count friends in whose honour and spirit of rectitude I

have as unwavering confidence as in my own-'but I have no right ito hand over to thp most trusted of these men the keeping of my conscience. And I say that this country has no right, however great, however implicit, however absolutely complete and perfect, her confidence may be in the imperial authorities, to hand over to their keeping her conscience. And there is no question which can present itself for solution to a nation that more closely and immediately touches its conscience than the question of when, and why, and against whom, her armed force is to be used. So, I say, I am not standing here merely claiming that we should not take our share in the burdens of defence because we are not given the right to a voice-because it is not recognized we have the right to a voice-in the control of the foreign policy; I am here to say that, when this duty is presented to us of our taking a share in the maintenance of the naval forces of this empire, there is necessarily presented to us at the same time another duty, the duty of our taking our share in the'heavy burden of the control of the foreign affairs of this empire. And I say that we are not at liberty to choose to do the one duty and refuse to do the other, because these two duties are inseparably bound up together. I have said that I am not arguing this proposition as a reason against the passing of the Bill, which is submitted to us and which purports to commit us to a policy of permanent participation in the maintenance of the naval forces of this empire, because I *seek to make use of it to evade any duty that is incumbent upon us in the way of aid to the empire from the point of view of what an honourable man or an honourable country ought to do; I had rather err-much rather err-on our country's behalf, as I had much rather err on my own behalf, in doing a little more than honour would require of men than run any risk of doing less than honour would require of me. Mr. Speaker, it is not an impossible thing that our relations should be so adjusted with the different nations that are comprised in this empire as that the doing of both these duties should be possible for us. As I have said, I am not here to propound a plan; I am not here to advocate a plan. I am here simply to point out what is a duty inseparably bound up with the duty which the government aTe asking us, by means of this Bill, to implement. And I say that it is for those who present this duty to us for our fulfilment to suggest and present, at the same time, a plan and a means by which we be enabled to fulfil the duty that goes with it. .

I say that until that plan has been found, and presented, and adopted, we 1 are failing in our most imperious duty

from the point of view of the maintenance of the autonomy of this country, in undertaking to commit ourselves to the performance of that other duty involved in the project that is now submitted to us. It is proposed that this country should have no autonomy in its own soul. It is a poor man, Mr. Speaker, that cannot call his soul his own. It seems to me that with all her wealth, Canada will be a poor country indeed if she is not to be allowed to call her soul her own. I am not saying this by way of trying to raise an insuperable obstacle in the way of the performance of this other duty. I concede that there are immense difficulties in the way of constituting a system that will make it possible for us to have a voice in the councils of the empire, so far. alone as foreign relations are concerned, and at the same time leave to us our present autonomous position. This I concede, and I repeat again that I have no more desire to sacrifice one tittle of our autonomy than any other man in this House, or in this country. I concede that it is a difficult problem. But, Mr. Speaker, the statesmen of the mother country and the statesmen of thi3 country have faced difficult problems before, and have overcome them. I concede that the problem is difficult, and I concede that it is immensely difficult precisely because I, for one, would insist that that problem must bd so solved as to take from us no power of control over our own affairs that we have to-day. I have no more desire, I would no more consent to the intervention of any other power in the government of this country as we have a right to govern it to-day, than I would seek on her behalf a right to interfere in any way with the government of the United Kingdom, or any other of the nations of the empire. But it does not seem to me an impossible thing that the foreign relations of this empire should be guided and controlled by a body composed of representatives of all the different nations that constitute this empire; and it does not seem to me an impossible thing to find a means whereby to determine to what extent each one of those nations is properly entitled to a voice in the determinatin of the questions to which those foreign relations give rise. All these things are possible. If what I have said is true, that this participation in the control of foreign affairs goes hand in hand with the performance of this other duty that we are asked to fulfil to-day, then it is necessarily true that means can be found whereby that duty may be performed. There is no duty incumbent upon any man or any nation that providence has not made possible of fulfilment; and I believe myself thoroughly that without any sacrifice of our autonomy as we have it today, a means can be found of so adjust-Mr. DOHERTY.

ing our position and the position of other nations of this empire, as to create a situation where it would be quite right and proper that we should take over the burden of our share of the maintenance of the fighting forces of the empire, because then these fighting forces will be an instrument to enforce decisions which we have reached, and for which v*c shall have to share responsibility. So I say that we should not enter upon a course which means participation in the naval wars of the empire without first seeing to it that the means are provided for the performance of our part of this other duty from which, to my mind, it is absolutely inseparable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, may I contrast for a moment this, as it seems to me, necessary method of the protection of our autonomy with what is offered to us by the government as the means of that protection. The method by which the government proposes to protect our autonomy consists simply, as it claims, in the fact that under the provisions of the Bill the government would be at liberty in time of emergency, that is when war is on, or there is immediate apprehension of war, to withdraw absolutely from any participation in the war. Now, Mr. Speaker, just let us look at this for a moment from the point of view of a man who is trying to guard Canada's autonomy. What does it imply, Mr. Speaker? We are proceeding to buiid a navy as the consequence of and following upon a conference to which our representatives were invited, which was a conference concerning imperial defence. We went to that conference by our representatives. They have returned to Canada, and they have brought us a plan prepared by the imperial authorities as being a means whereby we should contribute to a greater or less extent to imperial defence. The government proposes to go on and carry out that plan under the direction, with the guidance, with the advice, with the assistance, of the imperial authorities and their representatives.

The imperial authorities, or perhaps it is more correct to say the authorities of the United Kingdom, are entitled to expect that when that force is required for the purpose for which they have joined in helping to bring it into existence, namely, the imperial defence, it will be available. That force, whatever it may be, is to go on through all the piping times- of peace with, as its commander in chief, His Majesty the King, floating the flag of the empire. This government takes credit to itself that by the creation of this navy it is making a contribution to imperial defence. It is only when the war is declared, it is only in face of the enemy, that this government proposes that Canada should decide whether its navy is going to fight or not. Mr. FEBRUARY 24, 1910

Speaker, I said in opening that I wished to treat this question with as little feeling and with as calm and judicial a judgment as I possibly could, but I have to confess that when that is proposed to me as the method of protection of the autonomy of my country, I find it difficult to keep to a calm and judicial discussion of the question. Can it be pretended for a moment that when there is war actually on, or when there is a grave apprehension of war, that is the time that this country should take it upon itself to sit in judgment upon the action of those in whose hands this country, under the system of the government, proposes to consent to leave absolutely the control of all foreign affairs? When war is on, and when this navy, created and maintained in the name of imperial defence, is called upon to bear its share that is the moment- this government choose for this country to sit down calmly and quietly and pass judgment upon the actions of the men in whose hands it has left the control of her interests as far as they are concerned with foreign affairs, determine whether those men have acted wrongly and then determine whether our fleet shall stay at home. I do not believe that the government mean to exercise that power. My feeling of partisanship does not go so far as to lead me to believe that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues mean to exercise that power under the circumstances. If they do not, I ask them where is the protection of the autonomy of which they profess themselves the sole and exclusive protectors, defenders and maintainors against all the world? If, on the other hand, the right hon. gentleman and his government propose under those circumstances to exercise that power, then I ask where is the one thing in this world that is more precious to me and more precious to all Canadians even than Canada's autonomy-where is Canada's honour? The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), told us yesterday that this measure was the result of seven years of study. Of course, I cannot doubt and I do not question the absolute truth of the hon. gentleman's statement. There have been seven long years of study given to this measure and the result is what I have indicated. I can only say that this is the most unfruitful seven years of study that it has ever been my misfortune to observe. The hon. gentleman, was very severe on the result of our deliberation in the morning and our deliberation in the evening. Those deliberations only lasted after all three weeks, and I think that they did result in the propounding of views, which, while they may have differed, bore upon their face the stamp of the consideration given by manly men to the problem, with honour, with courage and with calm judg-132

ment. That result will at least bear comparison with this policy of the government that is going to lead us to choose, which compels us practically to choose between our autonomy and our honour. We may have one, but under the right hon. gentleman's plan we cannot have both. I think that the right hon. gentleman will find that the people of Canada are determined to have both. But the right hon. gentleman has a remedy that avoids all that. There is not going to be the slightest trouble. When the difficulty comes there is going to be a wave, the right hon. gentleman is going to be carried off his feet by that wave, and these little cruisers which will show the flag in time of peace are going to be wafted over to Great Britain's assistance on the crest of that wave. The right hon. gentleman attributed to some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House a desire to sacrifice responsible government. I would ask: Since how long has responsible government been carried on by waves? Evidently the right hon. gentleman, or whoever succeeds him, will have no responsibility for *what our navy may do, because it will have been done by the wave and the right hon. gentleman, or whoever succeeds him, will have no responsibility for what our navy may perhaps not do; well, because there was not any wave.

And then possibly the right hon. gentleman, or some successor of his not as skilful as he. in determining just precisely and exactly what the wild waves are saying, may make a mistake as to what they are saying, and our navy may, perhaps, go when. it ought not to go or stay at home when it ought not to stay at home, and it all depends on what the wild waves may say, and this-this from a government that claims a monopoly of the protection of responsible government in Canada, But, Mr. Speaker, there is a more serious side to that. No doubt we all believe that if there were serious menace hanging over the mother country ot for the matter of that hanging over any nation of the empire, the people of this country -would in all normal conditions-I might almost say in all possibly conceivable conditions-be at readiness so far as was within their power to give their aid, including of course the aid of this navy. But while that is true, and while we may feel that confidence we must also realize that we cannot with satisfaction make the determination of the future conduct of this country absolutely dependent upon that particular thing happening whenever there might be a real cause for us to act. After all I do not think I am doing any injustice to the people who are to come after us or possibly to ourselves, when I say that looking at it calmly and reasonably, there might possibly coincide with the moment of urgent necessity some

passing irritation in this country that might keep the wave down. And, the wave does not require to be kept down very long, for if you have a few days of disinclination at the critical moment, the usefulness of the navy may be gone when the disinclination has disappeared, and the wave has come to a head. I say, Sir, that for a project submitted to a serious and a thinking people, for a project presented as the result of seven years of thought and meditation and contemplation and study, as the work of men desirous of seeing that this country does its duty to the other nations of the empire and to itself, this project, I have to admit, passes my comprehension. To my mind the policy of this Bill, if it has a policy, can be described as nothing else than a policy of drift. It is a policy of men who, faced with serious problems, do not choose to decide in the one sense or the other. The right hon. gentleman in introducing the Bill, prided himself that it was a measure that would meet with the approval of all moderate men, and then he looked out over this country and he described to this House the people of Canada as being in large measure composed of immoderate men to whose views no attention could be given, of men who were so separated by race feelings, local feelings, feelings of all kinds, that they never could be expected to come together and pronounce a rational judgment on a question of this kind. I think, Sir, that the right hon. gentleman unduly depreciates the people of this country. There may be and there are differences of opinion amongst the people, and I sincerely trust there will always continue to be differences of opinion on public questions as complex and as important as this, because I would despair of the intelligence of the people of this country if it were possible that they, following the glorious example set by the hon. gentlemen who sit on the government side of the House, could be of one mind on this question, without time, without thought, without consideration or examination.

I said that this policy is a policy of drift. My hon. friend the Postmaster General-I think I may say my very good friend the Postmaster General-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY.

I hope I may he able to call him such even after this debate is over.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Joseph Doherty

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOHERTY.

My hon. friend the Postmaster General described the government as engaged in steering between the shoals. It is a most excellent accomplishment to be able to steer between the shoals, for it is a very unfortunate thing when the vessel of state runs upon the shoals on the one side or upon the other. And, I have Mr. DOHERTY.

nothing but commendation for the hon. gentleman for the carefulness with which he steers between the shoals, so long as he stays in such very shallow water as this government persists in navigating the ship of state in. But, I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that when the pilot's attention is exclusively centred on steering between the shoals he may forget just where the ship is going. It is well to avoid the shoals on your way, but it is well also when you are on your Way to know where you are going, and if I had advice to offer to this government it would be that they should gather their courage together and try to face like men the consequence of the course upon which they are entering, and which at its beginnings at all events they find so beset with shoals. I believe that the people of this country are looking for men and a party of men that will come out with courage and face this difficult problem with all the difficulties that surround it; face it like men and solve it like men. I believe that what this country is looking for is not successful navigators between the shoals, but men whom they can trust to take their barque out on the wide ocean of the world and guide it through in safety. While the chart which the government is following may perhaps keep it off the shoals, I for my part do not see where it is going to lead Canada to. At the beginning of these remarks I referred to some observations of Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman upon the relations existing between the different nations of the empire. Among other things, that right hon. gentleman said:

We found ourselves, gentlemen, upon freedom and independence-that is the essence of the British imperial connection; freedom of action on the part of the individual state; freedom in their relations with each other and the mother country. Anything which militates against that principle would be wholly contrary to the genius of our race and our political ideals, and would sooner or later be disastrous. . . . Gentlemen, freedom does not necessarily mean letting things drift.

Mr. Speaker, statesmanship does not _ necessarily1 or conceivably mean letting things drift. The right hon. gentleman has said to us, in his most eloquent apology for this measure, that no government can settle questions of this nature according to the ideal view of just what ought to be done. Certainly this government is giving us a most apt particular instance in support of that proposition. But he went on to plume himself of having found a means that was going to satisfy what he calls moderate mem He looks out upon this country and he sees it divided into classes-violent men, who I suppose are seeking to destroy each other, and moderate men, who guide the ship of state in such a

manner as to bring it sufficiently near -one shoal to pacify one class of these violent men whose views the government disapprove, and who then take another tack and bring it sufficiently near the other shoal to pacify another class of violent men whose views the government also disapprove; with a result which I fancy the government will find, when the time comes for the people to speak, no party and no considerable body of men in this country will approve. In the course of that scolding to which I have referred, some of us on this side of the House were condemned for being too hot, while others of us were condemned, I think more seriously, for being too cold; and then the right hon. gentleman proceeded to pride himself on that moderate, that lukewarm, course which he described to us. I have been for a long time indebted to the right hon. gentleman for some very good advice which he once gave me, and which sent me to search the Scriptures for a rule of conduct. I took the advice and have tried to live up to it. Will the right hon. gentleman pardon me if I try at this moment to pay my debt by suggesting to him that the next time he goes to search the Scriptures t-o find therein weapons wherewith to confound the Pharisees and smite the Publicans that sit on this side of the House, he push his study as far as the Apocalypse, where he will find some verses

he cannot take offence from them, because they were written to the angel of the church of Laod-icea which read something like this: 'I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot; but because thou aTt lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee forth'. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that the terminating words are somewhat cacophonous ; they may perhaps be hardly parliamentary. But I have only to say that they are not my words, they are the words of the inspired writer; and I may add that I do not wish at all to apply them to the right hon. gentleman, but rather to the lukewarm dish in the way of a policy that he has set before his followers and that they have succeeded in swallowing and so far as 1 know have not yet vomited forth, but which I am very much afraid will prove most nauseous to the people of this country.

From all this, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there can be no doubt as to what vote should be given on this Bill. It *seems clear to me that the measure; if put into execution under existing circumstances and without proper provision for the performance of the duty it carries with it, is destructive of what is most sacred and holy in the autonomy of this country, and, moreover, it seems to me that the measure is clearly useless as a measure for the 1321

defence of the empire. From any point of view I fail to see how any Canadian subject of the King can realize that it is his duty to do otherwise than vote against that measure.

And, now, I propose to say a few words concerning the proposition contained in the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition. As may possibly have been observed, I have not found it necessary, in dealing with the measure, proposed by the government, to deal with the reasons invoked in the amendment. It does not. seem to me necessary to go so far as to inquire whether or not those reasons are well founded. To my mind there stands in the way of the measure of the government an insuperable obstacle, as I have tried to make clear. When I say insuperable, I do not mean insuperable at any time; I mean so long as there is no provision for a proper modification of our relations as regards foreign affairs with the mother country and with the other nations of the empire. Taking that position, one is naturally led to the consideration of the proposition made by the hon. leader of the opposition. With regard to the 'suggestion contained in that proposition, that there should be an appeal to the people, I have very little to say. So far as I am personally concerned, that the measure proposed by the government should be negatived, for the reason I have given, is so perfectly manifest that I would have no need to appeal to the people to ask them whether it ought to be negatived or not.

But as we are told that there are 140 gentlemen who are going to vote for the passing of this Bill, who are determined that we shall enter upon the course laid down in it no matter what may be said against it, then I would say to these gentlemen: If you are not willing to listen to those who have endeavoured to point out why this measure should not be adopted, will you not at least listen to the people who sent you here? But we are told that the people have all along known about it, and that the people sent these 140 gentlemen here expressly to vote for it. We are told that this policy has been under study since 1902; we are told that the representatives of this government gave expression to some most oracular observations in 1902 in the conference in London, and that the Canadian people have been thinking of this policy ever since. We have even been told that since then there have been two elections and that the people, in both those elections, sent hon. gentlemen opposite here with a special mission to build a navy. And that is the reason given us why the people should not be consulted now. Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall not waste time discussing such an absurd proposition. If there be anything of public notoriety it is

that in neither of the two general elections since 1902, a single elector in this country was called upon to give or gave his vote, aye or no. on this question.

My hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet) told us yesterday that this was an ordinary every day question. Well, to describe a question which involves the most fundamental change in our relations with the mother country and the rest of the empire, as an ordinary every day question, is a flight of the imagination which I fail to follow. Why, if a measure involving such consequences from a constitutional point of view, as well as every other, should be propounded in any other country, no one would ever dream of enacting it into law without allowing the people of pass on it. In the neighbouring republic you could not pass such a law, you could not pass such an amendment to the constitution, without submitting it to the people. But in this parliament, we are asked to look upon it as an ordinai'y every day occurrence. We are asked to pass a measure that will make a most material change in the relations we have hitherto had with the mother country, which imperatively calls for some new adjustment of those relations, and we are told that the people do not need to know anything about it, but that we have a mandate to deal in this parliament with this as with any other question. And we are told that in face of the statement made yesterday by the hon. member from Beauce (Mr. Beland) that one province, at all events, would vote practically unanimously against it, but he thinks that province should not be allowed to express its opinion. He is one of its representatives, and he thinks that that province should not be allowed to talk, and the reason he gives is that he knows it would talk differently -from the others. I do not know what are the sources of his knowledge, but the fact, which the hon. gentleman admitted, that there is a marked difference of opinion among our people on this question is a most conclusive reason why the people should be given an opportunity to discuss and pronounce upon it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink

February 24, 1910