March 2, 1910


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


CON

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before opening my remarks on that important question, I wish to refer to certain arguments employed by hon. gentlemen on the other side in support of their position. If we are to accept the statements of the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Beland), and for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Boyer), universal peace, the safety of Canadian trade, and even the supremacy of Great Britain, axe all dependent on the presence, the coming in the near future, on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans of that great naval force represented by Canada's imperial fleet. _

Now is not that awful? And where will these good farmers, their electors in Beauce and Vaudreuil, be compelled to go in order to sell their eggs, potatoes and onions? Strange to say, they only thought of that quite recently, and goodness knows what wonders of imagination they have already accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, we will try and reassure these good folks by saying to them: My

good friends, in time of peace there will hardly be any change. You will sell your eggs just as you did before. Only you will please to lay aside a little percentage out of each dozen, just a few cents, to enable you to pay the cost of those floating fortresses and the salaries of the great and high officers who handle them.

In time of war, your fleet will have to be protected by the British navy, or else it will soon be blown out of existence.

What amuses me, Mr. Speaker, is to hear all these great pacifists of 1896, to whom I shall refer presently, shouting ' To arms, Canadians ! Nations are arming around us! The United States, China and Japan are arming themselves all around us ! To arms, Canadians! '

Close your ears, dear hon. member for Maisonneuve. For polishing warlike implements and treating us to a smell of powder in time of war, such colonels as the hon. member for Vaudreuil have no equals.

What sounds rather strange is to hear such constant appeals to the memory of Cartier. Here is a statesman who by his death, gained a great deal of praise from hon. gentlemen opposite. Cartier was a far seeing politician. He has endowed his country with great and lasting benefits. But as far as defence is concerned, and I Mr. EDWARDS

challenge contradiction on this point, I have no hesitation in stating that in his military legislation he never had in view anything further than the- defence of Canada, his ' own beloved country.'

I am glad to notice the admission made here last night by the member for Laval (Mr. Wilson), that even if we were to strike out sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Bill, the fleet would have to take part in the imperial wars. Such is my own opinion and I must tell the hon. member that he is making my task quite easy, because my intention is to demonstrate that very fact.

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

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NANTEL.

(Translation.) At all events, Mr. Speaker, by keeping silent, I voted for the resolution of the 29th of March, and yet, I shall vote against the Bill. I shall also vote against the proposal in amendment. I am in favour of the subamendment and of that only.

On the 29th of March, the German peril was the outcry. The right hon. Premier said: Germany is preparing to treat England on the ocean as she has treated France on land in 1870. He recently stated at Toronto, and he repeated in this House, when he introduced his Bill, that the German peril had ceased to exist. If the German peril justified the resolution, we have no more need of the latter. The Bill itself has no more reason to exist, and neither is there any justification for the military navy.

The resolution referred to a Canadian naval service for national defence. The Bill contemplates a military navy which, in time of war, shall be put at the disposal of the empire.

In my estimation, national defence means the defence of Canada. I am a British subject, and I am proud of it, I am a Canadian, and I am doubly proud of it. Canada is a part and parcel of the empire, but within the empire, each component part has its duty especially assigned to it, and Canada's duty is the defence of our homes, of the country, for the country and for the empire, and for my part, when I speak of my country, I mean Canada.

If there is no more German peril, we have no need of being in such a hurry to establish this military navy and put it at the disposal of England. After all, is it likely that Canada will before long have a naval war on its own account? I do not think so. Evidently this fleet will only be useful for the wars of England. It will only exist for that purpose.

In time of peace it will not be useful. The hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) stated at the imperial conference of 1907 that Canada had her boats for the protection of her fisheries. In time of war, will it really be useful to England? The question is disputed and is very doubtful. It will evidently be a fleet destined to serve in

imperial wars and the efficiency of which) will be more apparent than real.

I shall vote against the Bill because it involves the recognition of military imperialism, because it aims at having that principle recorded in our statute books. 1 shall vote against the amendment because it involves the same principle and because I do not admit that there is any emergency under the present circumstances, I do not wish to justify the motion of the leader of the opposition. I have just said that I am against it. But I believe, in all sincerity, that it does not involve such serious consequences as the government measure. It involves an expenditure not of $25,000,000, as stated by hon. gentlemen opposite, but of only 18 or 20 millions, the cost of two Dreadnoughts, without consulting the people, because it assumes that there is a case of emergency. Furthermore, the policy to be carried out later on would depend upon that appeal to the people. The proposal of the government involves an initial expenditure of 15 millions, with a yearly expenditure of $7,157,000. Then, everybody knows that this military navy will cost, later on, more than 100 millions, with a proportional yearly expenditure. And in that policy there is no provision for any emergency which might arise within three or four years._ ' La Patrie,' a Montreal newspaper, which is in favour of the government's scheme, published the following despatch from Washington, dated January 14th last, which shows the extent of the consequences which may result from the policy to which the Dominion is being committed :

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

MILITARY NAVY.


This question is hotly discussed in the United States. (Special despatch to 'La Patrie'.) Washington, January 14,-1The Canadian Navy Bili as introduced by Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier is being discussed with great interest in diplomatic and naval circles. While the diplomats hold that the present debate shows the dependence of Canada as regards Great Britain in case of war, the naval officers are of opinion that Canada is binding itself to an undertaking much more costly than her people think, and that the Canadian navy will have no importance unless the Canadians are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. You cannot have a navy with a few vessels only. Such is the opinion expressed by a distinguished naval officer, and he adds that shipbuilding is not the only expenditure to be considered and that the recruiting of the crews and the general organization are sources of expenditure which call for the most serious consideration. Others express the opinion that it would have been preferable for Canada to have built six or eight vessels of the most modern type and to have made a present of them to England. A certain group even go so far as to pretend that the United States would defend Canada in case .of war and that the Dominion had no reason to fear an invasion in the future. Sir Wilfrid Laurier having declared that any war with England means war with Canada, many persons are of opinion that any war with Canada would mean war with the United States. The sub-amendment, which calls for a referendum to the people on a question of such importance, is the only proposal which meets my full and entire approval. Personally, I believe that the policy to be followed by Canada is, and will be for a long time to come, the policy which has been followed ever since 1863, admitted by British and Canadian statesmen such as Gladstone, Disraeli, Salisbury, Sandfield, Macdonald, Cartier, J. A. Macdonald, Blake, Mackenzie, until the days of Chamberlain, and which is limited to the defence of our land, to the defence of thle empire on Canadian territory, so as to entirely dispense the mother country from any such trouble and care. Up to date, three different modes of contribution to the defence of the empire have been recognized and accepted, both by England and by the colonies. First, a contribution in money or materials. Secondly, a local fleet which, in time of war, shall be put at the disposal of the empire. Thirdly, certain local works, which, if they were not built by the colonies, would have to be paid out of the British treasury. Canada has adopted the last mentioned mode and has contributed to the imperial defence in that way until the present day. Now it is proposed to make a change and adopt the second mode of contribution. If it is thought proper to do this, let there be an appeal to the people. It is only fair, and there is ample time to do it, for there is no more German peril, as admitted by the Premier himself. Then, if it is found that, by reason of the circumstances, another kind of contribution must be given for the defence of the empire, it seems to me that there would be much to do and to settle previously, as between the empire and the colonies. So long as the colonies have no voice in the chapter, and until they have their word to say in the council of the empire, which decides of war or peace, no system devised to make the colonies participate in the general defence will have any chance to live or to last. For my part, I have very little confidence in this kind of vague, optional and indefinite support which certain colonies are now giving to the imperial defence, without ceremony, and in proportions more or less generous and accentuated, with ostentation, in certain cases, on the part of some colonies, as if they sought to humiliate others. It will not produce any durable affect unless it engenders friction, rivalry, hatred, dislocation and rupture of bonds which unite the colonies to the empire. We are not a nation; we are simply a



self-governed colony, making our evolution within the bounds which unite us to England with a proconsul who represents the point of junction. It is all very well to say the contrary in election time, to flatter the people, or after a banquet among the fumes of wine which lead to boasting, to overestimation, and to the burning of frankincense. Our treaties are made through the intervention of the British diplomacy, our own ministers being, however, allowed to act freely, just as the master often allows his subordinate to act, and feels very much amused when he sees the latter put on airs as if he was a real ambassador. Our constitution of 1867, defines our station, the part we are to play in the empire, determines our rights, our powers and our obligations. Thus, on the question under discussion, section 91, sub-section 7, traces our line of conduct-authorizes the parliament of Canada to create a militia and a naval service for the defence of the country .-just as sub-section 5 of the same section authorizes the establishment of a postal service for Canada. Under those powers, could we establish a postal service for New Zealand? Evidently not. Could we create a naval service for the defence of Australia? No more. ' Could we create a naval service for the defence of England, when our constitution authorizes us to do so only for the-defence of our own country, Canada? I do not think so. Unless through a fiction, it were held that the defence of England is the defence of Canada. Such an interpretation would be improper and unacceptable. We are a portion of the empire; but our duty, the part we have to play as concerns the defence is limited to Canada. Everything is restricted to Canada; to the defence of our own country we have but the powers which are delegated to us, and those powers allow us to legislate only for the defence of Canada, The Militia Act of 1906 is based on those powers, and could be construed only in the light of those principles. So, in section 2 of the Militia Act, paragraph B, should the word ' emergency,' which means war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, be construed as meaning a war; an invasion or an insurrection, real or apprehended outside of Canada, as in India, for instance? I do not think so. As to the naval service, are we clothed with larger powers? No, it is the constitution itself which grants us that power. Why then should we take larger powers under this Act than those contained in the Militia Act passed by parliament in 1906. Our Land Militia Act is known as: ' An Act respecting the Militia and Defence of Canada.' The present Act should be intituled: ' An Act respecting the Naval Service and De-Mr. NANTEL fence of Canada. The words ' and defence' have been omitted and it merely reads: ' An Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada' Subsection 7 of section 91 seems to admit of no other idea but that of defence; it seems to eliminate for Canada all wars except that undertaken for the defence of Canadian territory. In the Militia Act there is no similar clause to clause 18 of the Naval Service Act. Still, under section 69, chapter 41, Revised Statutes of 1906, the Governor in Council may place the Militia, or any part thereof, on active service beyond Canada, as well as in Canada, provided it be for the defence of Canada. When this Bill was brought down, it was stated that when England is at war, in any part of her empire, Canada is at war. . Theoretically, that axiom is true, in so far as Canada could be attacked; but practically speaking, it is neither correct nor should it be taken in an absolute and strict sense. Then, there is a permit which should be well understood and made clear to us; namely, in case of war, when and where should Canada be set in motion, to participate in the war? Under the constitution of 1867, according to the letter and the spirit of the Act, and the construction placed upon it, as well as by practice and custom, Canada, so far has never had to go to war, except for the defence of her own territory, while at the same time she participated in' the defence of the empire, in compliance with the part she had to play, and as she had been called upon to do. When Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war. Be it so; but there is a distinction; to be made between civil or intestine war, and offensive or defensive war. Should a civil war in England or in Ireland, or an insurrection in India break out, would Canada be at war? I do not think so. In the case of an offensive war of England, a war of conquest; say against Belgium, would Canada be at war? I say no. We are under no such responsibility, anl we should beware of assuming any. Section 91, subsection 7, provides only for defence. A defensive war? Just so, the British North America Act provides for it and imposes upon us such responsibility. Let us defend the Canadian territory, within its limits and beyond those limits. Then if, by defending Canada, we happen to protect the empire, so much the better. Let us in that way promote the defence of the empire, according to our means and with all our strength. ' In order to achieve this end, that is to say the defence of Canada, while at the same time protecting the empire, or vice versa, we need no more provision than that which is already ambodied in the Militia Act. Under that Act we may defend Canada, by placing our militia on active service, even beyond the limits of Canada. Through a certain fiction of the law, we could even send our militia to tight on the coasts of England, should it be desirable to prevent an attack being made upon Canada by the enemy, we could send our troops ahead to fight against the enemy. Under the Act, as it is worded, the [DOT]Governor in Council may simply declare that, in thus sending our militia beyond Canada, his intention is. to prevent an attack being made upon Canada by the enemy and thereby to' provide for the defence of Canada. The Governor in Council exercises that power and discharges that duty, under his own responsibility to parliament and that is all. But because it would be justifiable for Canada in a defensive war, in a war waged by England upon a powerful enemy, to go to her assistance by contributing men and money, in order to prevent an attack being made upon Canada, it would not be warrantable to participate in a war of conquest, when Canada has no quarrel nor any ground for a quarrel, nor any fear of an invasion and it would be impossible to plead the defence of Canada. Were the wording of this Act similar to that of the Militia Act, and especially were clause 18 eliminated, it would be just as easy to do with our naval forces what we are now doing with our land force, under1 the same responsibility. Those naval forces could be sent beyond Canadian waters to fight the enemy, and participate in the defensive wars in which Canada or the defence of Canada might be concerned. Then there would be left no room for doubt; the control of the navy would be similar to that of the Militia; the constitution would be safeguarded and the present policy would be the very course followed by Sir George Etienne Cartier, whose name has been invoked, when this Bill was brought down. In order to make of this Act the counterpart of Cartier's Militia Act, the preamble ought to be amended and clause 18 struck off; then the only thing it could be reproached with would be that it is from twenty to twenty-five, years ahead of the times. By embodying clause 18 into the present Act, this legislation is given an imperial character and it is thus intimated that the intention is to amend the Militia Act in the same direction, by introducing into it a similar provision. And the conclusion which is inferred therefrom is this: that the intention is to take part in all the wars of the empire, whether offensive or defensive wars; that the end aimed at is to establish solidarity between Canada and England; that the intention is to place Canada at the mercy of England, every timq England may go to war; now, such a policy is at variance with our constitution, ancj cannot be applied, so long as the relations between Canada and the empire remain what they are, or the constitution remains what it is now, and so long as Canada has no voice in the council which will be called upon to decide those wars. It is the infringement of the principle: no taxation without representation. _ _ If the defence of Canada is what is aimed at, while occasionally lending a helping hand to the empire, as I explained a little while ago,, that could also be done without clause 18, by the Governor in Council under the ministerial responsibility. Then, clause 18 serves no useful purpose here. The hon. Minister of Militia said the other day: ' For the navy as well as for the militia, there is no doubt that, in a case of emergency the Governor in Council would not want to take action till the meeting together of parliament. That would not be necessary and such is not the intention of the law. The militia may be called out for active service whenever required by critical circumstances, but the law provides for the meeting of parliament. Should parliament then pronounce itself against the action taken by the government, the ministers should resign.' I think that this Ts the right construction. But what leads to confusion is that, on the 15th of November last, the _ right hon. the Prime Minister, when- replying to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, said: ' My hon. friend also said that if we were to build a navy we would be drawn thereby into European wars. Need I say to imy hon. friend that whether we have a navy or not, we do not lose our rights to self-government; that if we do have a navy, that navy will go to no war unless the parliament of Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it there.' The doctrine propounded by the Minister of Militia seems to me sounder than that laid down by the Prime Minister. The Governor in Council takes action for the navy, just as for the militia, although the wording of the law be somewhat different; then parliament comes in and gives or withholds its sanction and there is an end of it. The meeting of parliament does not involve any other remedy; the downfall of the cabinet or their remaining in power. In time of war, it would be better not to drive the government out of power; and there would be nothing left but for parliament but approve and to pay. It is none the less true that clause 28 which is not to be found in the Militia Act, as the Minister of Militia told us, is not necessary in order to empower the Governor in Council to call out the militia for active service, for the service of the



King, for the defence of Canada, within the limits of the country as well as beyond those limits. Why then should that clause 18 not be eliminated from the Naval Service Act, and thus be deprived of its imperialistic character? Should that clause remain in this Act, undoubtedly it will be also embodied into the Militia Act and we shall have military imperialism, carried into action. The hon. the Postmaster General, cited here, the other day a pretty definition of the word ' imperialism ' given before the Canadian Club at Quebec by his Excellency the Governor General of Canada. Has the minister been entrusted with the special duty of imparting this precious definition to the House? I do not know, but all the same I congratulate him; he has discharged his duty very well. By the mouth of the hon. minister, as a preparation to his definition. Lord Grey tells us:- Is there in the world a people more privi-1 edged than the people who inhabit the fine province of Quebec? Tour laws, your language are under the special protection of the British Crown. In return for so many privileges and advantages, the Crown exacts nothing from you except sentiments of loyalty. The word ' imperialism ' does not imply active intervention from England in the government of tills country; the word * imperialism * symbolizes the power of each of the units of the empire and absolute u#ity in each of these units. I desire to say to the hon. minister, whether he be or not authorized to express the views of the noble lord: Our feelings of loyalty in the province of Quebec towards the British Crown are well established and they cannot be shaken. We were loyal in 1/75 and in 1812, we are loyal to-day and we will die in loyalty. We regret,' however that certain parties seem constantly to question that feeling of loyalty. It may be quite true that the right hon. the Prime Minister may in former times have said more than he should during his travels to Boston in the matter of annexation.


?

Thomas Hay

The Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

(Translation.) Annexation?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NANTEL.

(Translation.) Annexation. . . At least that is what I understood, that at that time independence meant annexation; but that should not be counted against us. He was at that time in the cold regions of the opposition; those were days of rampant democracy, as Mr. Bourassa says, when the premier himself despised medals and badges which he called tin pot decorations.' He .desired to scale the heights of power; that was all. Times have changed.

Let us return to imperialism, a word Mr. NANTEL.

which does not mean loyalty. There is a great difference between them. In spite of the euphemistic and optimistic definition of the word imperialism that I have just read, in spite of all my loyalty, I decline to accept any such definition any more than I could be made to accept the doctrine of free trade in the name of loyalty. I cannot avoid stating that military imperialism is the enemy of Canada and of the empire.

The Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, father of 'hat doctrine, has given us a different definition. ' Imperialism or the empire,' says he, ' is trade and trade is the empire.'

But in truth imperialism as it is sought to impose to-day is a union, a solidarity between the colonies and Great Britain for trade, defence and war, under imperial control and dominion, without representation of the colonies in the councils of the empire which decide as to peace and war, it is, therefore, militarism begetting pauperism as it exists in Europe and particularly in England; I repeat it, such an idea is inimical to Canada.

It is also inimical to the United Kingdom and to the empire, because it will end by bringing about the disaffection of the colonies.

Great Britain lost her finest colonies in 1776 because she sought to impose upon them ' taxation without representation.'

What difference is there between the taxation of the colonies for the benefit of the empire the direct method of taxation, and that which consists in obliging them to tax themselves for the maintenance of armaments to be used in defense of the empire and for wars of the empire? Is it not the same thing under a less forbidding aspect, that is imperative, ruinous hideous taxation?

The fact is contrary to the principle of autonomy, whether it be sought to force the payment of the money directly or indirectly by the maintenance of ships of war, that fact remains unaltered.

As far back as 1778, by the statute 18, George III, chapter 12, England, repealed the tax which caused all the harm in the thirteen colonies and consented to molest them no more; but this came too late to put an end to the revolution; the cry of independence had been raised. The effect was useful, however, as concerned the other colonies. England adopted a magnificent colonial policy resting upon the principle of autonomy and the most absolute colonial liberty, the control exercised by the metropolis became gradually less tangible and more and more of a moral influence. This was the secret of the success of England's colonial policy; and what a splendid policy it was! Colonial autonomy, defence of the colonies at their own expense and consequently at a cost corre-

spondingly less to the British government. By this system, the British fleet was untrammelled, the immense British domain could be freely patrolled, commerce protected and food stuffs brought in for the inhabitants of the British isles, while a base was to be found at every fortified colonial post.

The consequences of a return to the former system might be most unfortunate. The Anglo-Saxon resents the idea' of taxation without representation. Empires do not exist eternally. The British empire has been preserved by its wise policy and if in the future that policy is abandoned , for that followed by other empires, its fate may also be the same. The new system will not last as long as did the old.

When the military budget of Canada becomes unduly large-it represents at present $7,000,000 for the militi^ alone,-when the present Bill becomes operative, 15 or 16 millions will be expended for the building of the fleet and the annual expenditure for the fleet will be about $7,157,000, with a gradually progressive increase; this will be a yearly sum of $14,157,000 which will probably be doubled within a few years. The amount is enormous if it be considered that not quite half a million is voted for agriculture. When the war budget of Canada shall have reached the proportions of that of an independent nation, when Canada has a fleet, Ontario may begin to grumble as well as Quebec and the west, the cry of independence may be raised. It may be that the cry may not at first be raised by a Canadian from Quebec, but that it may originate in the other provinces for history repeats itself, and the liberty cry in 1837 and 1838 came from Mackenzie as well as from Papineau. The breaking of the colonial bond will then be close at hand. The burden of war will have proved too heavy for a young country obliged to attend to its population, organization and development, while at the same time furnishing money, men and blood for the wars of the empire.

The blue book: 'Naval and Military Defence of the Empire ' is not an ordinary official publication; it is * a plan, a programme, imperialism in action.

Everything seems to be determined, concerted, decided, ordered and settled. All these polite suggestions and requests are none the less formal and imperative, and I see there written in letters of fire: You must bend or be broken.

That programme will be adopted, the Bill will pass, soon the Militia Act will be so amended so as to place our land forces on the same footing as those we have on the sea.

When our army and navy are so organized that at the slightest invasion, insurrection or apprehension in India, for example, they may be placed at the disposal of the imperial authorities, or rather when, in time of war, they will always be at the disposal of the empire, our autonomy will be a vain word, it will have ceased to exist.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Bureau (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. J. BUREAU.

(Translation.) Will the hon. member allow me to put a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Jacques Bureau (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. BUREAU.

(Translation.) The hon. member fears that our autonomy will have ceased to exist as soon as we have a navy, yet he asserted a moment ago that this autonomy did not exist and that it was spoken of only on the hustings and at banquets where the fumes of wine had let loose men's tongues.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
CON

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NANTEL.

(Translation.) There is a great difference between tne two positions. We have autonomy, but not that independence as a nation of which so much has been said. That is a boast to be used on the hustings and at banquets. We are not an independent nation since we are under the control of a governor appointed by England.

In fact, in order to comply with the suggestions of the military and naval authorities of Great Britain, we are creating a fleet to be used by England in time of war, and can it be supposed that in any case of war those forces would be withheld from the very purpose of their creation. Such a contention cannot be seriously sustained.

When Canada builds a fleet at England's request to help in time of war, that fleet will go to war every time there is a war. That is certain. ,

Such a conclusion is the more easily reached if it be admitted that the word ' may ' is imperative when the prerogative of the Crown or the execution of the laws and wishes of parliament are concerned.

An argument in favour of this interpretation is found in the wording of the Bill. On examining closely sections 17 and 18, the following words will be found at the end of section 17: ' or when it is considered advisable to do so;' these words have been omitted in section 18, as it was desired to get*rid of the restriction.

Then, in time of war, will any government or cabinet be found to give it any other interpretation? No, never. If in time of war, it were sought to make the word ' may ' imperative, as wall invariably be done, will anybody object to such ah interpretation? No, never. The present Prime Minister will be the first so to interpret it, if we may judge by what he did at the time of the Transvaal war. _

The word ' may ' in section 18 is, therefore a mere delusion. _

The programme is being carried out and it will be carried out. Not with good grace.

I would be unjust if I stated that the prime minister bows gracefully to this necessity.

On the contrary he complies with a very bad grace and I believe that he is acting against his better judgment. He may be doing so unwillingly, but he is complying none the less. He is an imperialist, albeit an unwilling one and while denouncing imperialism

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE.

(Translation.) Will

the hon. member allow me to put him a question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
CON

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NANTEL.

(Translation.) With pleasure. -

Mr.' LAPOINTE. (Translation.) The

opponents of the navy bill in the province of Quebec contend that there is an understanding between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition on this question.

I would like to have my hon. friend's opinion on the question.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
CON

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NANTEL.

(Translation.) My answer to my hon. friend is that on this side of the House, we are allowed to entertain different views from those of our chief. I do not know if they enjoy the same privilege on the other side, but we have it here.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE.

(Translation.) That is not an answer to my question: in your opinion does an understanding exist or not?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink
CON

Wilfrid Bruno Nantel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NANTEL.

(Translation.) I know nothing about it; I was not there.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITARY NAVY.
Permalink

March 2, 1910