February 28, 1910

CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Does my hon. friend say that it was a leading plank and the policy of the government of which he is a prominent supporter, in either the general election of 1904 or 1908?

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I did not say, Sir, that it was a platform at all. I say that it was the well understood policy of this government, as represented and as disclosed to the world by the representatives of this government who were present at the conference in 1902. From that day down to the present the policy of the government was well known and there was no need to make a platform about it. It was an understood matter and the hon. gentleman opposite did not make an issue of it. When the hon. gentlemen who were leading the opposition party in the country will not raise an issue, the strongest and the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the principles disclosed and the line of action laid down by the government are satisfactory to them. That is the contention which

I make here, and that I think is the only logical conclusion to be drawn. If to-day hon. gentleman opposite think that it is necessary to submit this question to the people as to whether there should be a navy at all, or, if a navv, what should be the size of it and that sort of thing, the proposition of the navy, its size, and all that have been before the people, there has been knowledge of the question since 1902, if it is a proper thing to submit to the people to-day it was a proper thing at either or both these elections, and if they did not think it proper to take advantage of the opportunity, I submit that they are not sincere to-day when they are asking to make of this an issue to go to the people with. We had this question very well threshed out less than a year ago. The hon. member for North Toronto placed the first resolution upon the order paper the very first day of the sitting. From the little knowledge I have of that hon. gentleman, obtained since I have occupied a seat in this House, I venture to say that the bringing down of that resolution was not the first thing he did in connection with it. I submit that he gave it careful thought, that he looked at it from every standpoint, considered it carefully and possibly wrote a great many resolutions before he found one that suited him. The resolution with which he came down to the House remained on the order paper for seventy days or thereabouts, and it was wrell considered by every hon. gentleman on both sides of the House, I presume. When the time came to discuss it, he discussed it fully and pointed out clearly and unequivocally that his intention was to make a start in the direction of having a Canadian navy for the protection of our own people and for no other purpose. The leader of the opposition agreed with him that that was the thing to do. The right hon. leader of the government stated clearly and distinctly that neither he nor his party, was going to depart in the slightest degree from the lines laid down in 1902 and 1907, and that he would not be stampeded by any false cry that might be abroad in the country. After hearing that clearly and distinctly laid down, the hon. leader of the opposition said: I fully and emphatically agree with the position taken by the leader of the government. That is the position that he took then. The leader of the government said: We cannot afford to lose any of the privileges which we have to-day as a country. We must have the same control over our own affairs that we have now, and we cannot and will not have any less. The leader of the opposition agreed with him and said: We have well earned every privilege that we have in this country. They are not favours, they are rights, and the government cannot go as far as, or any farther, than I will go, in Mr. McKenzie.

fully sustaining and upholding every privilege and every bit of the autonomy that we have in this country. These are the statements made by the leader of the opposition in his speech of the 29th March last. His words are to be found in 'Hansard,' and if it is to-day a dangerous thing to retain the powers which we have in the Militia Act, if it is to-day a dangerous thing and tends to disrupt the happy relations between the empire and this country, were the dangers less a year ago? If there was any difficulty at that time the leader of the opposition, if he was sincere then, or if he is sincere now, should have stood up and said: These conditions must not continue; everything should be left entirely at the disposal of the British Crown, and we will not now undertake to exercise control. But that was not his position nor the position of his party. They were unanimous in support of sustaining the conditions which we have now and which we have had for the last forty years. We have heard no reasons for such a right about face on the part of the leader of the opposition and his friends in connection with this matter. There is not a reason to-day that was not in existence a year ago. Whatever discussion took place in the English House of Commons about the German scare, so-called, took place ten or twelve days before the resolution was brought down. I think it was on the 20th or 22nd March that Premier Asquith made his speech on the subject in which he made reference to the necessity of further provision for the navy in Great Britain and I think he made some observations from which it could be gathered that there was some difficulty in that country. That period has passed, explanations have been given, and the excitement had subsided before the leader of the opposition and his followers made their speeches. We are now told by the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto that we must all of a sudden have a tremendous navy that would be able on the first day of its appearance on the waiter, to icope with any of the great navies of the world. That is an extraordinary position to take, and it is very different from the position taken by them less than a year ago.

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

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

Did the leader of the opposition ever make such a statement as the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) has attributed to him. If so, when and where?

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I did not attribute that to the leader of the opposition. If the hon. member (Mr. Daniel), wants to know who made that statement, I may tell him it was the member for Medicine" Hat (Mr. Magrath). My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel), may rest satisfied that

I do not belong to the class or tribe that misquotes people. If he has anything else to do he can rest content that he has nothing to watch in me, because my training and experience in life has been along other lines, and I have made my living in situations where it would be little benefit for me to misquote, because I would be brought to time very soon for it. On the other hand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Daniel) belongs to the medical profession and he may be able to hide his mistakes under the ground, but those in my. profession cannot do that.

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

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

That is a very old chestnut.

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

Not much older than the hon. member. To say that we must not have a navy until we have a great big one is like the old lady who told her grandson that he must not go near the water until he learned to swim. If my hon. friend will follow the speeches of the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), he will see that that hon. gentleman said last year, that, the proper thing for us to do is to have a navy of our own, that the matter of a contribution was out of the question, that it had been a failure wherever tried, and that we should make a small beginning in our navy. But less than a year after the hon. member (Mr. Foster) advised the House in that direction, the House would hardly believe such a change has been wrought in his views. I submit that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) advised the House that the proper thing to do was to make a small beginning with a navy of our own and develop it as every other enterprise in this country had developed, he was stating the wise course for us to pursue, and when he departed from that advice he departed from the path of wisdom, and is not taking himself seriously. If there was any necessity for further proof that such was the idea in his head a year ago, it is to be found in abundance in his speech where he told us: To sow the seed in the soil, to start something to which we could look with pride and which we could develop, to start something that would train up our young men so that they would take pride in the defence of the empire, and not to leave to other people to do that which we could do best ourselves. We have heard it said that in Canada we have not the capacity nor the means, or the experience to build a navy. But, would not the same argument be applicable in the initiation of some of the greater enterprises, which have obtained such an enormous growth in Canada. We have no canal in existence for instance at all comparable to what the Georgian Bay canal will be, and yet I am satisfied that we have talent and industry

and ability in Canada sufficient to successfully complete the Georgian Bay canal. When the Canadian Pacific railway was started there was nothing in this country in any way commensurate to the vastness of such an enterprise, and yet the Canadian Pacific railway grew and the country grew wih it, and the Canadian management of that railway is capable of giving the best service in the world. All this goes to show the immensity of the capabilities of the [DOT] people of Canada when the occasion demands. I submit too that the history of the maritime provinces justifies us in believing that the shipbuilding industry can be developed there just as well as in any country in the world. Sixty years ago we had in Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia men who went to the woods and cut the timber, brought it back and built the vessel, rigged that vessel, found cargo and passengers for her, and then took command and sailed her in two oceans to New Zealand and Australia. Such men we had by the score in the maritime provinces and we have their descendants there today, competent to utilize all. modern appliances for the construction of ships equal to any that sail the ocean. I have no fear but that there will be found in Canada men competent to build a navy, to man it, and to command it. I read in the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe that in one of the ports on the great lakes they have a ship building plant capable of turning out vessels 500 feet long and of 7,000 horse-power. If that can be done in one part of Canada, why cannot it be done in another. I am glad to see that there is a thriving -ship building industry jon the great lakes, and I have not the slighted doubt in my mind, but that the industry can be pursued in the coastal harbours of the maritime provinces and of British Columbia, with just as much success as in any other part of the globe.

The hon. gentleman from Simcoe pointed out that we have at Sydney harbour, in readiness for the building of steel ships, one of the finest plants in the world, fully equipped and ready to produce the necessary material. The premier of Australia, in the speech he made at the conference of 1907, pointed out to the Lords of the Admiralty that the coastal service in Australia would be of great efficiency and usefulness to the home government in getting ready the supplies that may be necessary for the fleets of that station-that it would protect the coal and other supplies that might be necessary, and furnish men if men were required. All this is true with reference to British Columbia and Nova Scotia, where we have coal in abundance, and I would suggest to the government that the very first duty of government is to put the security of

these magnificent coal supplies beyond peradventure. It ought to be made impossible for any foreign ship or squadron to take possession of our coal supplies. I do not know how it is in British Columbia, but in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton the coal fields are on the coast within gunshot of any vessel that might come near;' and for that reason it is entirely necessary, if this country is to maintain full control of her coal supplies in the eastern part of Canada, that the protection usual in cases of that kind should be put up. It may be said that we have not a sufficiency of these things to launch upon so great an enterprise as the building of a navy. Let me tell you that the largest coal seams and possibly the largest coal fields in the world are in the province of Nova Scotia. If you ask me where the largest coal mine in the world is situated, I tell you in the province of Nova Scotia and in the island of Cape Breton. If you ask me where are the largest iron and steel plants, which would be a basic necessity for the building of this navy, I tell you that one of the largest in the world is to be found in the province of Nova Scotia and in the island of Cape Breton. We have also the people who are equal to any emergency, and who will educate themselves for any conditions that may arise. Our steel works in the Island of Cape Breton are not more than seven or eight years old, and 4,000 or 5,000 people are necessary for the working of those plants, largely experts, skilled labour. You ask me where we get them. We get them in the island of Cape Breton and in the province of Nova Scotia. Our own people, with very few exceptions, have in that short time educated themselves to do whatever is necessary in connection with these plants. The same thing can be said about the handling of our coal mines. The engineers, the underground managers, and all the managers to be found about these works are our own people. There is not in the world any people who will more quickly and readily come up to any of these requirements than the people of Cape Breton. The building of this navy is but another step in the opening up of new avenues for the development of the dormant powers of many of our people. It gives an opportunity to the poor man as well as to the rich man to gain for himself a position. Under the conditions that will prevail in our navy the poor man's son will have an opportunity to make a name for himself as well as the son of the rich man. That being the case, if it was for nothing but the chances it is going to give to our people to develop themselves along these lines, the starting of this navy would be justified. It was less than a year ago that this House unani-Mr. McKENZIE.

mously decided that the building of a navy by our own people with our own money was the proper course for us to take. Nothing has happened since to change in any way the conclusion we. reached on that occasion. And why should there be a turnabout of this kind? Possibly the explanation is given by the 'Canadian Courier', a paper which I believe is independent in politics, but is edited by a strong friend of the leader of the opposition and of his party. That paper says of the opposition:

The situation is absolutely senseless. Their attitude betokens either a sad loss of reason and judgment, or else a weak-minded resort to a dangerous political expedient. So far as Mr. Borden is personally concerned, we believe that he is too well informed and has too much * horse sense * to justify the resolution on any other ground than political necessity. However, definiteness and unity cannot be expected from a party which is so sadly divided on a question as the Conservatives are on txie proper policy for Canada to pursue in nu matters.

That is the position which this independent journal takes, a position with which I entirely agree; and if the hon. member for Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty) had made his speech last year and had declared to his colleagues in this House that this cry of disloyalty had to be eliminated from the utterances of the leaders of the Conservative party, and from the rank and file of that party, I believe we would not have the break that we have at the present time. One of the reasons is that those who won their elections on the cry of disloyalty raised against the Prime Minister and his supporters in the province of Quebec, would find themselves in a very awkward predicament if they should accept his policy on the naval question. They could not very well then go among their own people and raise the cry of disloyalty against the province of Quebec.

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

William Owens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OWENS.

Would the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question? Does he think it right to lay at the door of all the members from this side of the province of Ontario the statement that the followers of the government who come from Quebec are disloyal, simply because one or two have made it?

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

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

William Owens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OWENS.

The hon. gentleman should name them.

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I can assure my hon. friend that I did not have him in mind at all, and entirely acquit him from any imputation of the kind; but if he will read the rank party press of Ontario and follow

those who undertook to speak for his party in Ontario, he will find that the affirmation I make is only too well founded. I am a Scotchman, and a Nova Scotian, and a loyalist from away back, as far as there is anything to be spoken of, and for that reason I have no love or standing for any such thing in this country as charging my fellow countrymen with being less loyal than myself. I regard such a charge as most pernicious, and in that connection I cannot do better than quote the language of so distinguished a Conservative as the late Mr. Chapleau, who said in this House that the man who starts the cry of disloyalty and racial and religious prejudices is a traitor to his country and his God. That was the language of so distinguished a Canadian as Mr. Chapleau, and I am sure that there is not a man on the opposition benches who thinks himself a bigger Conservative that was that distinguished gentleman, and that was his measure of the contemptible line of action which we find followed to-day in the interests of the opposition. I repeat that if the Conservative party were purged of that element, if no cry of race or religion were raised in one part or another, the leader of the opposition would have stood manfully to the position he took less than a year ago, which he reaffirmed in England and which he afterwards repeated in his own constitutency of Halifax and the city of Toronto. I for one thought that he would have stood by it, I thought he had the backbone to do so, but others said, no. Wait, they said, until the psycological moment arrives and you will find that the barnacles will drive him as they please, just as they did before.. Events have since proven that those who thus predicted .knew the leader of the opposition better than I did. A year ago that hon. gentleman was perfectly satisfied with the course followed by the government. He had heard that policy declared clearly and distinctly by the Prime Minister, there was nothing hidden, he knew it all, and he agreed with every word of it. I do not regard the decision of this House as a trifling matter, even a majority decision. But when the high court of parliament deliberately, after all the facts are before it, comes to a unanimous conclusion, I cannot look upon the breaking of that compact or the reversing of that decision as at all a light matter. Whv should we reverse to-day the position then taken? No new principles of law have since come into existence nor have any new facts, nor has any new light appeared. If there were any reasons in subsequent events to justify the decision we took a year ago, .one would understand this change of front. But nothing has occurred since to alter the position. There has been no change of facts or law, we are exactly

in the same position, and I ask hon. gentlemen on the opposition benches where they would find themselves now if they had to go back to their constituents and explain this sudden change of opinion and doctrine on their part in less than a year.

I submit that the only explanation of that tthing is party expediency as stated by the 'Courier,' which I quoted a moment ago.

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

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Would my hon. friend permit me to say that the Conservative party last session were in favour of giving Dreadnoughts.

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I do not recollect that there is anything in the resolution to that effect.

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

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

I did not say there was anything in the resolution, but that the Conservative party had declared in this House that they were in favour of giving Dreadnoughts in the emergency now before the country. If my hon. friend wishes, I will quote the language of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto.

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I rememoer well that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) at the very end of his speech, in a very milk and water way, said that if there should be an emergency he would agree to provide for it, and that he was sure hon. gentlemen on this side would stand by him in that proposition. But the hon. the leader of the opposition did not say anything at all about it, except that there should be a door left in the resolution which would enable us, if an emergency should arise, to come to the rescue of the mother country. Language to that effect is in the resolution which could be construed to give us the right to make that provision should an emergency arise.

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

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). He is very gentlemanly in the debate. But would he permit me to place on ' Hansard ' the statement by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) with the concurrence of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)?

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I had intended to put a number of the pages of those speeches on record, but time will not permit. I have no objection to my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) reading what he proposes.

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

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

It is just a word or two. In the speech delivered on January 12 this session

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

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE .@Cape Breton

I was talking about March 29 last.

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

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Yes:

My hon. friend from North Toronto 01 r. Foster) said in that debate with my concur-

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

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).

Mr. Speaker, the intense importance of this Bill and the effect which it may have on the future history of Canada, and of the great empire of which we form a part, justify me in speaking on this question even at this late stage of the debate. Personally I feel a very deep interest in anything which has relation to naval defence. The constituency which I represent is on the Atlantic sea-board, and in the event of a naval combat between Great Britain and any country which has accumulated sea-power enough to attack her supremacy on the seas, if unfortunately that other navy should be successful, the constituency I represent would probably be the first to feel the fatal effects.

As far as I am concerned, I am deeply interested in this, not only as a citizen and a British subject, but especially as representing a constituency down by the sea. Now, Sir, I intend to make my remarks brief and as much to the point as I can, and before coming to them I feel myself bound to reply to some few observations of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. McKenzie). In the first place, he spoke about there being no necessity for sending this verv important proposal back to the people. He said that we were here elected by the people to represent them and to decide on these questions. Under ordinary circumstances I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, but what do we find in this case? This is the most important matter that we have ever had to deal with in this parliament, and the people have never had an opportunity of giving any expression of their views upon it. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat knows as well as any member of this House that this question has never been proposed to the people in any shape or form, and how he can intimate that such has been the case is something I do not understand. We have never had a proposal about a navy for this country until this very session, and it is the proposal that we are now discussing. How any hon. member can say that the people have had an opportunity of discussing and deciding this question is more than I can understand. He also made a reference to the fact that leading members on this side of the House have hitherto confined their wishes and desires to a navy for the purpose simply of defending our own shores. He quoted my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden) as stating that my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had made a statement when the resolution was passed in 1909 which had met with his concurrence. He intimated that the statements that were then made by the hon. member for North Toronto were devoted to the advocacy of a fleet simply for local defence. I had al-Mr. Mckenzie. .

ways thought that the hon. gentleman was one who prided himself on being a gentleman who did not misquote or misrepresent the language of another. With your permission. Mr. Sneaker, I will read what the leader of the opposition said, and I will give the quotation that he made from the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto. The leader of the opposition said:

One of the criticisms which has been made upon the resolution is this: That parliament did not then proffer to the empire in the hour of peril anything more than an expression of a desire to co-operate and'an intention to perform. Well, Sir, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned that is not our fault. My hon. friend from North Toronto said, in that debate, with my concurrence:

To-day peril stands at the gateway. It is not for me to say how great it is, but I cannot brush it aside. To-day it impresses itself upon the greatest statesmen of the old country; to-day it appeals to Australia until public subscriptions are taken, and the government is being importuned to do even more than its settled policy to meet the emergency; to-day little New Zealand gives one Dreadnought and offers a second, and to-day Canada faces that position of peril and emergency. Let me say to my right hon. friend, that if after careful consideration he proposes to this parliament a means for meeting that emergency adequately, now and as it should be, whether it be by the gift of Dreadnoughts or the gift of money of this country, this side of the House will stand beside him, and stand for Canada in supporting that measure.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, whether the hon. member for Cape Breton, in making the statement he did. quoted the hon. member for North Toronto and the leader of the opposition correctly. The hon. member also spoke to the effect that we had never been asked to assist the mother country in this emergency. That they did not come over and ask us to give them some money, that they should have sent a request for funds through the Tegular channels or in some other way. I would like to know in what way the hon. member would expect the statesmen of the mother country to intimate to this country that they would be glad of assistance in the emergency that is now before the whole British empire. I should imagine that a eentleman of his standing in the legal profession, one who has occupied a seat on the bench, if he wished to give a judicial statement in regard to the matter, would have studied the question to some extent so as to satisfy himself that the remarks he was going to make were actually based on fact. I am sorry to make these quotations because they have all been placed on record before, but the statements of the hon. gentleman make it absolutely necessary. Lord Tweedmouth's statements have been already quoted, and I suppose that even the member for Cape Breton will allow that

Lord Tweed mouth was in a position to speak for England because he was at the conference of 1907. Speaking to the representatives of the empire at one of these notable conventions, he said:

To the representatives of the empire

Those from Canada included.

-we ask you to take some leading part in making the national defence of the empire mere complete. We thank you and recognize the free, unstinted help already given. One reservation we make, and one only, that we hold the command of the naval forces for the defence of the empire for which we are responsible. Unity of action, unity of command. We want you to give us all the assistance you can.

Is that pot plain? Is that not distinct? I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Breton wants anything more than the language to which I have just alluded that the mother country would be glad of our assistance in this great emergency?

We want you to give us all the assistance you can, but we do not come to you as beggars. Whether you help or not we are still to protect the King's dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.

people of England are not beggars. They will defend themselves and they will defend this whole empire until the last shilling or the last man is used up in the fray rather than go on their knees to Cani any other Part of this empire and ask them any more plainly or openly for funds than they have already done. Then there is Lord Rosebery. He also made some remarks, I think at the press conference, and I quote the following:

When I see one country alone asking for 25 millions of extra taxation for warlike preparations; when I see the unprecedented sacrifices which are asked from us on the same grounds, I do. begin to feel uneasy as to

.f, outcome of it all, and to wonder where it will stop. . . . Gentlemen, we can and we will build Dreadnoughts' or whatever the newest type of ship may be as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put into them. All that we can and will do, but I am not sure that even that will be enough, and I think it may be your duty to take back to your young dominions across the seas this message and this impression: that some personal duty and responsibility for national defence rests on every man and citizen of the empire. Yes, gentlemen, take that message back with you. Tell your peoples - if they can believe it - the deplorable way in which Europe is relapsing into militarism and the pressure that is put upon this little England, to defend itself, its liberties-and yours! But take this message also back with you-that the old [DOT]country is right at heart; that there is no failing or weakness in her; and that she rejoices in renewing her youth in her giant dominions beyond the seas. For her own 139

salvation, she must look to herself, and that failing her she must look to you. -

Surely, in view of these two quotations from eminent statesmen holding responsible positions in Great Britain, surely the position of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) is untenable when he says there is no need for a contribution from Canada or any other part of the empire to aid the motherland in this emergency. The hon. gentleman tells us he does not believe there is an emergency, but the answer to that is that there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see. He reminds me of that story in sacred writ where some Hebrews from a distant part of Judea came to the Saviour and stated that they wanted a sign; the Master told them they had Moses and the prophets, and if they would not hear them, they would not believe even though one rose from the dead. I take it that no matter what evidence is submitted to my hon. friend he would not believe even though one rose from the dead. The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that the British North America Act places the control of the naval and military forces in His Majesty, and I would point out that if the British North America Act is in force, then clause 18 of the Bill is of no effect, and it being of no effect, why insert it? The very fact that clause 18 is in the Bill determines me to vote against it even though I should be in favour of some of its other features. Clause 18 says:

In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the R'vval Navy, the naval service or any part thereof.

That seems inconsistent, for if under the British North America Act His Majesty has command of these forces, why should the Governor in Council be in a position to place them at his service or not just as they think fit. The inference is, of course, that if the government did not wish to place the naval force at the disposal of His Majesty they need not do so. If clause 18 does not mean that, it has no effect at all, and that being so, I object to it. To my mind that clause gives the Governor in Council a chance to declare the independence of Canada whenever it should think that it was a fit and proper time to do so. I say, Sir, that this parliament has no mandate from the people of Canada to go to any such length as that, and whether this Bill is submitted to them for their judgment or not, they certainly must have a final say on such a momentous question. Such a radical change as that in the constitution of the country, this parliament, I submit, has no power to bring about without the consent of the people. That is the great reason why I shall vote against this Bill. The hon. gentleman from Cape Breton admitted that the British North America Act

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

February 28, 1910