February 28, 1910


For a return showing the number of persons in the employ of each department of the government during the year 1909 under the following heads: (a) civil service employees at Ottawa; (b) civil service employees outside of Ottawa; (c) in stated and regular employ, but not under the Civil Service Act, giving the distinctive service of each group; (d) those in temporary or casual employment, giving the distinctive work of each group, and also showing the total amount paid under each head.-Mr. Foster. For a copy of all representations made by business or commercial men or citizens of Winnipeg to the department or government since the contemplated action of the government in reference to closing or keeping open the post office to box holders on Sundays, and who made them; and of all orders- given by the Postmaster General or his department to the postmasters in reference to this Sunday closing.-Mr. A. Haggart. For a return showing all sums of money received by the ' Soleil ' Publication Company, the ' Vigie' Publication Company, and the ' Daily Telegraph ' Publication Company, cf Quebec, from the different federal departments, and from the Transcontinental Commission, since the first day of March, 1908, and the respective dates of each payment.- Mr. Paquet. I*or a copy of all correspondence with the government or the Post Office Department in reference to closing or keeping open post offices to box-holders on Sundays.-Mr. A. Haggart. I oi a copy of all correspondence, accounts, vouchers and reports, relating to the accident at bault Ste. Marie lock in June, 1909, the number of vessels and tonnage, with port of destination, and number of passengers passing through the Canadian lock at Sault Ste Marie, during the months of April to December, .both inclusive, 1909.-Mr. Boyce. For a copy of all correspondence between the Dominion government and the government of Manitoba on the subject of the ex-tensmn of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba since the resolution adopted by the House of Commons on the 13th day of July, 1908.-Mr. Molloy. For a copy of the original field notes of the survey of Captain Jemmett, 1899, on Chu-Chu-reserve No. 2, Similkameen district, H.C.-Mr. Burrell. **j0r f <;oP.y of all papers, correspondence, and petitions in reference to the changing of the post office at Windygates, in the province of Manitoba.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe. For a copy of all reports and correspondence in reference to the appointment of the lollowrag frontier quarantine inspectors- Dr Bradford, Dr. Carter, Dr. Duncan, Dr.' Thornton, Dr. Wallace, Dr. May, Dr. Mc-Kenty, Dr. Little, Dr. Henderson and Dr Scott-Mr. W. H. Sharpe. WEDNESDAY EVENING SESSIONS. Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved: That from this day to the end of the session, the House will meet on Wednesdays at Mr. OLIVER. three o'clock p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other sitting days. Motion agreed to.


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.


LIB

Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin

Liberal

Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).

Mr. Speaker, before resuming the line of my remarks, I would like to call attention to a sentence in the Halifax * Herald ' of February 25, 1910, which reads as follows :

Order was at last restored by Mr. Devlin promising not to quote His Excellency, although he added with some bitterness, ' What did lie send me his speech for if I am not allowed to read it?

I used no such language, and in the matter there was absolutely no bitterness in tone or otherwise. My words, and I give them for accuracy, in order that the organs of the Conservative party may sometimes speak fairly of gentlemen on this side of the House, were:

This pamphlet was sent me, I do not know by whom, but I always presumed that it was sent by His Excellency for my benefit; and, as I found in it certain passages bearing upon the subject before the House, I was simply going to give the House the benefit of them.

When the House rose on Thursday night I was pointing out as well as I could that the attitude which had been taken by the government upon the question of the Naval Bill, which is now under discussion, was a natural and logical sequence to the different resolutions which had been introduced into this House by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the right hon. leader of the House. Since the first resolution was introduced peculiar scenes have been witnessed. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) constituted himself in matters naval, the leader of the opposition, but he had hardly given the word of command before the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) found that he also should give his word of command, which was more directly to be applied to the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. gentlemen thought that they also should give a word of command which might differ from the word of command given by the hon. member for North Toronto, the leader in naval matters, and immediately the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. R. L. Borden) bolted from his party. The hon. member for Jacques

Cartier, (Mr. Monk), the hen. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes), and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), went in search of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden). The hon. member for Jacques Cartier found the hon. member for Halifax addressing the multitudes in the province of Quebec; the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton discovered him addressing the multitudes in the maritime provinces; and there he had a different creed; the hon. member for North Toronto found him addressing the multitudes in the province of Ontario, and there again he had a different creed. After these three hon. gentlemen heard the different creeds of the bon. member for Halifax, they marched him back here to the seat of government, and there made him expound his article of faith, which is to be found in the amendment which he proposes to the Bill now under discussion. What does he say? In speaking to the province of Quebec, the hon. leader of the opposition-I refer now to the hon. member for Halifax-says at page 3067 of ' Hansard ' :

I would invite my right lion, friend to-day to again respond to the popular will, and the will of this country to-day is thac these different proposals ought to be submitted to the people and the people ought to be permicted to pass upon them before any permanent policy of this kind is engaged in.

Then, addressing the masses in the lower provinces, he goes on to say:

I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that course. I am as strong as any man in this country in the belief that it is the duty of Canada to participate upon a permanent basis in the defence of this empire and to do our reasonable share in that regard.

But, addressing the multitudes in the province of Ontario, he says, at page 3068 of * Hansard ' :

So, Sir, I say we should make our aid prompt and generous, so that it may bring to the motherland the assurance not only of material support but of courage, faith and determination which shall proclaim alike to friend and foe that whether in peace or in war, the empire is one and undivided.

These hon. gentlemen, after they had thought the matter over, as the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) told us, in the morning, in the afternoon, and while lying awake at night, prepared the ammunition which they were to discharge at the government, and, if I were permitted to use the words of Senator Beveridge, I would say that they engaged in what we on this side, and what the Canadian public are beginning to understand to be mere pot-shot warfare with wax bullets from air guns. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they think that, in order

to prevent the British empire from going to smash, we must immediately cable over a sum of $20,000,000 or the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts. The imperial House has been now in session some time, yet we find no mention there made of this imminent peril from Germany. But we need not go to the old country to find what is the opinion in England, we have had it expressed in this country; we have had it expressed in the press so fond of supporting hon. gentlemen opposite; we have had it expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) knows well that there is in this city a newspaper which has always supported the opposition. It is a fair newspaper, for which I have_ the greatest possible esteem, and which bears weight in this country when it speaks upon imperial matters. What did the ' Evening Journal,' on the 21st December, 1909, say, in a very important editorial, dealing with the question of the American colonies. It said: v

England will make no further mistake in the old direction; hut some of our own people now want to make that old mistake by forcing on the rest of our people the idea of sending our taxes to England to be spent there, and such a policy is as sure to produce the same old sort of festering irritation among ourselves against the imperial tie, though not so acute in degree, as did that old policy of one hundred and fifty years ago. A Canadian navy wonld he a continually growing powerful support to the empire, free from all complication as regards imperial finance. Periodical Canadian contributions to the navy of England

Such as hon. gentlemen opposite advocate to-day-

-would not at best amount to shucks as an imperial asset in the long run, and would tend to stir up continual friction and turmoil in this country, which might ultimately go far towards smashing British connection.

Not only did the press speak _ in this manner hut hon. gentlemen opposite, before they heard the .speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), gave expression to their views to the same effect, and in no unmeasured terms. We have for instance the utterance of one hon. gentleman who is prepared to do as much for the empire as any hon. member in this House-an hon. gentleman) who risked his life for the empire, not only in this country, but on the battlefields of South Africa. I Tefer to the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. S. Hughes). What 'did he say? On the ^ 14th February, 1907, as you will see by 'Hansard', page 2898, he said, referring to the proposed sending of men! and money from the colonies for the building of the empire:

1. Did the government of this province ever purchase, for distribution in the public schools, any copies of the work of J. P. Tar-divel, called " Pour la Patrie "?

2. If so, how many copies were purchased, at what date, and by whom was the order given ?

Answer by Honourable Mr. Boy:

1 and 2. On the 25th September, 1895, the Provincial Secretary, Hon. L. P. Pelletier, purchased 500 copies of Mr. J. P. Tardivel's work, " Pour la Patrie ", at 60 cents per copy.

This work was not given as prize books, as appears by the answer given by the Provincial Secretary, not a Liberal Provincial Secretary but by the Provincial Secretary in the Flynn ministry, the Hon. Mr. Hac-kett, on the 3rd of December, 1896. The purchase price was paid out of the item ' prize books,' in the estimates of public instruction. Do you think by order of the legislature? By order of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec? Not at all, by order of the Provincial Secretary, the chief organizer of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, the Hon. L. P. Pelletier.

The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in the course of the remarks which he offered to this House upon the Naval Bill, for some reason or other-and I shall leave it to the judgment of the House what his reason was-made a direct onslaught upon two gentlemen, French Canadians by race, the late Hon. Mr. Mercier, whose memory is held in the highest possible esteem in the province of Quebec, and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is honoured and respected in the highest degree in that province. At page 3467 of ' Hansard ' the hon. member (Mr. Foster) said:

He (Mr. Mercier) was allied with men in the United States of America, he drew his salary from them, he paid his expenses out of their collections. He travelled the country, as I said, enlisting French Canadians, and men of other nationalities, prominent American citizens, all in favour of the independence of Canada; and along with it was the propagation of continental union, and the union of Canada with the United States.

Further on he says:

Now, I ask my right hon. friend, and I ask this House: What would have happened in this country if my right hon. friend had been successful, and Canada had demanded and had obtained that power? There would have been no guarantee for the union of Canada with the empire for a single five years. It was a demand, not for autonomy, it was a demand for sovereignty, and a sovereignty which, if it were exercised, would make two nations where now there is the mother country and the Dominion under the mother country.

* He goes on to quote certain words that were quoted by the right hon. the Prime Minister, and then he concludes:

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
LIB

Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin

Liberal

Mr. DEVLIN.

posite may go upon the same platforms where they have been decrying the leaders of political thought in the province of Quebec, and give to their hearers the benefit of some of the history of their own country. During the following year Congress sent over to Canada three men whose names are well known in the history of this country-Franklin, Chase and Carroll -whose mission was to try to persuade the French Canadians to join the rebels. The people, following the advice of their clergy and of the seigneurs who had become attached to British connection and British institutions, refused to join hands with the rebels. Later on Admiral D Estamg and General Lafayette, appealed to the French Canadians, tried to work on their sentiments and recalled to them the ties of kinship to induce them to fight against the British army which had so recently conquered them, but again the French Canadians were true. What was happening at this time in the province of Quebec-in this disloyal province of Quebec? That great old community the Ursu-lines so well known throughout this county* wilder ijjg direction of Monseigneur Saint Onge, the Vicar General, caused to be chanted in the churches the anthem Do-mme salvum fac regem-Lord preserve ,g' Was tMs disloyalty on the part of Quebec? Are these disloyal acts? Look at. the history of the war of 1812, and you will find the same evidence of loyalty and attachment to British institutions brought forth during that war. I have no hesitation in saying that if again the French Canadians in the province of Quebec had not been true to their loyalty to Great Britain and had refused to take part in this war Canada might have become a part of the United States. Refer for a moment to the bravery and courage of de Salaberry with his band of faithful loyal and courageous French Canadians upon the banks of the Chateauguay. I refer to these facts of history, because I know no time in this discussion when they might be more appropriate. I know of no time in the history of this country when the people displayed to greater advantage their loyalty to British institutions than the year of 1812, when Frenchmen, Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen from the Highlands ?T?d Rowlands joined hands to protect the flag of Canada. So also, if needs be, they will be found together bravely fighting for the flag which waves over this parliament, the emblem of our constitutional rights, sacred to you, sacred to me, protecting all races, protecting all classes and protecting all creeds. Let us live down our prejudices and our passions and unite in upholding the dignity of Canadian citizenship. I beg of all hon. members of this House to cease racial appeals and to place Mr. DEVLIN.

country before province, to place country before party, to place country before self. This land is not the home of the Frenchman, it is not the home of the Englishman, it is not the home of the Scotchman, it is not the home of the Irishman; it is the home of the Canadian. It is a grand heritage that has been bequeathed to us; it is a noble heritage bequeathed unencumbered by sterling patriots; men who have fought for it, men who have died for it. Let us live for it, let us protect it, let us if needs be die for it, that our children may enjoy the same freedom and the same liberties as we have, proud to proclaim their nationality as we are proud to proclaim ours: Citizens of Canada and Canadians, first and always.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

Charles Alexander Magrath

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) who last spoke is possessed of a vary excellent virtue; he is sensitive as to anything that may be said against his province or the character of her people. As I am practically a native of that same province, having lived there my earlier years, I must confess that I too am somewhat sensitive in that regard. I believe, however, that the hon. member (Mr. Devlin) was over sensitive when he imagined that the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in his^ address the other evening had been attacking the people of the province of Quebec. I did not so understand him; I considered that his criticisms were levelled more against some political methods that he believed prevailed in that province, methods which are not good for the people of that province or for the people of any other portion of Canada. I did not follow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) very closely in his remarks but I understood him to say that the book published by Mr. Tar-divel had not been distributed as prizes to school children but that the edition had been brought up, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) told us that the gentleman who purchased it was a Conservative.

I must say that I commend that gentleman's conduct in that respect.

Now, Sir, this debate has dragged along for some weeks and it is evident from the appearance of the House that it feels it has heard enough of the subject. In some respects that may be so, but so far as I am concerned I have not yet heard as to what this proposed navy is going to mean to the people .of Canada, or, the relationship which is going to exist between it and their pockets. Now, Mr. Speaker, some months ago I was to a slight extent brought into the limelight because I hal the hardihood to go out and talk to the public on this question, and ventured to express what appeared to me to be some very ordinary common sense views on

the navy situation; views that were primarily directed against the construction of any local navy. I was quoted in some journals as wishing to contribute $10,000, 000 to the motherland, the contribution to be spread over a period of some few years. It is true that I used these figures but did so purely for the purpose of illustrating my idea. I assumed that our government had some clear and definite idea as to what this new navy departure was going to mean to our tax-payers, but up to the present I have failed to glean any very intelligent idea as to that feature of the question. Our government had this matter before it for some months when parliament assembled in November last, and we were allowed to remain here for nearly two months, we were allowed to leave for the Christmas holidays and up to that time our government had not the courage to come out into the open and expose their plan to the public upon whose shoulders they are placing this burden whatever it may turn out to be. I assumed that our government would be able to inform the people that this project had certain definite things in . view, the accomplishment of which would mean a certain expenditure. I assumed we were aiming to assist in overcoming an emergency, of which, I will speak presently, and as Canada is not engaged in the building of warships, nor am I particularly anxious to see her engage in such an industry-it appeared to me, the only thing we could do was to make our proposed expenditure by way of contribution spread over some few years so that the burden might rest as lightly as possible upon the shoulders of our tax-payers. I was not attempting to lay down any naval policy for this country; I was and I still am strongly opposed to any local navy project until we at least know if the British empire is going to be launched on some more stable basis than that of sentiment alone. And, Sir, for my purpose in discussing this matter from that point of view, $10,000 would have served equally as well as $10,000,000.

The right hon. the Prime Minister does not appear to be very sure of his ground in the matter of imperialism. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am an imperialist-that is, if it means one who believes in the firm welding together of the British people on a permanent basis. Unlike the right hon. gentleman I shall discuss nresent day conditions in dealing with this question. I am not going back to the wars of the Roses, I will not concern myself about the vagaries of Peter the Hermit, nor shall I theorize as to the results on the development of the Anglo Saxon people, had Julius Caesar when he landed on the coast of Britain been encased in woollen socks. And, yet Sir, if I should so disport myself I would be as near the subject under consideration as the right hon. gentleman was during three-fourths of his address. I repeat Sir, I am an imperial ist, because I believe from the very depths of my soul it is best for us and best for civilization. I suppose I should make that admission with bated breath as there are some few men in this country-and now my thoughts are very far from the right hon. gentleman-men who take themselves more seriously than do their fellows; men who strut our streets and imagine the cosmopolitan population landing on the shores of this country, are ready to kneel and cry out: We want to share your citizenship, when as a matter of fact, if they are even being noticed it is probably with the thought, expressed in the vernacular: Those guys are struck on themselves. Sir, in the upbuilding of a young country a necessary factor is that spirit found in the imperialist; men filled with a desire to unite their race; men who are active in the assimilation of the people who come to the shores of their country, and unlike some of these others, to whom I have referred, who might as well remain in bed the entire 24 hours for all the use they are in that respect and who have to put out their hands to feel so as to discover if they are awake.

Sir, that spirit is as necessary in Cuba as in the British empire. Where is there a greater evidence of that spirit than in the United States of America? See what they have accomplished in binding together the elements that have drifted thither. Then, Sir, we occasionally hear some snears cast at the waving of the flag. In that respect I think we can take a few lessons from the United States. When we realize that the vast masses of immigrants landing on the shores of that country must naturally regard the flag as so many yards of material, and that they are there but a few years when they commence to appreciate the benefits they receive under that flag, and soon are joining in the procession that keeps it afloat. In a new country, it is absolutely necessary for us to keep the flag before the people. I do not want to be offensive to anybody in regard to the waving of flags, but if we feel that a national emblem is of any consequence in this world, I do not see that we should be ashamed of it.

I do not know what the right hon. gentleman's conception of imperialism is; but I do know that he has seen fit to cast slurs at those who have an abiding faith in it; I do know that he has referred to the Pharisees of imperialism. Still, I am not aware that one holding the high and important position of premier of Canada adds to his cause by such methods. If, however, it pleases him, if he feels it is going to bolster up this peculiar naval mea-

sure with the people of Canada, then he and I have formed very different estimates of the character of our citizens.

I am not going to discuss the material benefits that accrue to Canada as a member of the British empire, as I believe all hon. gentlemen are of one mind in that respect. If there are selfish reasons why we should be in that empire to-day, it appears to me that there are the same reasons why we should go down into the future as a member of that family. If it is to the advantage of the sovereign states of New York and California, situated as they are some five days apart in the matter of travel, to be firmly fixed in the same union, it appears to me that there axe equally good' reasond why Great Britain and Canada should be likewise situated. If it is to the advantage of New York and California to have a single' navy, I cannot see why that same principle will not equally well apply to_ Great Britain and Canada. While the "ocean may not be receding, it certainly is being rapid-' ly narrowed in the matter of the time it takes to cross it. In the current of this young country's life there will be many shoals and many Tapids to pass over; and instead of guiding it by clean, strong and wise statesmanship, the only evidence I can see is that it is not only allowed, but actually encouraged to drift on towards the rocks of independence, while our government chants some dirge about autonomy very much like the Indian who feels that he is warding off some evil spirit by singing a few meaningless phrases as he jogs past some cemetery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, coming nearer to the question under consideration, what is the situation in Europe to-day? There, there are some 415 millions of people, some few millions of whom have never known a full stomach, and yet the very vitals are being ground out of them by the tax gatherer for the upkeep of armaments for the maintenance of peace. What an extraordinary situation ! There are only two positions open to those nations. They must recede from the position they are taking or with taxes bounding upward, the breaking point will be reached, which means bankruptcy, whicth means fight to wipe their fellows off the face of the earth. There is an extra-! ordinary condition of things on that continent. I say there is an emergency. When we find the two political parties of Great Britain practically receding from the methods of taxation which have been -in force for many years in order to extract more money from the taxpayers for the purposes of the navy, then it appears to me we have that dollars and cents argument that an emergency does exist, and an argument which we cannot overlook. It was this condition that awakened the several elements of the British empire last Mr. MAGRATH.

spring, and it is this condition which is responsible for the Bill now before us, whatever it may be. I wish to lay down an axiom, that Canada as Canada, with her comparatively small population of seven million people, with her vast natural resources requiring all the men and the monetary energies that we can command for the development of the country, for the betterment of the conditions of the people that we have and fhr preparing for the people that we hope to receive-I say that Canada, standing alone to-day, has as much need of a navy as a resident of Hades has of a buffalo overcoat. But Canada lies within British North America, and we are British subjects. Then it is not only a question of duty but of decency for us to go to the aid of the British people, a people who during the past hundred years or more have contributed at least $500,000,000 to the welfare of this country. It is, therefore, a duty that we owe ourselves, a duty that we owe to the empire of which we form no inconsiderable part, and, on higher grounds, it is a duty we owe to civilization. The greatest calamity that could happen to the human family would be the disintegration of the British empire. It would mean the putting back of the hands of civilization. Great Britain cannot be permitted to go under. Britain has her faults; so has every individual who goes to the making up of the smallest community; but Britain has been standing out for the -best in mankind. Her doors have been open to the religious and politically -oppressed of every European nation. Hers are a free people, a self-governed people. The * great nation to the south of us is a free, people, a s-elf-governe-d1 people. F-ree people cannot be permitted to go under. I hold it would be the duty of Great Britain to go to the aid of that great nation to the south of us if its life was in any way endangered. The best thought in the United States realize that Britain's strength must remain unimpaired. They know as well as we know, that if disintegration should set in, in the British family, the white man's burden would be thrown within narrower limits for support. Then Canada has a part in this very serious matter, and we should act promptly, and above all, act efficiently, and without committing this-young country to any definite policy of a Canadian navy.

A Canadian navy would not, in my opinion, be in the best interests of this country, or meet the want of the moment. The present stress and trial through which Britain is striving, cannot last many years; and my cry is, let the over-seas dominions put their shoulders to the wheel and push the motherland through this emergency, thereby giving other nations clearly and distinctly to understand that it is absolutely useless for them to attempt

to jeopardize the life of the British people. But above all things, I am convinced we should not now attempt to saddle on this young country any Canadian navy proposition, especially when we can render much greater and more effective service by the proposed contribution to the British navy and at a greatly reduced cost to our taxpayers. Have I any justification for that statement? It is only necessary to refer to the first paragraph of the British admiralty report, in which it is declared clearly that the maximum effect at the minimum cost can only be obtained through a central navy. And the report then goes on to say, that owing to political and other consderations, some of the oversea dominions cannot support a central navy. Then for the first time the question of separate navy units is discussed.

For my part, I cannot quite understand what is meant by political and other considerations. Some gentlemen oppose a plan of contribution on the ground that it is unfair for us to ask the British people to do our share of the fighting, while others take the view that we cannot afford to send our taxes to Britain for the building and upkeep of a navy. I am not disposed to quarrel with either of these sentiments. As the matter appeals to me, the British navy is built, operated and controlled in and from the British islands, simply becahse the British taxpayer supplies the money; surely it must appeal to us that if the various elements of the British empire should decide to support a central navy, conditions would be at once changed and that navy would pass out of the sphere of a British navy and become imperial in character..

There is only one place where a man puts his money and does not follow it. That is in charitable work. But this is not a question of charity. It is a question of insuring our existence on this sphere, it is a question of protecting our own commerce or, to put it in another way I might say it is a question of returning to the motherland but a moiety of the vast sums she has expended on, our behalf at various periods in our history when we were unable to help ourselves. Therefore I cannot see how intelligent people can conceive that by supporting a central navy our money would be expended in England alone. That position appears similar to the one taken by an individual who, on being invited to join in a large enterprise, refused because, having no voice in its management before he invested therein, by some peculiar reasoning reached the conclusion that he would have nothing to say in its direction afterwards, and that man wandered down the wayside and started a corner grocery of his own.

In short, if the British navy should

become an imperial navy, it will be built, operated and controlled in and from the British empire, and its moneys expended in the erection of docks throughout the empire while contracts will be given for the construction of vessels wherever facilities have been created for such purposes. The taxpayer in Canada is not particularly concerned about owning fighting ships. What we want now is something that will have the greatest fighting capacity for the least money, and that we can only have through the British navy; I cannot conceive how any Canadian would fail to point with pride to the British navy and say that is my navy, and I venture the opinion that that is the navy to which some of those adherents of a Canadian navy would rush to get behind in the event of any trouble. This young country has neither the means nor the energy to waste in buying experience on the high seas.

Some hon. gentlemen have taken the attitude that because we have our land forces, we should have our sea forces. The two are not- analogous. Our land forces operate within our own territory; they are always at home. Sea forces operate within the barn yard of the nations of the earth, where the one people put up the one front on the one sea. We have heard a good deal during the course of this debate about a section in our Militia Act which provides that our militia shall not leave Canada without the consent of the Canadian government. I am not particularly concerned about that feature, but some hon. gentlemen seem to think that, because it is in our Militia Act, it should be in this Naval Act. We all know that our land forces can only assist Britain in land wars. And Britain's land wars have in recent years been practically wars of colonization. They have been wars which never really endangered her life. Take, for instance, the South African war, which was carried on for months and years. Her life was never really threatened during that conflict; but any man who does his own thinking must realize that the moment Britain fires the first gun in her defence on the high seas, -from that moment until the trouble is ended, her life will be hanging by a very slender thread. We all know that no nation or combination of nations will undertake to challenge her on the high seas unless they felt confident that they can cripple her, and we ought to know that the back of a naval war might be broken inside of six days. And here we have before us a Navy Bill which undertakes to provide that Canada's navy will not go to the aid of the mother country until this parliament is assembled, and we, in our wisdom, pass upon the justice of Britain's

cause. To my mind the proposition is a preposterous one. I say in all seriousness to the right hon. gentleman that I do not believe it would toe possible to bring a measure into this House containing a more objectionable feature. My doctrine, as a British subject, is that wherever we may be on the face of the earth, we should 'pull, pull together, in all kinds of weather'; and my policy, as a British subject, is to jump into the breach and go to the aid of my fellow British subject, wherever on this earth he is, and discuss the righteousness of his cause afterwards. Before I would accept that feature in this Bill, I would throw down my British citizenship and take un some other. No matter what government presented that most objectionable feature to me, I would not take it in that shape, because it puts a bar to our giving aid to the mother country, which would make us absolutely helpless. Any assistance we may be able to give is one which can only be of use when Britain is threatened on the high seas, and the assistance provided in this measure would be utterly useless in such an emergency. And to advance the argument that because such a feature is in the Militia Act, and should be in our Naval Bill is preposterous as conditions are entirely different. I trust I have made myself clear in that respect.

Coming back to the question, which after all appeals to our taxpayers, that is, the question of cost, by the contribution asked for in the amendment of the leader of the opposition, we know exactly what we are giving and where it ends as well as the positive service it will render. By the government proposition now before us; the future is a sealed book. What it involves, our taxpayers cannot know. The expenditure will be a growing and a most serious one. Again I repeat we have no money for such experiments. But some gentlemen will say: You are providing for the present emergency. I say, Sir, is not that enough? Let us turn our eyes inward and continue to develop this vast country. The British empire must get down to some business arrangement, if it is going to stand, and if that does not come before another emergency we can meet it as British subjects should. I wish to say with all the force within me that we Canadians are dealing too much in theories; we are dreaming pleasant dreams. Gentlemen pass through this land and tells us that we are a wonderful people. But the vastness of our virgin wealth will be an obstacle to our becoming a strong, clean people, unless we are cautious-. And, we continue to dream on. * We are making our own treaties,' and the same authority in the next breath will tell us that we are ' one of the sister nations.' These two ideas do not harmonize with my view of the situation. I realize that we

' Mr. MAGRATH.

must control our own domestic matters. I realize that we know better than those outside of Canada what we have to trade and what we want in return. But I realize that there must be some revising board within the empire to pass on our negotiations before they become effective; otherwise we shall get out of the British empire. If all the sister nations are to make treaties, to do as they see fit, then the end of that empire is in sight. In my judgment we have reached a point in empire development, when one final forward step is necessary for us to become a great empire world power. Changes come rapidly in these days. Who will prophesy as to what will occur in the next ten or twenty years? I believe they will be most momentous in the history of the British empire. Therefore, let us not try to push too far into the future in this matter.

So far as Canada is concerned, it is not a theory that faces us, but as Cleveland once remarked, it is a* condition, that confronts us. The fact that some gentlemen in London hold the opinion that what is good for Australia is equally good for this country-a separate naval unit-only shows, in my opinion, that those men are not familiar with Canadian conditions. It is not the London view point that we should pay the greatest heed to as that is practically uniform as respects the various elements of the empire, but it is the individual viewpoint of each of the dominions that must be carefully scrutinized and studied if we hope to maintin the integrity of the British empire. Canada is not an island like Australia whose new people from the moment they land on her shores are for ever separated from their old associations and old political affiliations. Canada lies side by side -nay, to a certain extent, is surrounded by-one of the largest and greatest nations on earth, peopled by probably the greatest aggregation of intelligence to be found within the confines of any country in the world. Of course, that does not injure us. Canada's immigration, which is to make Canada large and populous is to come largely through, or from the United States of America. We cannot get away from that. If thqre were time, I believe I could satisfy any hon. member as to the soundness of that view. There, then is the condition with which we Canadians are sleeping today.

Mr. Archibald Carey Coolidge, a prominent political economist associated with Harvard University, in a recently published book, ' The United States as a World Power,' refers to Canada, and to Canada's future. Mr. Coolidge has reached the conclusion that ' Canadian public opinion is inclined to look forward to ultimate independence, with friendship and perhaps alliance with Greater Britain.'

Japan is an independent country and an

ally of Great Britain. Is that the destiny some gentlemen have marked out for this important country? I believe that Mr. Coolidge is justified in reaching his conclusion. He is standing outside this country, without any interest here, looking inwards, forming his opinion, not, unfortunately, from meeting our people, but from the views which are expressed from time to time by our public men, some of whom, especially some members of our government who do not appear to be able to get on any public platform without making some reference to Canada as a 'nation.' Before giving Mr. Coolidge's views on western Canada, let me point out to the House that our immigrants are settling east of the great lakes, are locating^ around our important cities, where their political sentiments can be moulded and controlled, that is leavened by the centres to which they attach themselves. But that is not the situation in western Canada, where our new people are spreading out over a vast area, building up their own centres of population, and carrying into them their own political sentiments. Mr. Coolidge is willing to admit that some portions of eastern Canada are loyal to British institutions. Here, however, is what he has to say with reference to the people settling on our western plains. Speaking of loyalty to Britain, he says:

It is an exotic plant, too delicate to flourish in such soil. Tn these new regions, with their mixed population imbued with a materialism of frontier life, the whole tone is latter date American rather than English. The people Are too matter of fact, too much taken up with their everyday affairs, to indulge in such luxuries as loyalty to a distant throne ; to them it seems very unreal sentimentality.

Now, Sir, Air. Coolidge has failed, in my opinion, to grasp the true conception of the situation. It is not a question, in th'e British empire, of loyalty to thrones, but it is the reality of a constitution which allows free people of every race, every tongue and every creed to stand together on the highest known plane of citizenship. And, if the millennium were here, no further steps would be necessary to bind together the self-governing element of the empire more closely than they are today. Our new people do not come to us from any knowledge they possess of our constitution, and our American citizens do not leave the United States from any dissatisfaction with that country's constitution. They make good ciizens. But there is a citizenship in the British empire different from any other in the world. He who goes to Australia will be essentially an Australian; he who comes to Canada will be essentially a Canadian until we show them what our enlarged citizenship 138

means. To what extent are we engaged in doing that work? Absolutely nothing that I can see when we have our public men talking so much about 'Canada as a nation.' I say that if we want to remain in the British empire, if we want to be a living, burning entity in the empire, standing out for peace in this world, if we want to push forward civilization, then we must become more active in bringing together the various elements of the empire into some closer compact than mere ties of friendship, which is practically the condition to-day. And if we do that we will have less time to prate about 'Canada as a nation,' 'Canada making her own treaties,' and 'the one final act in the rounding off of our nationhood.' Loyalty based on sentiment, is doubtless, of the highest order, and if nations grow by natural means, that is by an excess of births over deaths, that loyalty will seep down through many generations, but where ethnical conditions are in an almost constant state of change as is the condition in Canada today and will be in the younger elements of the empire, then we will have to weave in with that friendship, some business into the empire fabric, if it is to stand.

Now, Sir, doubtless I will be accused of wishing to deny Canada the right to hold up her head and proudly proclaim herself a nation. I will be accused, Sir, of wishing to deny Canadians what the Patagonians possess. I understand some hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to what the Patagonians are accomplishing in the matter of a navy. I am not aware that the Patagonians have been advanced in scale of importance among the peoples of the world because they can say their country is independent of any other. I am not aware that the rounding off of Patagonian nationality by means of its toy navy has added to its pre-eminence though that is practically the view that one member of our government has taken in connection with this proposed Canadian navy. I do not wish to deny any one the right of a membership in a nation. As a Canadian citizen I am a member of the British nation and I venture the opinion if some of those gentlemen who are!, so anxious to talk about our nationhood should find themselves in Russia, and their rights being invaded the talisman they would employ would be I am of the British nation. They would not be shoving forward at that particular moment any idea of Canada's nationhood. This is but an instance of the value of that citizenship which some people in this country appear to be only too anxious to shove into the background. The word ' nation ' is quite unnecessary in its application to Canada at the present time. We know we are a free people, a self-governed people. How can

we explain to our new people that we are of the British nation while we are pouring into their ears all this talk about Canadian nationhood. There is no necessity to play with words or phrases. The right hon. gentleman has frequently become poetic in referring to the attitude of Canada to the empire, an attitude which he has affirmed of filial affection. When we realize that our doors are wide open we must realize that the household will become filled with step-children and adopted ones and that filial affection to which he has referred will probably find itself in ,a heap in the back yard. The methods in vogue are not likely to instil very much filial affection in our adopted children.

I have already given my reason for supporting this contribution, because in the present emergency it renders the motherland the most effective aid at the least cost to our taxpayers. I am opposed to a Canadian navy because we do not want any such extravagant appendage at the present time. I am opposed to it on the still more important ground that I regard it as1 a step away from the motherland, I cannot see that it is a step closer. I look on it as a step towards disintegration in the British family. Some hon. gentlemen will say no, but they must realize that there are men in this country who believe that Canada is to be an independent country, and of them there is a certain proportion who feel that it is our duty to [DOT] do something now. I venture the opinion that every one of these gentlemen will be found holding up his hands for a Canadian navy so that to use the phrase attributed to the right hon. gentleman, when the fruit is sufficiently ripe to drop from the tree Canada will step out as a nation with her full-fledged navy. If through our vain-glory, I will not add hypocrisy, though at times I am disposed to doubt our own sincerity, if we continue to dream on, if we fail to begin right now to knit the steel into the concrete which is going into the structure we are upbuilding on this North American continent. If, in short. Sir, through our sins of omission, we and the other self-governine elements of the empire fail to do our duty and the glory of that empire, upon which the sun never sets, be allowed to pass away, thereby causing the people who will then control the destinies of this land to work out its national status, I say that in this age of centralizing of power which is growing stronger year by year, the result will be a fusion with the great nation to the south of us.

An important question for consideration is, what are we Canadians looking forward to, are we not building a structure on this continent? If so, what is it to be. An intelligent builder, from the moment he puts his hand to the foundation, has some Mr. MAGKATH.

clear idea as to his ultimate aim. Is Canada going to be permanently fixed in the British empire or is she to withdraw from that empire, dreaming of an independence which will ultimately lead to absorption by the United States. If that is our view let us be honourable and get out now. _ If we are to take the purely animal view, let us retire from that empire and put aside all ideas of a navy, imperial or otherwise, as under existing conditions, with our present resources this country does not need a navy. I feel that the proper place for us is to be firmly fused into the British empire, and it is to that end I wish to see Canada, the premier dominion, work. The other elements of the empire will surely follow us. If we believe that the civilization of Britain has reached as advanced a stage as that of any other country in the world, if we believe that Britain has been standing out for the best in mankind, then realizing that the stronger that people is made, the stron-er these influences for peace will grow, it seems to me our duty as a people is quite plain. The question which has absolutely no answer to me is where better could the Canadian people find themselves than in the ranks of such a family.

May I be permitted to indulge my fancies for a few moments. Is there any visible reason why Britain and her first-born on this continent could not be now living in the same union. It was not the Boston tea party alone that was responsible for that unfortunate separation. .There were dissentions among the colonies, there were vain glories then with a single eye to local importance only. If, however, mistakes had not been made on both sides, and those two peoples had continued together down through the last century, what would be the situation to-day? Simply this, instead of having two powerful nations standing out separately for practically the same principles, we would have their forces united, and whatever influences there are for peace to-day those influences would be practically doubled. With such unity existing who is there to suggest that, America would be sending taxes to England for the building and upkeep of navies? Who is there to suggest that the United States would be asking England to do her share of the fighting? It might mean that while Britain's domestic affairs would be handled at Westminster, imperial matters would be dealt with more frequently at Washington than at London. In the days of the separation England and America were removed by a long and perilous sea voyage of fifty to seventy-five days. If that position had remained constant the United States might have remained insular, but

conditions have changed and she has become a great world power. Her founders could not foresee that situation any more than we can see what is ahead of our people. Distances are measured by the time it takes to overcome them. Britain and Canada are closer to-day than the exterior members of the thirteen colonies were a century ago.

Let us not try to disguise the outcome of this navy move. It is the result of a desire on the part of certain citizens to do something to help the motherland. I cannot congratulate the government upon the manner in which they have met that request. I realize the force of Mr. Bourassa's statement, that if Canada is to take part in Britain's wars she must have something to say in the. making and settlement of them. It appears as if there will have to be some systematic business arrangement within the empire as it will not stand on sentiment alone, and if we cannot see its solution clearly to-day, it will unfold itself, if we press forward having our minds resolutely made up, that its accomplishment will be best for us and best for civilization. Then, that accomplished, there will in course of time, be fusions with other people in the great march forward of civilization. We are pushing into the forefront a Canadian navy with no intelligent idea where it will be found in the event of certain emergencies. It might be the very instrument to drive us out of the empire if we should refuse its aid to other elements of the empire. Sir, I consider that we are starting at the wrong end. Let the selfgoverning elements of the empire first decide the responsibility to be accepted by each, in the event of trouble and follow that up with some unified policy for naval development within the empire. Then it will be time enough to talk about a Canadian unit of the imperial navy. Meanwhile let us refrain from taking any step which will make the accomplishment of that desirable end more difficult than it is at the present time and evidently it is difficult judging from the manner in which this Bill has been brought before us.

Now, Sir, to repeat, if Great Britain is forced into a naval war her life is in jeopardy it is our duty to give her effective aid. The Busso-Japanese war is sufficient evidence that naval engagements are not advertised in advanced-like auctions. The only indication of a possible war is the evidence of activity on the part of other nations, we can have absolutely no confidence in their professions during these trying times. The British taxpayer knows that. We have the dollars and cents arguments to which I have referred. That is sufficient evidence for me. I do not want to take any more chances, and therefore, wish to put on some more insurance by throwing into the fighting line a couple of 138i

Dreadnoughts. Then I say let us turn our faces inward and continue the development of this country. We have heard some vague rumours that the starting of this Canadian navy is going to develop the shipbuilding industry in Canada. I see no objection to encouraging the building of docks as well as the development of our merchant marine. If that service has not been keeping pace with the development of our inland transportation lines, there is good reason for it. We know that we cannot find sufficient money to enable us to engage in developing all the varied interests in this vast country. The natural result is that those interests are allowed to remain stationary, which can be supplied by sources outside of the country. If there are merchant ships of other countries available to carry our products it is altogether likely our merchant marine will not be actively developed until we are looking for opportunity to invest capital. That, however, is not to-day, but it will surely come. And, for my part, I cannot see that by having shipyards constructing the few naval vessels which our government say will be ready in five years, that that is going to force forward the development of our merchant marine. Do some hon. gentlemen opposite believe a few capitalists walking by our navy yards will be attracted by the sound of hammers and like children gazing at a shop window loaded with toys, go in and order a few vessels. After all, Sir, it is an economic question. And, so far as Germany is conecrned I have had nothing to say about the German scare. 1 will say this, however, that 'no nation should be allowed to develop both fighting arms to the highest efficiency. Germany has the greatest army in the world and unquestionably she is ambitious to have a navy equal to the most powerful on the seas. If she is allowed to reach that point she at once becomes a menace to the rest of Europe. To whom in Europe will she be a real menace? Any school child knows that it is Britain, because outside of Britain she can now practically dictate her terms to any of the other nations.

In concluding my remarks there is another feature to which I will briefly refer, and that is Canada, in years gone by, has appealed to the United States for recipro- .. city, but without success. The next request, I believe, will come from our friends to the south of us and perhaps much earlier than we imagine. Now, I realize that it is not our place to interfere in the politics of Great Britain, but I would like some of our free trade friends in Britain to keep that feature in view when studying Canadian. conditions, and upon which I have attempted to throw some light to-dav. Again I say there is too much drifting, too much running to political corners to sift out the winds of temporary political ad-

vantage too much placing of ears to the ground to listen for the rumblings of discontented vote manipulators, too little thought of great principles and the willingness to go down and out for them, too little effort to create a strong healthy public opinion in this country to -deal intelligently with all large issues. The next few years will determine whether the British empire is going to enter upon the greatest epoch-making period of its history, the greatest epoch-making period in the history of the world. Canada had an epochmaking period. I refer to the days immediately preceding confederation. There is a confederacy in the balance, greater than the world has ever seen. And it is for us to do our duty-to-day, not to-morrow, it may then be too late. I say then, let us play up! play up! and play the game as members of the great British family.

Sir, we are engaged in the building of a ship-the empire. Civilization also demands the strengthening of the union of the elements of that empire throughout this world, therefore let our constant cry be: Sail on, 0 ship of state!

Sail on, O union strong and great! Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations upon this question, I feel encouraged to do so from the importance that has been given to the subjects by the leaders on both sides of this House. We have the authority of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden) for saying that this is the biggest and most important question that has come before this House for the last 25 years. I do not quarrel with the hon. leader of the opposition in the position which he has arrived at upon that point. But, referring to the observations of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Magrath) I have very little quarrel with him when he says that he is an imperialist in the sense of being loyal to British institutions and in addition loyal to Canadian institutions as far as they contribute to our strength in our connection with the mother country. He cannot be any stronger in this regard than I am. Therefore, in lauding himself, or his party upon that ground, I have no quarrel with him. I have not come across any member of the Liberal party in this country who has failed in his support of these principles. But the hon. gentleman thinks that on the government side we have not shown a great deal of courage in dealing with this question. Well, Sir, if courage means that we are taking the initiative, that we are prepared to put a measure through this House upon our own convictions, I think that we possibly were more .courageous than the hon. gentlemen op-Mr. MAGRATH. [DOT]

posite who say that they cannot undertake anything until they can ascertain what their respective constituents have to say about it. The proper principle is that statesmen, that leaders, should lead public opinion and not that public opinion should lead statesmen.

If we are doing what is right, there is no occasion for us to go back to our people to direct us. They have sent us here to do the business of Canada, and it is our duty to carry out their mandate. Now, there were a few things said by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) to which I call attention. Sir, in loyalty to the British empire and in strong conviction as to the necessity for maintaining British institutions, the Liberal party are as strong believers as is the hon. gentleman. He tells us there is an emergency, that there is danger to Great Britain, and that something should be done on the spur of the moment, and suppose we do accept his advice and hand $25,000,000 over to the British authorities, the idea no doubt would be that they should start to build a Dreadnought. But do gentlemen on the other side say that Great Britain has not money enough to build Dreadnoughts as fast as she can build them; do they assert that the British exchequer is exhausted, and that, therefore, we must turn on the tap, as some would say? Why, Britain has abundance of money to build her warships as rapidly as she can build them, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for us to give aid in money. Would it be any proof of our loyalty if we gave this contribution? Does any Conservative member in this House assert that Britain does not believe in the loyalty of the Canadian people, and that it is necessary to come with a sacrifice of $25,000,000 and place it on the altar to prove our loyalty? I am as anxious about Canadian loyalty and British supremacy as any man in Canada, but I do not believe there is any emergency. I do not believe that the supremacy of Great Britain requires this money, nor do I believe that it is necessary to prove our loyalty to His Gracious Majesty the King or to the people of the motherland. We have shown our loyalty whenever the occasion arose, and we will show it again when it is demanded from us. Are we of the family of the empire, or have we to go aobut guessing what the conditions are? What would you say of a son who is told that his father . is ill and needs a physician, and who would think it necessary to go about the streets to ascertain from strangers if the renort be true, instead of ascertaining the facts in his father's house? Have we not political institutions in this country in close touch with the political institutions of Great Britain; have we not the King's government in Canada as well as in the motherland, and can we not learn

directly what are the necessities of Britain without seeking haphazard to find them out second-hand? If there is need in England, why proclaim it from the housetops, when we can know it privately through the machinery of government, and if help is wanted Canada will give her help in the proner way and through the proper channels.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

Does the hon. gentleman expect the English people to come to Canada as beggars for a contribution?

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

If Canada is one of the family of British nations; if Canada is a substantial part of British territory, governed bv His Majestv the King, and if the protection of the great empire requires a contribution from Canada, then, Sir, I would not regard it as an act of beggary that the motherland should ask our aid; when the hon. gentleman calls it beggary I resent such a term. I would not regard it as beggary; I would regard it as a duty on our part.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Or the payment of tribute.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I am not talking about tribute, and when I come to talk about tribute I can do so' without any unseemly interruptions from hon. gentlemen who seem to be here for no other purpose than to interrupt members on this side when they are addressing the House.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

I ask the hon. gentleman's permission to speak for a moment.

I want to tell the hon. gentleman that during this debate I have not interrupted a single gentleman until I made the interjection just now. which I am very glad appears to have annoyed the hon. member very much.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

If the hon. gentleman -I forget the county he misrepresents- thinks it is his duty to let every one else go without interruption and to interrupt me, that does not help the situation very much. My experience with the hon. gentleman is that he was never in this House when I spoke but he interrupted me. and if he turns up ' Hansard ' he can prove that this statement is correct.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

That is a compliment to you.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I do not regard his interruption as anything at all. I do not regard his interruption as intellectual or otherwise, and if he chooses to indulge in interrupting me, and if he thinks that I am a person that he can with impunity interrupt it does not bother me at all. Well, Sir. as I was proceeding to say when interrupted, if the government of Great Britain needs any assistance from the Dominion? beyond the seas we have a perfect

right to expect that that necessity will be made known to us through the proper channels, and then it will be time for us to act. I am not aware that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) has said much more that I wish to criticise, but I would direct attention to the very striking difference between himself and liis leaders on this question. He savs there is no more need for a navy in Canada than for a man to wear a buffalo coat in Hades. The hon. gentleman has chosen to put it in that very forceful language, but I would remind him that there are some who describe Hades as an extremely cold place and possibly a buffalo coat may not be too much of a burden for the hon. gentleman to carry if he expects to travel in that direction. Now, as to the difference between the hon. gentleman (Mr. Magrath) and his leaders. Last year the hon. member for North Toronto '(Mr. Foster) brought down a resolution to this House-a resolution which was on the order paper for months, and which he had plenty of time to consider-setting forth that the time had come when the people of Canada should provide a navy for the protection of Canada and for Canada only. It may be said by him that what he meant was not only the protection of Canada, but the protection of every part of the empire.

If there was any lingering doubt on that point, he made it perfectly clear when, in speaking in this House on the tenth of this month, he said that he had nothing in his mind when he moved his resolution except the protection of Canada. The hon. leader of the opposition spoke on this subject a little over a year ago, and again a little over a month ago, and in one of his speeches he committed himself to every word uttered by the hon. member for North Toronto, saying that that hon. member had spoken by his authority, and with his approval. We have thus the hon. leader of the opposition approving of Canada having a navy, and for the protection of Canada alone. Therefore, when the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) says that there is no more necessity for this navy than there is for an inhabitant of Hades to have a buffalo coat, he is going very far from the leadership of these hon. gentlemen.

Other hon. gentlemen made some observations to which I wish to make some slight reference before coming to the main question which I wish to discuss. We were given a great treat of constitutional law a few evenings ago by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowran). He put himself forward as a great constitutional lawyer, and gave us to understand that the passing of a Naval Bill in the shape of this Bill would be disrupting the empire and in direct violation of the Canadian constitution. In support of that contention, he offered an

argument which he thought put the whole thing in a nutshell, so that nothing more could be said about it. He had it comoletely proven by reading section 15 of the British North America Act, which says:

The command-in-chief of the land and naval militia, and of all land and naval forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

The hon. gentleman has very little knowledge of the force and effect of constitutional law and usage in this country if he thinks that the mere fact of these words being in the British North America Act gives any greater power to the King to control any public property in this country. For example, the highways of my province, as I presume in the province of Ontario, are vested in the King. Is anybody silly enough to say that the King could put fences across the public highways or streets and keep people from using them, because, forsooth, the title to them is in the King? The Crown lands in my province, as I presume in the province of Ontario, are vested in the King. So are the public lands in the Northwest. Does anybody say that that simple fact gives the King any right or control oyer them? They are simply vested in the King as the trustees of the people, subject to the control and management of the representatives of the people, acting through this House, through the provincial legislatures and through the various municipal bodies down to the minutest part of the machinery of government in this country. Is there any different law to apply to a navy? Because the military and naval militia are vested in the King, does that mean that the King can order these forces to war, and that they must automatically go where-ever he may point? Nothing of the kind. The same principle of ownership applies as in the case of the Crown lands. If the hon. gentleman who, with such a flourish of trumpets, read this fifteenth section of the British North America Act, would just turn over a few pages and read section 91 of the same Act, he would come to a different conclusion, if he was capable of reaching any logical conclusion from any set of facts. That section says:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects ne.,i hereinafter enumerated.

Mr. McKenzie.

Then it gives twenty-nine different subsections, the seventh of which is ' militia, military and naval service and defence.' That section covers the subject before us at the present time, and is a straight and positive mandate from the parliament of Great Britain to deal with this very subject. I say again that this question of military and naval service is not a new one in this country, because if it were not a live question at the time of confederation, would we not find it provided for in this Act? That, as far as the law is concerned, ought to satisfy my hon. friend from Vancouver that there is no foundation for the objection lie raised as to the constitutionality of this Bill. I might further give him the authority of the Privy Council for saying that the legislative power of this parliament is as great as that the parliament of Great Britain itself in regard to the different subjects given to us to legislate upon. That being the case, we are not restricted in any way in dealing with this subject or in providing for the control of this naval force, or deciding where it shall be used. There have been attempts to make little of the fact that the Militia Act is the same as the Naval Act, and to show that they were different and that while one was a good law and constitutional, the other was wrong. I submit that is good reasoning. If hon. gentlemen will turn to the Militia Act, they will see that section 4 of that Act is the same as section 4 of the Bill now before the House :

The command-in-chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall he exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.

That is word for word the same language as is used in the present Bill. Let me quote further from the Militia Act:

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 an emergency.

That is exactly the same language as in the present Bill.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

Does that require the matter to be 'brought before parliament?

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

Certainly.

Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and

act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.

In time of war, when the militia is called out for active service to serve conjointly with His Majesty's regular forces, His Majesty may place in command thereof, a senior general officer of his regular army.

That is word for word the same language as we have in the Act now before the House.

At six o'clock House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

Immediately before adjournment at six o'clock, I was explaining the provisions of the Canadian Militia Act for the purpose of showing that there was no material difference-in fact, no difference at all-between these and the provisions of the Naval Act now before the House, in so far as these provisions have reference to the services to be rendered by the naval forces in support of the British empire, or to be put at the disposal of the British empire when an emergency should arise. The definition of 'emergency ' is the same in this Act as in the Militia Act and the other sections, although not numbered the same, are alike in their provisions. Section 4 of the Naval Bill now under consideration, says:

The command-in-chief of the naval forces is vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty, or by the Governor General as His representative.

That is exactly the same as the Militia Act. Section 17 of this Bill says:

The Governor in Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof, on active service at any time when it appears advisable 'so to do by reason of an emergency.

And sections 18 and 19 are as follows:

18. In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal Navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.

19. Whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any part thereof on active service, as provided in the preceding section, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall issue for a meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.

These terms are identical with those of the Militia Bill; I can find no difference

at all between them. If, for the last forty years, we have had a law on our statute book, in connection with our land forces and land protection, which was acceptable to both parties, acceptable to every man who lives in Canada. I do not understand why it should be considered an act of treason, an act of disruption of the connection between the mother country and Canada, or a violation of the constitution, to have the same thing, word for word, applied to the sea or coastal forces. Such an objection has no valid force, and, when examined, it will be perfectly clear to any person that it is used for a purpose, that it is not in the best interest of the country, and is not worthy the best thought of our people. If there is anything wrong about this law, would it not have been the duty of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) who, for thirty years has occupied a conspicuous place, and who is a very capable lawyer, and, of course, loyal to the core, to call attention to it, and propose a suitable amendment? The old Militia Act is a product of the Conservative administration and of Conservatives, as I take it, they were then as loyal as they are to-day. If it was so satisfactory to them in those days, and during the twenty or more years when they ran this country,

I submit that a similar Act, having reference to the sea forces, should be just as satisfactory to them as this old law. I mention this in order to do away with the argument that is being strongly put forward by speakers on the opposition side, who endeavour to show that we are departing from the customs in vogue in this country and are legislating in a way that has a tendency to break the close ties that now exist between the mother country and outside.

I wish to make a few slight references to the observations made by some of the gentlemen who have already spoken on this question. First, I should say a few' words concerning the speech of the hon. member for St. Anne division, Montreal (Mr. Doherty). That gentleman has dealt with the question very soberly, and in that judicious manner in which we would expect him to approach a question of this kind. In its last analysis, there is not a great deal in his speech. The hon. gentleman dealt particularly with two or three points. The first was that, before we do anything in this country towards the establishment of a sea force that will be intended in any manner to take part in empire wars, we must have our constitution so amended that we in this country shall have an equal voice with the mother country in deciding when war should be declared. That is the condition precedent that he lays down before we can do any-

thing at all in the direction of having a navy. If there is an emergency, or if there is a necessity for an early start in providing this navy, the condition precedent that the hou. gentleman lays down would preclude any action along this line. I submit, the day is not yet in sight-and I venture to say that few of us, perhaps, will live to see the day-when such machinery will be put in operation between the mother country and the colonies, or the dominions beyond the seas, as will put us on an equal footing with the mother country in international questions, and the declaration of war. I think that our proper course is to develop our own country and-to use a military term-to make Canada a complete unit within the empire, and to equip her for every duty she may have to discharge, as well as the Canadian people can bring that about. I submit that the condition that the hon. member for St. Anne lays down would make it impossible for us to do anything in this country. The next proposition which he makes-and he makes it with a view to pleasing some of the super-loyal friends of his party who sit behind him-is that we should give money to the empire.

But he does not put it upon a footing that would please his friends of the opposition. His friends of the opposition say we should come with gifts in our hands, we should ccme with sacrifices to the throne of the mother country and say: Here, if you have any doubt about our loyalty, if it is though that we in Canada are not in sympathy with your navy, in sympathy with your progress, in sympathy with your ideas of empire, here we are with $25,000,000 as a gift to prove to you beyond peradventure that we are loyal. That seems to have been the doctrine put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite. If that is their doctrine, the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) does not agree with it at all, he puts it on an entirely different footing, upon a commercial footing, absolutely commercial and selfish. He says: If we are in partnership with this big concern on the other side, and if we are satisfied that it will fail, it will drag us down with it. That is the argument he used: if the empire is going to pieces we will be dragged down with it, and entirely apart from the question of sentiment or loyalty n is a question of business with us to give the money, to lend that big concern money to keep it afloat. We will give them a letter of credit, that is his language, to the extent of $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, and we will give it with the distinct understanding that it is not to be used, the money is not to be used at all.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
CON

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

Did he say that?

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

With the strong pro-Mr. McKenzie.

bability, that is his language, that the money is not to be used. That is what the hon. gentleman said, it is on 'Hansard.' I know too much about my duty to the gentleman who has preceded me to say anything but exactly what bears the construction that can fairly and reasonably be put on the language he used. That is the proposition, you cannot give anything until you have an equal voice in the disposition of matters- in the old land, you cannot do anything at all, ana if you want to do anything now it is a commercial transaction, you can promise this money and the probabilities are that you will not have to use it at all. That is the position which was taken by the hon. member from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). But although a great deal of time was taken in giving us the very able speech of that hon. gentleman, he did one thing for which he will always have my gratitude and for which he should have the gratitude of every hon. gentleman in this House who wishes for the best to happen this country and who wishes for the true welfare of Canada, he rebuked his colleagues in this House for the trend that they have followed in connection with the so called disloyalty of the French Canadians. I was delighted that the rebuke came from the source it did, from a member of the Conservative party, whose loyalty to that party could not be questioned, and from a gentleman living in the province of Quebec who could speak with authority on that point, and I have been delighted to find that the speeches made since he gave them that wholesome rebuke have been largely purged from this unwholesome element that was found in all the speeches from the hustings and in the House by the opposition members before the rebuke was administered. I believe that if the hon. gentleman from St. Anne never did anything else in this House that would be of note, except that he has given that well deserved rebuke to his colleagues in this House and has put an end to this very undesirable if not reprehensible conduct on the part of those who want to make political capital in their own counties and provinces against the people of Quebec, by continually insinuating that they are not a loyal people, he would deserve our thanks. Nothing could be more calculated to injure this country in its every interest than to have it go abroad from this parliament that if not one half at least a large third of the population of this country was not loyal to the Crown and to the institutions of this country. It is useless to think that we can assimilate large populations coming into this country and gain their sympathy for British institutions, British government and British laws, when the leaders of the Conservative party in this House and from the hustings proclaim to

the newcomer that a certain class of citizens who have been living under our institutions for 150 years, are still disloyal and not true to British institutions and the British Crown. If that is to go abroad in this country and to be believed by the foreigner from Europe and other places, it must have an unwholesome effect in relation to the assimilating to our institutions of the people who are coming into Canada. I submit that there ought to be enough patriotism, enough loyalty in the members of the opposition, even if they believe it is going to bring them to power, to prevent. them resorting to such tactics. The remedy is too drastic to be applied in this country. I thank fortune that in the province from which I come such a thing is never heard as accusing any citizen of disloyalty. We have Acadians, French Canadians in Nova Scotia, but nobody ever dares to think of using such language in reference to them. The same thing applies to New Brunswick. I never heard of it in Prince Edward Island. Such a thing is never mentioned in Quebec, and I believe' that when you pass the boundary between Ontario and Manitoba the disease stops, such language is used in the west. Am I to be told, am I forced to believe by this geographical elimination, that the great premier province of Ontario is to be fed on such food as this stuff meted out to us in this House, about the disloyalty of people in this country? In other matters Ontario has a right to claim leadership in its wealth, population, education, and very many other excellencies. Is it to be1 said that that province shall be the last to drop this pernicious system of attributing disloyalty to citizens of Canada? I repeat to the credit of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) that if he never did anything else in his life except the meting out of this rebuke to his colleagues and supporters in this House, he has not lived in vain.

We are told by hon. gentlemen that nothing should be done until we appeal to the country, we should go with this proposition to the Canadian people and should get their verdict upon this new departure of a navy. I submit that the doctrine laid down by the representatives of this country in England in 1902 were well known in every part of Canada from that year down to the present. They were well known by every leader of either party from the time they were laid down in the conference. I will not say, for it would not be right for me to say, that the leader of the opposition did not know in 1902, in 1903 or in 1904 what those principles were or what Canada intended to do with regard to the establishment of a navy or extending aid to the empire to which we belong.

That policy was well known. If it was

not satisfactory to him or the party which he leads, did he not have an excellent opportunity in 1904 of submitting this question to the people? The leader of the opposition is not a novice at making platforms. He could very well have adjusted his platform and have put a plank in it in 1904 representing this very question, declaring that the principles and rules laid down by the representatives of Canada at the conference in 1902 were not satisfactory, and that therefore the people should pronounce upon them and vote against the Canadian government. I repeat that the hon. gentleman is not a novice at making platforms, and he makes his platforms always on the extension table principle, so that he can put this in and take that out as it suits him and suits the company in which he speaks. Therefore, what was to prevent hon. gentlemen opposite, if they thought we were not doing right in connection with the preparation for the navy in 1902, from submitting the question to the people? The argument in use about 1902 can also be used about 1907, for it is perhaps a strange coincidence that in 1908 we had another general election. The hon. gentleman and his party had the experience of 1902 and 1907 as to what the intentions were. In 1908 there was a general election, when there was an excellent opportunity of putting that policy before the people and getting a pronouncement upon it. I submit to you that if they did not submit that question to the country in 1904, and if they did not submit it in 1908, they had really no desire of submitting it to the country at all, and were perfectly satisfied with the steps taken by the government and the platform and principles laid down by the representatives of this country at both conferences.

Topic:   *FEBRUARY 28, 1910 QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
Permalink

February 28, 1910