February 28, 1910

CON

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

Gentlemen, to meet the imminent needs of the empire, we put at your disposal this sum of money. Mr. Speaker, if that money is drawn under those circumstances, it will be done by men in whom this government has implicit confidence, and upon their testimony that there is imminent need. Will anybody here impute to the government of Great Britain the flagrant dishonesty of drawing money that is put at their disposal when there is no imminent need for it, and that she will take it only to put it in her pocket? When hon. gentlemen tell us that we are throwing $25,000,000 across the Atlantic to these people, giving it away as a pure gift, as the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Beland) said-that is an imputation upon British statesmen whose testimony we are willing to accept as the testimony of men who know what the truth is with regard to the question of urgency. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this money is drawn, I say we have conclusive evidence on the most reliable testimony of the need of that money, if it is drawn we have given it when there was imminent necessity; and even the right hon. gentleman and his government say that in case of imminent necessity, of course, we ought to give immediate assistance.

I would like to know where the hon. member for Cape Breton finds in that speech or in these words any statement that could give any one with ordinary judgment and common sense the idea that we were sending this money over with the knowledge and expectation that it was never to be used. Yet the hon. member once or twice congratulated and felicitated himself on the fact that he never misquoted other people.

The hon. gentleman also brought in the loyalty question. Now, I do not care to talk on the loyalty question. When a man is easy in his own mind with regard to his feelings of loyalty to the empire to which he belongs, he is not ready to suspect others of disloyalty. I had the privilege the other morning of attending the annual meeting of the Dominion Rifle Association, at which there were present militia officers from all parts of the Dominion, and I think one of the most loyal utterances I heard on that occasion came from a colonel commanding one of the regiments in Quebec. He said that if this matter of a navy could only be left to the militia officers of the country, they would soon settle it in a way that would be agreeable to the people and provide properly for defence, or words to that effect, and he was cheered to the echo. I have no doubt at all of the thorough loyalty of the people of Quebec, and never have had, and certainly since this matter has come up, if any one had any doubt about it, that doubt must have been removed by the expressions of loyalty that we have heard on all sides from gentlemen from that province. Outside and beyond that, and appealing only to

self-interest, if there are people in any one province in Canada to-day who more than any other should have a feeling of loyalty and reverence for the British Crown and the British power, it is the people of the province of Quebec. They hold a position unique in the whole British empire. They have treaty rights which no subject of the Crown in any other parts of the world have; and if the power of Britain were broken and Canada separated itself from the British empire, those rights would pass away, and be as if they never had been. So I say the people of Quebec, loyal as they are, have more business reasons for loyalty to the British Crown and for a desire to support and strengthen it, than the people of any other province in the whole Dominion of Canada. So much for the remarks of my hon. friend.

With regard to the question before the House, one of the hon. members, in discussing the ideas of the members of the opposition, endeavoured to poke a little fun at us by saying that no matter how we on this side might criticise the proposals of the government, this was the first time anything practical had been offered to be done. Supposing for a moment that is true, I reply that this is the first time there has been any necessity for anything of the kind to be done. The rise of the nations of the world owning navies has been of the most recent date. The navy of the United States is only a comparatively few years old; Japan is a new nation; while Germany as a sea-power has risen into prominence only within a very few years. The Royal Navy has been patrolling our North Atlantic ocean up to within the last three or four years, when a new policy was inaugurated by Sir John Fisher, the new Lord of the Admiralty. Before that Halifax was the naval station of the North Atlantic squadron in summer and Bermuda in the winter. It was a larger and stronger fleet than the one proposed by the government in the Bill now before the House. This fleet or parts of it visited different parts of the country, including Quebec and Montreal, and it was not until that fleet was withdrawn and until Germany had been showing its determination to have immense power on the sea as it has on the land, that there has been the slightest necessity for Canada to go to any expense, large or small, for naval purposes. I think there is no doubt about that, so that in the circumstances I take it nothing has been done hitherto because there has been no necessity for anything to be done. But now all that is changed. A new naval programme has been given to the world. Germany has announced her intention, in most unmistakable terms, to dispute the supremacy of the sea and wrest that supremacy from Great Britain. That she will suc-1391 . ,j ^ ;

ceed I do not believe, for England will spend her last shilling and her last man before she will allow Germany or any other nation to get the upper hand. But the war, if you call it war, is on now. It is a war of, construction and must be kept up. The people who advocate making every endeavour to keep up with this great war of construction which is going on, are not militarists and jingoes. This rapid building of new battleships and Dreadnoughts is not for the purpose of making war, but for the purpose of preventing war, and that is the only way war can be prevented, especially with such an enormously wealthy and powerful country as Germany. I came across the other day a statement made by a Chinese Minister of War some five centuries before the Christian era, and what did he say. He said:

To fight and conquer one hundred times is not the perfection of attainment, the supreme art being to subdue the enemy without fighting.

That is the reason why this building of Dreadnoughts as rapidly as possible is being carried on. It is in order that war may be prevented and the enemy conquered without fighting.

With regard to our connection with Great Britain in the empire, that appears to me one of the most important subjects in connection with this debate. I take it that our interests are bound firmly with those of Great Britain and the rest of the empire. Britain is our best customer. The men who, out on the great rolling prairie, are gathering in those enormous harvests, find a market for their product in the old country. We can say the same of the products of the east. Who are the people that buy our lumber and the other commodities we have to export? The British people take by far the largest part. So that outside of the bonds of heredity, tradition, history and affection, .there are the bonds of business interests, which unite us to the mother country. And this vast business can only be safely carried on if protected by a navy. And for that protection we have to depend on the British navy, or rather, I would say, if my wishes were carried out, the navy of the empire. The supreme law, in connection with governing bodies, is the safety of the people. The safety of the people is the highest law of all, and in order that this empire may be safe, the royal navy must be supreme. Destroy that navy and you put an end to the empire.

Take this Navy Bill we are discussing, what is the object of a navy? Is it for the purpose of establishing ship-building plants or docks? I should say not. I quite agree that the establishment of shipbuilding yards is important because shipbuilding is a great industry which will give employment to a great number of people.

I take it that docks are necessary, whether we have a navy or not, but the great reason for a navy is strategical. The great object of a navy is defence, so that in -considering what is the best kind of navy to have, I take it that the strategical reason is the one which should come before all others. But if we want a navy for strategical purposes we must have a great imperial navy. That is my idea of a naval force1-a navy of imperial dimensions, a navy for the defence of the whole empire, a navy under one control. In that connection the Prime Minister of New Zealand gave expression to a sentiment which appeals to my mind as absolutely correct. He said:

Recognizing how important it is for the protection of the empire that the navy should be at the absolute disposal of the admiralty, Your Excellency's advisers do not desire to suggest any conditions as to the location of The ships, as they are confident that the truest interests of the people of New Zealand *will be best served by having a powerful navy under the independent control of those responsible for directing it in time of peace or war. What the government does feel concerned in is, that the navy in whatever part of the world it may be, should be under one control, so that the most effective results for the defence of all portions.of the empire may be assured.

Those most effective results can only be obtained by one navy, one control and one flag. We are an immense chain of countries, a chain surrounding the globe, separated-no, not separated-bound together by the sea, and immense possibilities open out before us when we consider what may be our destiny as part of this great British empire.

Away off to the south we have Australia, an island it is true, but a continent as well; some four millions of people there now, but to become many millions; with, at this moment, two transcontinental railways projected to run from the southern part of the island to the north bringing into cultivation and opening out for settlement the immense territories some of which have hardly ever-I suppose some even never-been viewed by white men. And we have stretching away across this ocean. New Zealand. It appears to me that the very dream of such an immense empire as this will become, if we are true to ourselves, is sufficient not only to fire the imagination but to warm the heart of every well-wisher of the flag that flies over us and of the country to which we belong. Such a navy, an imperial navy, should be, in so far as we are concerned, supported by all the wealth which we are able to give to that end. It will be just as important for us in the future as it is in the present for the great heart of the empire In the old country that this navy should be great. I do not look for it in my life Mr. DANIEL.

time, but I think of the time in the years to come when Canada will be the dominant partner in this great British empire if we are so minded as to draw closer the bonds of union and not separate them or loosen them as, I am very much afraid, this present navy Bill will do-and that is one reason, and a great reason, why I am opposed to it. I have spoken of one navy. That does not mean at all, and I do not mean to convey the impression, that we should not have the opportunity of building the ships for that navy, or of our part of it, in Canada. I see no reason why, when we provide the facilities in this country to build vessels of war to- become part of our navy and thereby part of the great imperial navy, they should not be built in this country. On the contrary I see every reason why they should be built here. The same thing applies to the manning of the navy. For that purpose this legislation is not required. The old Militia Act divides the militia of this country into land forces and sea forces. Under the Act the militia of Canada is divided into active and reserve militia and the active militia consists of (a) corps raised by voluntary enlistment; (b) corps raised by ballot. Included in the active militia are seamen, sailors and persons whose usual occupation is upon any steam sailing craft navigating the waters of Canada. It even makes arrangement for submarine work. So this naval militia is not confined to the present Act, but as a matter of fact, years ago, there were companies Of naval militia in Canada. There was a company of naval militia in the port of St. John and not only that, but they had a training ship there loaned from the royal navy, the old 'Charybdis'. She was there for quite a long time, an old full-rigged sailing ship with some auxiliary steam. But she was not popular with the naval militia there and the movement finally died out. But the fact that these naval militia corps were in existence and. that we had the training ships show that we had and have sufficient power to train men for the sea, to utilize training ships and all that that implies. We have had that power for years. Since I came to this House, I have noticed the vote of $10,000 for naval militia. But it was shown that part of that vote for one year was spent in paying for the trip to Paris of the then Minister of Marine. That much I have been able to find out, but not how the rest of the money was expended. But there is the fact-the appropriations were made showing that we have the power to enrol and train naval militia. I say, let us stick to that. This Act gives us power to establish a naval college. Let us establish it. And let us put our trained men on the ships that we

437S

build, after we set facilities to build them, and make these ships part and parcel of the great imperial navy. Another thing is that, if we have the naval college, and ask young men to go through, take the training that that college affords, we must be able to offer them a career when they fit themselves for these positions. Such a navy would give a magnificent career to any young man passing through the naval college, because he would not only have a little navy such as the government propose to establish, but he would have a career in which the whole imperial navy would open out for his ambition. And, if we have an imperial navy, there must be some voice in the making of war and controlling the policy the navy is intended to carry out. This would require an imperial council, and we may hope that this could be formed. I do not doubt that the authorities in the old country have had that under consideration. A scheme could be devised under which, if all the nations of the empire took part in making a great imperial navy, arrangements could be made by which each portion of the empire would have its say in the control of that navy. If we are to get the best and the most for our money, to offer the best and brightest career for our young men, giving a chance also to the men who would not be officers but would man the fleet and giving to every one an opportunity to become a member of that fleet, this would be the best course. It would be a navy which we, could call our own; it vrould not be like this little local fleet that we are proposing to- build, but we would have a share in this great imperial navy which even now is by far the strongest that the world has ever seen. Therefore, I think it is a matter which ought to be given every consideration.

We have had a number of quotations from writers in the Fortnightly ' Review.' I wish to quote from an article in that periodical by Mr. J. L. Garvin, in a note entitled ' The Dominions and the Navy.' He says;

It may be asked, what of Greater Britain? Canada is founding a navy of her own. A few decades hence it might begin to be a serious force in the world if the territories of the Dominion are still under the same flag

It would look as if the significance of clause 18 of this Bill had travelled across the Atlantic, and the people over there really understood its meaning.

-if the territories of the Dominion are still under the same flag. There is lively dissension on the whole subject. Some Quebec Liberals are still against all naval expenditure. Many Conservatives denounce ' tinpot navies,' and are strongly in favour of direct contributions to the imperial fleet, but there

seems not the slightest chance of unanimity in this sense. Australia is also creating a federal navy, which will not be able for many years to throw a sensible weight into the-strategical scales. With the system of direct contributions, New Zealand is not entirely satisfied. South Africa, as yet, is not moving. One conclusion is clear. What was called last spring the ' awakening of the empire ' upon the naval problem has not been very effective for strictly imperial purposes. Under the systems they have decided to adopt (and it may be conceded that, in view of the present state of sentiment in Greater Britain, no other course was possible), Australia and Canada can neither save themselves nor effectually help us.

I would call the attention of members to this statement:

Stern experience may teach the people of the Commonwealth

I presume that should be commonwealths.

-the necessity of larger sacrifices and closer combination with the mother country and each other. Meanwhile this island must go forwTard by its own strength, and upon that the whole empire depends. Australian and Canadian squadrons can do nothing to affect the issue in the North Sea. Our efforts in the North Sea may mean all for them. That is the situation, and we must rise to it. If we have full determination to keep the sea, we can keep it. Though the price will be high we can pay it, and nothing in our history will be greater than the spectacle of this little island staking all its resources once more for naval supremacy, wearing down a more formidable rivalry than we have ever met, and holding on at all costs through peace and, if need be, through war until events, far hence, perhaps, shall compel, as they will, the fighting partnership of the w-hole Englishspeaking world.

By this Bill, in addition to a naval militia, provision is made for a naval college, a permanent force and its control. Of course the important features are the permanent force and its control. '

The Prime Minister, on the 15th November, speaking on this subject, said that we should look on this matter not alone as Canadians, but as British subjects. He said:

We are Canadians, but we are something else also, we are British subjects as well. We have to consider this subject, not only from the standpoint of our status as Canadians, but we have to approach it from the standpoint of our status as British subjects. If we have duties to perform as Canadians, we have also duties to perform as British subjects. If we have rights, privileges and responsibilities as Canadians, we also have rights, privileges and responsibilities as British subjects."

In another part of his speech he says: [DOT]I am for Canada first, last and all the

there. We had a personal interest, in many cases a family interest, in it. The war was ours because our own people were interested in it.

These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I intend to vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition. I take it that the statements that have been made with regard to the immense efforts that Germany is making, the feverish rapidity with which she is struggling to make herself the equal or the superior, if she can, of Great Britain on the seas, axe something that we must take to heart. The preparations of Germany, already a great colossus of military power, with a million of men under arms all the time, and four millions to call upon whenever she needs them-not raw recruits, but men who have passed through the landwehr or similar school of military training-are something that we should take to heart. It is a matter of as much interest to British subjects in Canada as to British subjects in Great Britain or to British subjects in Australia. I for one will never vote to haul down the Union Jack from this country. I will not vote for the passing of any Bill which can be turned into a declaration of independence or an Act of separation from the empire of which we form a part; but I stand for British connection, for a closer consolidation of the various portions of this empire, so that we may look forward to the realization in the future of that dream of which I have spoken already, when these great countries, and as they will be in time these populous countries, bound together by ties of interest and blood and affection and sentiment, shall become the greatest galaxy of nations in the world, able not only to protect ourselves from injury, but to uphold the peace of the world.

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

Alphonse Verville

Labour

Mr. A. VEKVILLE (Maisonneuve).

(Translation).-Mr. Speaker, after listening to the numerous speeches which have been delivered in this House on the momentous question now occupying our minds and that of the people at large for the last few weeks; after witnessing the thrusts exchanged by hon. gentlemen, and listened to the ~ sharp words bandied from one side to the other; finding what precious hours were being taken up by that wordy warfare, I have come to the conclusion that in the interest of the country one should be as brief as possible. Accordingly, I shall take up only very little of the time of the House with the object of discussing this proposal from another viewpoint, one that has not been very much in evidence until now, I refer to the economical and social aspect of that important question.

So then, Mr. Speaker, in rising to take a hand in this important debate, I would like

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

John Waterhouse Daniel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DANIEL.

to be endowed with as much courage and enthusiasm as was shown by the class I represent in its efforts towards securing national and social peace.

I shall take the liberty of speaking in the name of those 60,000 persons who were left derelicts, on the shores of the St Lawrence in the seventeenth century, as was so well stated by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), in his speech at the opening of the debate on this question. That community left single-handed, and with stores of courage and energy as their only means of defence, were abandoned by their then leaders, as we learn from history.

I speak in the name of those who, with a real spirit of sacrifice and abnegation have not ceased propagating the idea of and respect for just vindications in favour of national and social peace and freedom. I speak in the name of those 150,000 organized men who. are a powerful factor towards the buoyancy of our national finances. I speak in the name of 750,000 people who make up the families of those Canadian workingmen, and on their behalf, I say: Let us have peace. I speak on behalf of the people at large, and I pray the advisers of the nation to set the example of a peaceful community, without any thought of aggression, intent only on developing the resources of the country, on increasing its population, on making the most of its immense possibilities, in short, on applying their energy to promoting the happiness and the welfare of the inhabitants of our young and beautiful country.

In view of the coming celebration of the centenary of peace between Canada and the United States, in 1912, the termination of one of the happiest periods in our history, I entreat, the representatives of the people on this momentous occasion to pause and realize that our naval armaments will be a dangerous provocation in days to come. And lastly, I beseech the advisers of the nation to show respect for the principle advocated by modern democracy, with its millions of voices loudly protesting against the threatening armaments effected by civilized people.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in speaking thus, I lay myself open to the charge of being sentimental; but I notice that from the outset of this debate, appeals to sentiment have been more numerous than arguments bearimg on the proposal under consideration; so, I shall follow in the footsteps of those who have spoken before me.

I shall dwell on a few facts which I desire to submit to the House and to the country and, I shall take the liberty of stating my humble opinion as to the future of our nation, though in no wise posing as a prophet.

In a general way, hon. gentlemen have

concerned themselves with the dangers threatening us in a more or less distant future, as well as with our obligations towards the mother country and the commercial and business interests of the country. I conceive and the fact was apparent on more than one occasion, that private interests have sometimes exerted a decisive influence on the trend of our legislation; and large capitalists, with a view to protecting their own interests proclaimed loudly that we should in the first place safeguard our trade by providing a navy, and with that object in view a large expenditure is incurred, while at the same time our coasts are at great cost protected against attacks from outsiders. To that danger of invasion, the right hon. leader of the government referred as not at all immediate. On the other hand, the hon. leader of the opposition points to that danger as imminent and urgent enough to induce us to donate at once two Dreadnoughts to the empire. In the third place, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is desirous that the question should be submitted to a referendum. We are then called upoij to consider these various proposals and come to a conclusion in regard to them.

I regret to find, Mr. Speaker, that very few hon. gentlemen apparently realize the importance of the part played by the labouring people, in the settlement oi those great social and economic problems, and particularly this one. The labouring classes in this country as elsewhere make up the great majority of the people, and, to my, mind, they should have, if not a preponderating influence, at any rate, the right of voicing their opinion. Being the sole representative of labour in this House, I think it is incumbent upon me to speak on their behalf, and to advocate as far as possible the opinions and contentions specially dear to the labouring community. I shall endeavour, within the scope of my feeble attainments to acquit myself of that task, feeling that I am voicing the views of thousands of my fellow-citizens.

We are justly entitled to inquire who are the promoters of warfare. Surely, they cannot be the people who are sent out to fight and who, from that very fact, bring on misery to their families. Those who meet death on the battlefields are heroes, but through their death, women and children dependent on them are made miserable and exposed to the direst privations. The instigators of war are seldom, if ever, those who bear its burden or suffer from its disastrous results. In what class of citizens are soldiers recruited? Among the masses, among existence of hardships, and who give up their lives, mown down by unmerciful guns rather than remain the object of the perpetual scorn of the classes.

Numerous are the examples of wars

brought about through the ambition or selfishness of eminent people. Numerous rebellions have been provoked as a means of forwarding selfish objects. And who are the unconscious tools in those wholesale slaughters of human beings ? The destitute and the workingmen. So I am justified in saying that the views of labour, and espe-cally of organized labour, should be taken into account when questions of armament and of the establishment of navies are being considered. .

Who are those who bear for the greater part the hardships of war? Is it_ not a fact that the masses are mainly its victims? Is it not a fact, as history shows, that war in a great many cases is nothing else but downright robbery in the interests of the few and at the expense of many? Is not that fact demonstrated from day to day by our most eminent men?

Look at the steps which are taken in our times with a view to conciliating capital and labour, or bringng about harmony through the settlement of those far-reaching and terrible strikes, which after all are the outcome of the persistent rivalry of conflicting interests between individuals or classes. It is actual warfare under a new form, and not the least disastrous.

The settlement of those conflicts between capital and labour should occupy a greater place in the minds of persons in authoirty in all countries, and surely it is not by making preparations for war, by building warships, that we will succeed in humanizing the people and developing widespread ideas of peace, harmony and good-will.

Legislation in our country, in the United States, and I might add in most other countries bearing on the settlement of labour disputes through conciliation and arbitration, is evidence of the people's desire for peace, and goes to show that throughout the world it is within the ranks of democracy that this yearning for peace is mostly to be found. Should we engage in a policy^ of militarism, we may well expect agitation as a result among the masses in the near future and it would be unwise on the part of the government to close their ears to the protests which will be forthcoming from the people. , ,

The time will come when we will be confronted with the enormous expenditure incident on militarism and when we will have to impose a tax on revenue. Then, the great financiers and captains of industry, the wealthy holders of the nation's resources, will be obliged to contribute their goodly share of the expenditure. Then, will loud protests and recriminations be heard. We all know what has been going on of late in England, and I refer to it as evidence of the truth of my contention. What did we see going on in the mother country, when the government in a spirit of fairness de-

rnanded a just and equitable contribution from those who in every part of the empire had called the people to arms? Indignant clamours will be forthcoming from those who in justice should pay their full quota towards the maintenance of these engines of war and destruction; but the least we can do is to recognize the right of the masses, who make up the bulk of the army, to say to the wealthy classes who are not represented in the rank and file: Pay your share of the expenditure required for defence purposes.

What has just occurred in England and what is occurring in other countries, will also happen very soon in this country, we may rest assured; and if ever we are under the necessity of imposing a tax on revenue m order to meet the cost of this undertaking, the welkin will ring with the protests against armament emanating from these wealthy men; in the very near future we will be the witnesses of the revolt of capital against militarism. .

Now, Sir, one of the reasons given in the course of this debate, in support of the measure, is that armaments are necessary in [DOT]order to maintain peace. The principle thus laid down seems dangerous to me: peaceful dispositions cannot be expected from a nation armed to the^ teeth. It is the same with nations as with individuals: citizens going about unarmed are not objects of fear. Their means of intercourse are reason and good will, while those who go about armed, are intent on violence and destruction. Fortunately, we find to-day that it is more difficult to enlist men than formerly, and that may be the reason why in our schools inducements are offered to the youth that they may take a liking to arms and warfare. Nevertheless, persons in authority and organizers of our militia corps know how difficult it is to recruit men, bloody warfare being repugnant to human nature m general and particularly so to the workingmen.

Why then should we incite our people to wage war? Would it not be better to educate the people and satisfy them as to the benefits of peace as compared with the horrors of war. This century is the century of peace, harmony and good will among civilized nations. Jealousy and envy are less rampant; hands are extended in brotherly friendship in a common endeavour to put a stop to those troublesome conflicts of individual and social life.

Now, what will be the outcome of that policy of militarism about which we are about to enter? Can it be reasonably expected that the proposed expenditure represents the maximum of the yearly outlay? An amount of $15,000,000 is laid down; to my mind, $25,000,000 would be closer to the mark. But the actual amount is not Mr. VERVILLE.

of great importance just now; a more serious matter is that of knowing exactly what will be done later on. We will go on increasing the navy, increasing the land forces; that will be deemed indispensable. And when we have reached the point when we are unable to spend any more, we will then be ready for the fray, and as soon as there arises some trouble in diplomatic intercourse, a matter readily brought about through the influence of one or several of the magnates of finance, we simply will have to fight in a great many cases. I need not dilate, Mr. Speaker, on the ill results of war, on the disasters they bring about, and which are known to all.

A weighty argument in favour of the present policy, in the eyes of the working classes, it is the prospect that these ships will be built in Canada and be the means of ensuring much employment to our people. Of course, we may be allowed to hope that Canadian workingmen will get employment in those great dockyards required for the building of those warships; but as a matter of fact, will it be so? Are we in a position to shut out foreign labour? Far from it, alien labour will be resorted to more than ever; skilled labour and even large numbers of unskilled workmen will be on hand, and as a result a lamentable condition of things will ensue; wherever one man is needed, ten will be offering, and thereby the army of unemployed far from diminishing will increase in numbers. And when we are through with that work, what will become of that army of workingmen thrown out of employment? It may be answered that they will take to farming, to various forms of industry, or enlist in the navy. Unfortunately, many will be constrained-to do so; and I am satisfied that the thought had already occurred to the advocates of armaments, that such a contingency will do away with, or at any rate postpone, conscription. It should also be well understood that a goodly proportion of these employed have no qualification whatever for the calling of the farmer; after engaging in an industrial calling, they will be unfit for agriculture. Some will object that these men may be available for the building of our railways. Alas, the number of workingmen is already quite sufficient, and the great corporations which have all the men they can employ, will have no pity on these poor unemployed vainly asking for work and left a burden on public charity. Such will be the mournful situation before our eyes.

Now, sir, I intend dealing with that question from another point of view, to which apparently very little attention has been given, although its interest is paramount: I refer to the economic value of each individual producer as a unit in the producing power of the nation as a whole.

It is a well known fact that nations entering on a policy or armament have to face on that account an ever increasing expenditure. That is a foregone conclusion, as from the very necessity of the case each nation strives to outstrip its neighbour in that respect. Such expenditure is not limited merely to the pay and maintenance of the forces on land and on sea; the cost of armament, plant, ships, &c., reaches a much higher figure and the employment of a great many more men is required in consequence.

It may be even reasonably expected that the army, the navy, the dockyards, workshops and manufacturies will soon, in a country such as ours, occupy about 180,000 men, that is to say about 25 per cent of our working class. Of course, that proportion will not be employed from the first; I a,in speaking of the time when .the system will be well established and in full swing. We all know that European countries have exceeded these averages, and that soldiers and sailors there number several thousand men. So that the figure given above, though approximate only cannot be considered excessive, and is probably a very conservative estimate.

In round figures, and taking the census of 1901 as a basis it may be said that on the average the workman earns $387.16 per year. For the 180,000 workmen required for militarist purposes, that would give a total of $70,000,000. Then, it should not be forgotten that these workingmen will be of a high class and that in consequence their salaries will be higher on the average If to this amount in the shape of salaries, is added the cost of maintenance -which is always heavy under government . control-it will be seen that the above amount should be doubled to say the least, and that even then the estimate would be on the low side. Of course, when attempting to figure out the loss inflicted by militarism the full salary of the workingmen should not be taken into account; but the difference between their normal earnings and the salaries paid by the State, should be debited. That difference will probably amount to twice the normal figure, if conditions prevalent on our continent hold good; it should not be less than abut $50,000.000, that is somewhat less than two-thirds of the normal salaries which give a total, as we have seen, of a little over $70,000,000 for 180,000 workingmen. That would mean $50,000,000 applied to unproductive work. That same census of 1901 showed that the total production of our workingmen amounted to $992,719,000, that is about $1,090 for each workingman.

Mr. Speaker, I have just roughly indicated the cost of militarism to the country once established on the lines proposed. Now, to be fair, and not to take undue advantage of the meaning of such figures the

very statement of which might at first sight cause anxiety to the most hardened consciences-I must admit that credit should be given, on the other hand, for amounts to the extent of which the various industries and trades in the country will be benefited through militarism I may be allowed to point out in what measure the country will, from the financial standpoint, profit through militarism.

In the first place, I allow $200 for board to each man, it being well understood that the state must provide the required food for the sustenance of the men, and that trade will profit thereby. In the same way for clothing, I allow $50 per man, maintenance, 50; heating and lodgings, $50; arms, $50; transportation, $50; management, $45; contingencies, $50, which makes up a total of $545 per head, that is one half of his value as a producer.

Now, that amount of $545, representing the expenditure entailed per year by each of these men as a unit in the forces, should be multiplied by 180,000, representing the number of men which militarism employs at unproductive tasks. The total expenditure on account of the men so employed amounts to $100,000,000, which should be deducted from the total of $200,000,000, leaving a net loss of $100,000,000 per year.

Then, Mr. Speaker, if we were to take into account the waste of ability and education to the detriment of productive callings, we will realize that the loss to the country under that head is difficult to estimate. Surely, if hon. members could have afforded to give some time to the study of the economical and social aspect of the question, I am satisfied that we would have listened in the course of this debate to many an expression of broad views favouring peace and condemning armaments.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on me to take a stand against all militarist proposals made in this House, satisfied as I am that, such a stand is the only means of liberating our generation from a state of slavery which is unjust, cruel and unworthy of modern civilization, and the only means also of promoting democratic ideas existing in the latent state among our people.

It was stated previously and justly so that we can have peace only in so far as democratic ideas are deeply rooted in the public mind, and I take this occasion to enter protest against militarism on behalf of modern democracy. However, as far as I am personally concerned, as between the two proposals submitted to this House, apart from the referendum, I believe our Canadian workingmen would object more strenuously to the granting to the empire of the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts than to the providing of a navy strictly and sincerely Canadian in character.

I must say besides, that organized labour in Europe and America have solemnly resolved never to fight one against the other for the protection of private interests, and it is that resolve that causes anxiety to governments and makes them fear that the day has come when free and independent men will refuse to murder their brethren, will consider it a crime to be- the accomplices of those who favour war between men through motives of jealousy, of hatred, of vengeance, or for the upholding of private interests.

The hour may not be far distant when the people, the genuine people, borne down by too heavy burdens, harassed by the hardships and the misery of every-day life rendered more and more difficult to bear, will refuse to assume the enormous burden of militarism, and will cry out in powerful tones: 'Non serviam.' And then where will we find soldiers? I shall leave the answer to those who are more particularly entrusted with the care of studying and solving social problems. That cry may seem revolutionary, and no doubt organized labour will be accused of being disloyal to His Majesty. But, in our opinion, the loyal subject is the man who keeps peace with his fellow-citizens, who observes the golden rule, and works towards ensuring the general prosperity of the country. The loyal subjects who have fallen on the . battlefield have left us noble example, and their names will live in history. During their lifetime, they have contributed to the wealth and welfare of the nation, and being desirous of following in their footsteps, workingmen for that purpose request that militarism be done away with.

_ In so doing they have still another object in view, the very thought of which is distasteful to me; so I shall be content with mentioning that militarism is in many cases and in many countries a very active factor of immorality and degradation. I shall only refer in passing to the misfortunes and shame inflicted on families under circumstances when soldiers judge that everything is allowable to them.

I may say in closing that I could not help being aggrieved at hearing hon. members cast aspersions on the French nationality to which I am proud to belong. Accordingly I feel bound to protest with all the energy that is in me on behalf of my constituents against such insults.

I am happy to proclaim highly that my constituents of various nationalities and religious beliefs have nevertheless enough liberality in their ideas to understand that we are one same people under the same flag, and free from all racial or class prejudices. They certainly will be surprised and aggrieved on learning in what narrow and mean disposition that debate was carried on in this House.

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

Alphonse Verville

Labour

Mr. VERVILLE.

The French Canadian, on account of his numerous and brilliant qualities, is surely entitled to the respect and esteem of his fellow-citizens of different origin; and it is regrettable, to say the least, to find that men occupying a seat in this House take every opportunity of casting aspersions on the French Canadian name.

Mr. Speaker, I love my fellow-people above all and I know that this same love of country and of our institutions is deeply engraved in the hearts of the workingmen I represent; but at the same time, we have a great respect for the British flag which protect us. What we wish for as French Canadians, it is equal rights with our English-speaking fellow-citizens and the respect if [DOT] not the esteem to which as fine and strong a race as ours is entitled. True, as a workingman, the whole world is my home, for labour is required everywhere, finds refuge and protection under all flags.

Therefore, I shall vote with all my heart against any military proposal which will come before this House, and with the full persuasion that I am fulfilling my conscientious duty as a representative of the working classes. But being the representative of an important constituency made up of all classes of society, and having heretofore spoken on behalf of my fellow-people who make up the great labour organization, I shall now give an opportunity to those outside of that organization of expressing their views; and consequently, I shall close^by stating that I will vote in favour of the sub-amendment-.

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

John Best

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin).

This question, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important that has ever come before the people. What strikes me as very inconsistent on the part of the hon. members on the government side is that while they insist on telling us that there is not the slightest danger of any nation going to war with Great Britain, still they want to put this young country to the enormous expense of building a navy. The reason why I rise to oppose their policy is that I believe it is the first step towards separation. In the first place the cost to be incurred will be enormous, and then the navy, when built, will be of no use in time of war, and we certainly shall not need it in time of peace. If I could go east to the rising sun and west to the setting sun, north to the north pole, and south pole, I believe it would be almost impossible to get the opinion of any man which has not been already expressed in this House at least a dozen times; and in almost every case, the opinion would be that Germany was preparing to go to war with Great Britain. That is another reason why I want to oppose the Bill of the right hon. the Prime Minister; and the reason why I intend sunnorting the amendment of my hon. friend the

leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is that I believe in the imminence of that danger, and that we should help Great Britain in time of war. From nearly every hon. member opposite, we have heard that there is no danger of war, but that is an opinion which is not concurred in by Englishmen of prominence. The majority of English authorities believe that war between Great Britain and Germany is imminent, and that opinion is largely shared by Frenchmen. Already the greatest military power in the world, and having no proportionate commercial interests on the ocean, and no extensive and important colonies demanding overpowering naval strength, Germany is building a navy which, it is her avowed intention shall equal-i. e. excel-the British navy; and this, in the face of a long standing explicit warning that Great Britain shall regard any challenge of her command of the seas as a menace. And if the storm breaks, and when it breaks, we shall, nolens volens, be within the disturbed area. Every hon. member of this House believes that Germany is building a powerful navy.

We cannot maintain British connection and stand aloof from Europe. Nor can we turn Turk and run at the first note of the bugle and thereby escape the consequences of the war! What says history? In 1775 Canada was attacked. Why? Because England was at war with her New England colonies. In 1812 Canada was attacked. Why? Because England and France had offended the United States by issuing the Berlin Decrees, and the Americans struck a blow at England by invading Canada.

What then? Shall we surrender our connection with the mother country, and take independent rank among the lesser powers? That will avail nothing! The weaker powers are under the aegis of the greater, and exist on their sufferance! Practically it would mean transferring our allegiance from the mother to a stranger! And would the stranger's hand lie lighter than the mother's? Weakness has never saved a nation from attack. Civilization has not reached that point where it is counted immoral for a strong nation to attack a weak! In the wars that have occurred between two white peoples, in the last quarter of a century, the inequality in the strength of the combatants has been enormous. There is no comer of the world so remote that we could retire thither, live at peace, and escape the notice of the spoiler!

In dealing with the main question, ' Shall Canada possess a fleet?' Let us note, first, that Canada u young, and in her growing time-that all her energies, all her resources, all her wealth of men and money, are needed in laying her foundations secure and well, and building up her nationality. She needs railways and canals, and docks and harbours-she has to secure settlers for her unoccupied territory and build roads for the pioneers! To make surveys and prepare maps of her lands, and charts of her water-courses; to light her coasts and streams, and make them safe for her merchantmen; to draw closer together the outlying boundaries of her scattered population, by an efficient and frequent mail service; to open up new markets and avenues of trade; and to commission swift ships to carry her commerce and correspondence across the seas. She must provide the means for carrying on the work of government, and for carrying out government undertakings. She must build and endow colleges and universities, hospitals and asylums, and provide for the destitute and maimed; she must administer justice, redress wrongs, relieve the oppressed and punish the evil doers, to the uttermost ends of her Dominion. She must care for and support the native race whose heritage she has usurped. She must protect her people from pestilence and the ravages of infectious diseases attacking man, and beast, and tree.

Farther; It is of the gravest importance to Canada that Great Britain should maintain her ascendancy at sea. We would emphasize the fact, that we have but one market for our agricultural produce-our most valuable exports. Close it, and our farmers become impoverished, our whole industrial system paralyzed. We know too well that the United States, in the arranging and adjusting of her tariff, has ever done so to our annoyance and loss. We know that no other country than Britain stands for an open door and equality in trading in her home markets, in the markets of her dependencies, as well as in the markets of the world, and that no other country requires so much of what we have to sell. All oui interests centre in the conservation of the British markets. In 1908 our exports by sea were $156,000,000, by land (United States) $90,000,000. Apart altogether from any feeling of loyalty, or gratitude, we are compelled in our struggle for existence, to keep open the British markets for our produce. Let us ever bear in mind that what we do to aid Britain, we do primarily for ourselves; and if, in our endeavour to secure buoyancy fox our own life-boat, we aid Great Britain in breasting the storm, we are none the poorer. We have but to contemplate for a moment the condition of affairs if Great Britain were defeated, and, assuming the impossible, that we survived. Where could we place our wheat, our beef, and our dairy produce? We well remember how our markets were paralyzed, in so far as they were affected by the McKinley tariff-and how prices fell to the vanishing point before we secured a footing in England, and that because of an increased duty on a few minor commodities.

This is the situation that faces the people of Canada to-day, and recognizing its importance, and importance which may at any moment become very acute.

And here, I think, will be found the key to the position. Canada cannot hope to be able to engage, successfully, in a naval contest with any first-class power that is likely to attack her. She has not the men; she has not the money. She cannot build battleships, ton for ton, with the United States or Japan, or any of the greater European powers. And so far as the United States is concerned she can never hope to overtake her, either in population or wealth; or to excel her in the skill and energy of her citizens. And, if a quarrel is put upon her by her greater neighbour, which can only be settled by the arbitrament of war, whether the attack be by sea or land, the result can at no time be in doubt. Should that unfortunate event ever occur, we may rest assured that the whole power of Greater Britain will be sent to our assistance; and that we shall not be vanquished while a gun and a man remain under the British flag.

I believe, Sir, that the government should not assume such a large expenditure without first submitting it to the people in some way.

The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that this proposed navy will cost the people of Canada $15,000,000, and the annual maintenance will be about $3,000,000, and that it will not be of much use in case of war for at least five years; $3,000,000 a year for five years will be $15,000,000, and the initial cost of $15,000,000 will be $30,000,000. And if the cost increases the way it has since the 12th of January until the hon. Minister of Militia spoke a few days ago, and the way the expenditure on the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and the Quebec bridge increases, at the end of five years the people would have to pay between one and two hundred million dollars.

I believe that the farmers of Canada are willing to aid Great Britain in time of war. And our best way is to send either a money contribution, or Dreadnoughts. The farmers of Canada pay fully two-thirds of the taxation of this country. Last year, about $1,000,000 was spent in agriculture. I claim, Sir, that the government should try to build our canals and make railways so that farm produce would reach the consumer as quickly and as cheaply as possible. I have been taught from my youth that we are British subjects. I have always believed that a man was free while he was on British soil so long as he obeyed the law. Imagine my surprise when, a few days ago, I heard the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) throw it as a taunt across the floor of this House that we on this side were thinking for our-

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

John Best

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BEST.

selves. Sir, we think for ourselves and speak for ourselves. I am glad to know that I belong to a party that dares to express its own opinions. If ever I was proud it was to have this assurance from a member on the government side that the party to which I belong was a party of independence of thought and speech. I hope the day will never come when the members of any party in this country will be afraid to speak for themselves. We are British subjects. We love the land of our birth, and the great empire of which we form a part; and I hope the day will never come when that great empire on which the sun never sets will be dismembered or divided.

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

Marie Joseph Demers

Liberal

Mr. M. J. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).

(Translation). The present debate, Mr. Speaker, is one of the very greatest moment and to few questions has the House given greater attention. This is not because the subject of the debate is a new or an unexpected one; it is indeed nothing more than a normal step in that evolution which confederation has prepared. Canada, conscious of her power and of her obligations and gradually taking her place among the nations of the world, must continue to complete that national organization becoming the position she claims as a nation within the British empire.

The fathers of confederation, whose patriotic wisdom is conceded, understood that the bright future of Canada depended upon the union of the provinces under a central government; divided they could never have been properly organized and would not have developed sufficient strength to secure respect. An undefended country would be in the position of a private owner in a land without courts or officers of justice, and it is needless to say that no nation was ever held to be of any account without the "possession of adequate defences by land and sea. Modern improvements and discoveries have so far failed to reveal any other means of attaining the noble aims of nationhood.

That the creation of a navy as well as of an army formed part of the scheme of confederation cannot be more clearly established than by the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier in 1864, speaking at the time as the leader of the Conservative party, to the people of St. John, N.B. This is what he said in explanation of the advantages and of the necessity of confederation:

Another consideration of the highest importance is that of the defence of the country. In our present condition one province cannot claim the assistance of another in case of attack, but with confederation we shall have an army of 200,000 men, a navy of 60,000 men and we will be in such a position that England will be much better disposed to help us than if we depended upon her alone. IVe should do our best to explain these matters to the people.

On the same day, 14th September, 1864,

' La Minerve,' the Conservative organ in Montreal, printed the following:

With a federal government the central power might dispose of powerful armies and fleets and develop imposing strength in dealing with foreign nations. The government and the nation thus protected would he sure of being respected.

And further on:

It will thus be seen that the object of the federal system is to conciliate the outward strength of a great nation with that respect and care for private interests which under governments embracing too extended a sphere can scarcely be secured.

The same idea was present in the mind of Cartier when at the military camp at Niagara on the 17th June, 1871, he spoke as follows:

A nation can never expect to become great if it is not in a position to resist the enemies who may threaten its existence. The imperial government has been blamed for so promp-ly withdrawing the regular troops from Canada. What ever may be our views on that point, it should not prevent the government and the people of Canada from organizing and maintaining, according to the means and resources of the country, a sufficient military force to secure respect.

If half a century ago the leader of the Conservative party recognized the necessity of a naval force of 60,000 men, how much more urgent must it be to-day to organize a small nucleous of 3,000 or 4,000 men? After the arguments advanced by the champions of confederation in support of the idea of a central government, after the provisions contained in the British North America Act concerning a Canadian navy, similar in all essentials to that creating the land militia, after the revision of the Militia and Defence Acts of 1883, incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1886, providing for the establishment and the maintenance of a Canadian naval service, it is by no means fitting to speak of the present measure as ' A new departure,' or a * turning point in our history.'

At the imperial conference of 1902, the Canadian representatives rejected the idea of a contribution in money to be made by all the self-governing colonies of the empire towards the maintenance of the army and navy, and they expressed their views in a document from which I will read the following extract:

At present Canadian expenditure for defence service are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval side of defence as well. On the sea coasts of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early day a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to

the making of their services available for defence in time of need.

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

This clear and definite attitude on the part of our representatives stating that although we were not disposed to contribute sums of money towards the maintenance of the imperial army and navy, we were none the less ready to establish a navy of our own, was approved of throughout the country and the delegates on their return to Canada were, as we all know, received with distinguished marks of approval. Then came the elections of 1904 and the government's policy as defined by their representatives in 1902, was ratified by a majority of the citizens of the country. There could be no doubt as to the trend of Canadian public feeling at that time, nor is there any reason to believe that it has altered since.

Afterwards came the conference of 1907, where the same principles were laid down but with greater precision, and once more the people of Canada manifested their unequivocal approval of the conduct of their representatives, not only by the manner of their greeting them on their return, but also, as in 1904, by granting them renewed confidence at the election of 1908.

What has happened since which might cause us to swerve from the line of conduct followed on these different occasions?

The resolution of the 29th March, 1909, adopted unanimously by this House, was a complete endorsation of the stand, taken by our representatives in England in 1902 and 1907. The third paragraph of the resolution reads as follows:

The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-ooeration with and in close relation ot the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential of the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.

Sir, the importance and exceptional nature of the present debate is the result of

the stand taken by the majority of hon. members to out left and their present predicament shows us to what extremities the partisan spirit may lead.

It is hard to believe our ears when we hear to-day the hon. leader of the opposition, who was one of the framers of the resolution of the 29th March, 1909, and the hon. members of the opposition, who were unanimous in their approval of it.

What else has been done, what else is now proposed, but to implement that resolution of the 29th March? What was unanimously decided has been faithfully carried out, but it is apparently considered wholesome and proper to oppose every government measure, and the hon. members of the oposition refuse to be bound by their former consent. That is the only reason- and it is a verv bad one-for their present oposition to the government Bill.

It is quite reasonable to debate upon details of the Bill, but it appears to me unreasonable and even ridiculous to question its principle after its unanimous endor-sation by the whole House. It will be difficult to persuade the public that such an attitude can be sincere.

There are in this country many different opinions on the question of the navy-many of which are sincere and respectable, but others inspired by less patriotic feelings and which scarcelv can be prompted by the national interests. There are people in the province of Quebec who, whenever matters of an imperial nature arise seem inclined to decide them as if the province of Quebec was the whole of Canada, as if we were still living under the gloom of 1837, when the bureaucracy and the family compact did everything to persecute, humiliate and exploit French Canadians. They never stop to reflect that circumstances have completely changed and that we are now enjoying peace and justice in the land of freedom ' par excellence,' under the shadow of the British flag, which protects those liberties; yet even those who refuse to defend that flag would dread to see it disappear. Such people would, none the less, declare: 'We are loyal,' as if their lip loyalty were of any avail, when every sacrifice for the navy or the very idea of defence is refused.

Some of those who hold such opinions or who at least profess to hold them, are influenced purely and simply by political considerations; they are by no means convinced, but they desire to pander to a feeling which they think they discern in the province of Quebec; they are most fortunately mistaken as to the sound and judicious opinions prevailing among the masses of the Quebec population, who have time and again shown their desire to live in peace and harmony with the other portions of the country and their readiness to assume uncomplainingly their fair propor-

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

Marie Joseph Demers

Liberal

Mr. DEMERS.

tion of the national duties and obligations.

As for those who, desiring to avoid any direct contribution, are asking for a plebiscite what is their position? Is it a reasonable or a rational one? Can any man havinc listened and observed hesitate as to the sentiment which existed in the country previous to the resolution of the 29th March, 1909? It is to that period that we must go back if we would understand the inconsistency of those who, being opposed to a direct contribution, desire an .appeal to the people. That resolution of the 29th March, 1909, had the useful result of modifying public opinion by reminding the citizens of this country that Canada is a self-governing nation. Is it not true that the great majority of the country before that time favoured a direct contribution that the great majority of the people of this country, swayed by sentiment rather than by sound common sense, would have desired to offer Dreadnoughts, &c. A plebiscite would then have meant neither more nor less than a direct contribution, and as I would be ready to admit the apparent logic of a request for a plebiscite on the part of ..those who favour a direct contribution, but not, however, an appeal to the people, being apparently so sure of public opinion that they desire to impose it immediately; so also do I deny to the opponents of direct contribution the right of complaining that the government has not acceded to their request which is ridiculous when the inevitable result is considered. I am convinced that a large number of those who are clamouring for a plebiscite are doing so because they are convinced that the thing is impossible after the resolution of the 29th March, 1909.

Mr. Speaker, when I consider the consequences of a plebiscite, the popular passions and the racial hatreds it would let loose, I look upon it with the utmost alarm, and I would consider such a measure a crime. And at this point, I have a word to say to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has not taken in this debate a position consistent with his avowed principles. He is asking for a plebiscite. Would he respect the verdict thus rendered? I do not think so. The hon. member has seen fit in the course of his speech of the February 3, 1910, to go over the details of the Manitoba school question and of the Alberta and Saskatchewan questions. Now, we have had plebiscites, and very important ones, on these questions at the elections held in 1900, 1904 and 1908. Does the hon. member respect these expressions of public opinion and submit to the popular verdict? What security does he offer that he would respect it better in the present case, and where is his title to pose as a champion of the rights of the people as expressed by plebiscites?

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

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Will the naval debate go on to-morrow?

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

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING.

Yes.

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

Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.



Tuesday, March 1, 1910.


February 28, 1910