March 2, 1910

CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

To protect our coasts, to look after our trade routes-never rise to the idea of empire. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any fight for supremacy on the seas, that fight will occur in the North sea. Sea fights are not like land fights. You may have a war on land for four or five years. But Togo destroyed the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan in forty minutes; the fleet of Spain was destroyed in the harbour of Manilla in an hour and a half; the Spanish fleet at Santiago was sunk in a few hours; Nelson won the victory of Trafalgar in three hours. And if the British fleet is ever to be challenged by the German fleet, it will be challengd in the North sea, and the battle will be finished in not more than a few hours. We are interested in seeing to that, if the supremacy of Britain on the seas be challenged by Germany or any other power, our interest should be protected. And, if we have a feeling of loyalty towards the British empire, if we appreciate the advantages and privileges of living under British institutions, if we really desire the empire's success, if our conception of the destiny of Canada is that she should remain in that empire, we should be anxious to contribute to the strength of the only weapon that can protect the integrity of the empire

The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) was in Toronto a short time "ago and made a speech there before the Ontario Club, which is reported in the 'Globe' of Friday, February 18 last. Speaking of us poor sinners on this side, he said:

They disregarded the resolution of last session, in which they had concurred, that a contribution of money would not be satisfactory.

And further-

He did not believe that the people of Canada to-day were going to send tribute across the Atlantic to be expended by other men.

Now, knowing the hon. Minister of Justice as well as I do, I was unwilling to believe that he would misrepresent the position taken by the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and I set myself to ascertain, if possible, whether he had any excuse for making that statement. And I think I discovered it. Our minister of war (Sir Frederick Borden) delivered a speech here on February 10, and if hon. gentlemen will look it up, "they will see that the hon. minister declared that the resolution that

was presented by the Prime Minister last March was the one that was finally adopted by this House, and he puts it on ' Hansard ' just as it appeared when first read by the Prime Minister. Let me read it to you:

This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.

The House reaffirms the opinion repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional relation between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of any stated contribution to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.

You will remember that that is the paragraph as it appeared in the resolution brought in by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Militia has referred to that as the one finally adopted. But it was not so. The one that was finally adopted was changed to make that paragraph read 'the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury ' would not be satisfactory. You catch the difference at once. The resolution as first brought in by the Prime Minister would prohibit us giving any monetary contribution under any circumstances. It was amended as I have said. The Minister of Militia, our minister of war, did not know then, and does not know now, that that amendment was made by the resolution. Not only the minister of war does not seem to have known of that amendment, but the Minister of Justice also. For I cannot believe that- the Minister of Justice misrepresented the case. We studied law together, and I do not believe he would do such a thing; I choose to believe that he did not know that the resolution was amended so as to permit the giving of a monetary contribution. The Minister of Militia puts into this resolution a whole paragraph that was cut out:

The House has observed with satisfaction

They actually wanted to put this in at first.

-the relief afforded in recent years to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of considerable military expenditure formerly charged upon the imperial treasury.

It required a high degree of courage to propose to send that home to the old country when Sir William White had examined the dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, and had found that the government had allowed them to tumble to pieces. That paragraph is entirely cut out of the resolution as finally passed, but our war minister did not know it. There is no mistake about that, for I took the trouble Mr. CROTHERS.

to read his whole speech to see about it. Before reading the resolution, he said:

The hon. member for North Toronto introduced a resolution which was afterwards changed into the resolution which finally and unanimously passed this House. . . . Without detaining the House, I shall proceed to read that resolution.

Then he proceeds to read the resolution that the Prime Minister first brought in. I thought that perhaps he had made a slip, so I took the trouble to go to the Printing Bureau on the 21st of last month, to examine the proof-sheets, and I found that they had all been corrected, but the resolution was left there. And you will find it in the revised edition, as I have it here represented as having been finally passed, namely the one that the Prime Minister brought in first. So that accounts for the Minister of Justice making the statement he did in Toronto. He did not know that it had been amended-our minister of war did not know that it had been amended-he does not know now. He revised the proof-sheets and this is in the revised edition. It is going down to future generations of our people as the resolution passed by this House.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVY ESTIMATES.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh, oh.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVY ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

Now, Mr. Sp.eaker, this is not a laughing matter, it is really a very serious matter; because we may fairly assume that, not knowing when he delivered that speech on the 10th of February that that resolution had been amended, and not knowing three or four days afterwards when he revised the proof sheets, and not knowing it now, I think it is safe to assume that he carried over to England with him the original resolution. "And what do we find him doing? On page 26 of the report of the Imperial Conference of 1909, we find the Canadian representatives explaining in what respect they desired the advice of the admiralty in regard to measures of naval defence.

They desired the advice of the admiralty in regard to the measures of naval defence, which might be considered consistent with the resolution adopted by the Canadian parliament on the 29th of March, 1909.

A scheme limited to torpedo craft would not in itself be a good means of gradually developing a self-contained fleet capable of both defence and offence.

Now, this was a private consultation, they dont give us the particulars. We can fancy what occurred. Sir Frederick had met the First Lord of the Admiralty before, and he introduced to him his hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and he told the First Lord of the Admiralty that this was the gentleman who was at the head of the department in Canada which the commission had found was lacking in

conscience, and he asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what they could do to help strengthen the British navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty told him what you will find on page 23:

If the problem of imperial naval defence was considered merely as a problem of naval strategy it would be found that the greatest output of strength for a given expenditure is obtained by the maintenance of a single navy with the concomitant unity of training and unity of command. In furtherance, then, of the simple strategical ideal, the maximum of power will be gained if all parts of the empire contribute, according to their needs and resources, to the maintenance of the British navy.

So when our minister of war first introduces the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the First Lord of the Admiralty says to him: Why, you can best assist to strengthen the navy by giving us a monetary contribution. Oh, but our minister of war had to say to him, I have in my pocket a resolution that the House of Commons unanimously passed.-Let us see that resolution. The resolution is brought out,- a payment of any contribution to the imperial treasury would not be satisfactory. He read the resolution he had with him, the one the Prime Minister had brought into this House at first and evidently that is the only resolution he knew anything about. The people of Canada wont stand for a monetary contribution. Well, it is very peculiar, the First Lord of the Admiralty said; how do you account for that? Why, the Minister of Militia says, I will tell you a little secret. The Prime Minister of Canada suffers from what is known in Canada as the brain 3torm of autonomy, an insidious malady that soon possesses all the mental powers and consumes all the nobler parts thereof; and when it reaches that stage the victim has the hallucination that not only himself, but every body else is troubled with the brain storm of autonomy. And that, Sir, accounts for this resolution that they wont contribute anything. Now, I submit that in all probability the whole matter has been misrepresented to the British admiralty, that the resolution of this House unanimously passed has never been presented to the British admiralty, that we must begin de novo and ab initio the whole thing. Why, our minister of war did not know the resolution we passed. I can scarcely believe it; but when you look at the ' Hansard ', and look at the revised edition, and look at the corrections of the whole thing revised down in the Printing Bureau, you will find that the man who is minister of war of this Dominion does not know the substance of a resolution that was passed in this House to change the whole relations of Canada with the British empire. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the brain storm of autonomy-we must have autonomy. Why, every one knows that it is absolutely impossible that we should have absolute autonomy and continue in the British empire. We hav'nt it now. We do not appoint the Governor General, he is appointed by the home government. We do not appoint the ambassadors to foreign courts to look after our business there. Talk about autonomy! What have we to do with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that decides the most important cases that arise in this country, interprovincial and between the Dominion and the different provinces and other important cases? We have nothing to say about the constitution of that court. So, Mr. Speaker, the only way we can get _ the autonomy from which the Prime Minister is suffering, is by separating from the British empire, that is absolutely certain. Talk about autonomy! Has the province of Ontario autonomy? Within a certain sphere she has autonomy; but when it comes to matters in which the whole Dominion of Canada is interested, then she has to submit to the people of the whole country. Has British Columbia to-day, sending a majority of Conservatives to this House, and Manitoba with a majority, and Ontario with a majority-have we autonomy, that is, have we a right to govern ourselves as we please? Not by any means. Why? Because we belong to the Dominion of Canada, we are part of the Dominion of Canada, and we have to submit to the majority of the people of Canada. And if we belong to the British empire, if we desire to enjoy the privileges and rights of British subjects, we cannot have perfect autonomy, it is utterly impossible. We have autonomy within a certain sphere, we have not absolute autonomy, and we cannot have it without absolute independence.

Then they talk about taxation. Why, I read to you a few moments ago that Sir John A. Macdonald made a motion that we should send to the British government at the time of the Crimean war $100,000. That was a greater sum to Canada then than $20,000,000 is now. How did it affect our autonomy? Have we had autonomy since, or have we been slaves of the British government ever since, because we voluntarily sent them $100,000? We sent $50,000 to France in aid of the flood sufferers; we sent $100,000 to San Francisco for the sufferers from the earthquake; we sent $100,000 to Sicily, without violating the great principle of autonomy; but we cannot send a dollar to assist the British navy without violating autonomy. England is contributing now $1,250,000 a year to assist Australia in building a large navy. British statesmen do not seem to understand anything about autonomy. They ought to come over here and get a few lessons from

460S

the Prime Minister ol this country. When I listen to our friends on the other side from the province of Quebec speaking on this subject, I do not understand much what they say, but I can catch the word 'autonomy'. Sir Wilfrid has an idea that there will be trouble over the question of autonomy. I noticed to-day one of these gentlemen talking about taxation without representation. There is another thing. Why, this amendment was put into this resolution for the very purpose of allowing us to make a contribution to the British navy.

I promised my hon. friends opposite that I would give them some more information from the 'Globe' and I want to keep that promise because I think it may have some influence upon their votes. Here is what the 'Globe' said on March 31, last:

While the British fleet is master of the ehannel no European fleet could be a serious menace to the shores of Canada. . . . In the day of trial the all-important aim would be to make the imperial fleet so strong that the issue of a combat would not be doubtful.

On the day the resolution was passed, March 29, last, the 'Globe' said:

There can be no resisting the conviction, in view of these facts, that the mother country will accept the aid of her colonies at this time of crisis with thankful enthusiasm. Nothing is so likely to bring the mad competition to a stop as a conviction on the part of Germany that it is hopeless. In such case the colonies will be conferring a boon on the German taxpayers as well as on the British. We are not of those who believe that an invasion of Britain just non' is feasible. That is not the danger. The danger lies in the future, when the German fleet would have arrived at a pitch of strength when there would be no need for evasion. There would he a direct challenge to a trial of strength, and if the German admiral prevailed, the British empire, as now constituted, would be at an end. English, Scotch and Irish valour would be of little avail. The islands would be beleaguered, their food supplies cut off and a surrender at discretion forced on them. That is a consummation which cannot be paltered with or derided, and while it is even remotely possible that every part of the empire must stand shoulder to shoulder in rendering it impossible.

I have another quotation from the ' Globe ' on March 26 last, that will please these hon. gentlemen better. I want them to pay particular attention to this:

The sort of vessel that should be built is fixed by the circumstances. The competition now raging between Great Britain and Germany is in the direction of first-class battleships. If Canada were to build a little fleet of wasps and hornets it would have no moral effect on the situation at all. What we would like Canada to do would be to manifest bv a veritable act that in this competition of the fleets she ranges herself proudly and gladly by the side of the mother country,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVY ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

They were not in favour in those days of a fleet of wasps and hornets such as the present government is proposing to build.

I have another little extract from the 'Globe' that may be of interest to some of my hon. friends opposite. It was written some little time after the resolution was passed, viz.: April 7th last.

A good deal has been said about protecting the shores of the Dominion.

That is what our friends across the way are talking about now, protecting our coasts, protecting the coasts of British Columbia. They have some imaginary enemy over there on the Pacific - who is going to attack British Columbia and they are proposing to send these wasps and hornets to repel that enemy.

A good deal has been said about protecting the shores of the Dominion. The only way to make our shores invulnerable is to make sure that the fleets which surround the British Isles are the unquestionable masters of the ocean.

That is the kind of material we want.

The only way to make onr shores invulnerable is to make sure that the fleets which surround the British Isles are the unquestionable masters of the ocean. The moment she is in doubt, that moment Canada is in a position of danger.

Never mind the little wasps and hornets, the moment that British fleet in the North sea is in danger, Canada is in danger, if she has any love for the British empire and desires to remain in it.

The moment that is in doubt, that moment Canada is in a position of danger, and any vessel or vessels that the Canadian people could provide for shore defence would be but a feeble barrier against the foreign fleet or fleets that gained the mastery. The question which the admiralty should be asked to answer is: AVhat can Canada do within her means that will be of most assistance to you ? and that thing we believe the government is prepared to do with the backing of the whole people of Canada.

Still one more quotation from the 'Globe,' March 23rd last:

The Canadian people do not indulge an exaggerated opinion of what they can do to augment the mighty naval instrument which guards the integrity of the King's possessions. But if any rival nation is disposed to dispute the capacity of Britain to hold her supremacy at sea we should make it clear that in such a competition Canada is prepared to fling the smug maxims of financial prudence to the winds and do more than her share in the game of turning Dreadnoughts from the stocks. If the 65,000,000 of Germans have concluded that they can build more monsters of the deep than the 42,000,000 of Britishers, it is time that it should be brought to their attention that there are more Britishers than those in the British Isles. Plucky little New Ze,..-

British navy at a cost of $1,000,000,000. This country became a part of the British empire 150 years ago, and when the inscription by slow dissipation from the monument guarding the height, shall have worn, Wolfe shall live in the hearts of a new generation, a watchword of freedom to ages unborn.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVY ESTIMATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Adélard Dubeau

Liberal

Mr. J. O. DUBEAU (Joliette).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in continuation of this debate, I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time. No doubt I could abstain from expressing my opinion otherwise than by my vote on the important Bill which is now before us, but I do not wish to allow any one to think that, by my silence I attempted to shirk the responsibility of the task entrusted to me by my electors.

For that reason I desire to define and explain the position that I intend to take.

In the first place allow me to say that the effect of this Canadian Naval Service Bill will not be to commit our country to an exaggerated and ruinous militarism, but that it will only enable us to depend upon a reasonable protection. Let me also add that if we feel to-day that it is our duty to undertake the creation of a navy, just as we saw fit, fifty years ago to organize our militia, it is certainly not for offensive purposes, but altogether for defensive purposes, fcr I feel quite certain that no one in this House or in the country has any warlike desire. We all want peace and quietness such as we have enjoyed for several years back.

But although we are animated by these sentiments, I hold that it would be foolhardiness on our part to fall asleep with the thought that our safety is complete judging from past experience and from the lessons of history, rather than from the declarations of optimists who go about loudly proclaiming everywhere that, we have no need of defence. I contend, with no less conviction, that the time has come when Canada must begin the organization of a naval service such as provided for in the Bill.

I need not repeat here that Canada occupies in the world a position of which we may well be proud. We have a trade superior to that of several European countries. Providence has endowed us with water-wavs which foreigners envy us. Before many years, our harbours will be able to compete with the best, harbours in America. We have thousands of miles of railways running through the country from one end to the other. We have splendid cities, a fertile soil, a thriving agriculture, with a population of seven millions boldly marching onward in the path of progress. And having obtained from England the Mr. CKOTHERS.

right, of making our treaties, we are enjoying the fullest autonomy. This means that we have laid the solid foundation of a nation in whose destinies we have faith.

But, as it has been said, the extension of a country is not its protection.

It is enough for us to have developed our country as we have done; we are also bound to protect Canada from any danger which a conflict of interests might suddenly give rise to.

With this end in view, it is most desirable that we should gradually improve our means of defence both on land and on sea. For never could a nation exist and maintain itself, without possessing the necessary means to protect its own territory, and its commerce, as well as the means of safeguarding its material power and its moral prestige.

Engrossed as we are with the development of the wealth and of the natural resources of our country, we should not try to elude the responsibilities and the duties which devolve upon us as a nation, for the defence and the protection of the rich patrimony we are enjoying.

So far we have incurred comparatively heavy expenditures in order to place the country in a state of defence. We have started the organization of a permanent militia. We have taken over the garrisoning of Esquimalt and Halifax. We have built armouries and drill sheds which are most useful to our militia. We have in the province of Quebec a first class small arm factory. We are instructing in the military art many citizens of this country and more particularly the youth of our country.

Therefore I may say without any hesitation that, on land Canada has generously discharged her duty.

But a country like ours, bounded by two oceans and with a double sea-shore thousands of miles long, needs not only a land force but also a navy to protect her coasts, her sea-ports and her trade.

It is with this end in view that the government are now proposing to begin in a wise and cautious manner the organization of our naval forces.

This measure which is essentially within the realm of the representatives of the people is but the natural complement of a policy formulated several years ago.

In fact, the question of the desirability of organizing our naval defence is by no means new or novel.

It has been dealt- with on more than one occasion. When our ministers went over to London to take part in the imperial conference of 1902, in order to examine the issues of concern to the -empire, they declared that the government had the intention of undertaking the organization of a navy. The report of that conference came

before this House the following year, and the result of the conference, as well as the position taken by our delegates-, seemed to give satisfaction to the House.

Last year, the House unanimously agreed to a resolution embodying the policy formulated at the conference in connection with our naval defence.

But scarcely had the session been closed when some members of the opposition began denouncing the policy unanimously agreed to by this House, on the 29th of March last. And now in this House they are still directing- their criticism and their attacks against this Bill respecting the Canadian naval service, although that Bill only aims at -carrying out a policy which they approved of last year and the fundamental principle of which is laid down in tire British North America Act, as well as in the Militia Act revised in 1893, and included in our Revised Statutes of 1906.

Why this change of attitude, if not for this reason, that the opponents of the government, on this question as on many -other issues, are loath to depart from their favourite tactics consisting in preaching a different policy in the several parts of the country.

So it is that in the province of Quebec, they oppose the Bill on naval defence, under the pretense that it leads us to imperialism; while in the west and in Ontario our opponents denounce this Bill as at variance with the suggestions-of the British admiralty and with our duty to the empire.

In Toronto as in Winnipeg, they tell the people that the Laurier government is disloyal to the empire, while in the province of Quebec they denounce Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a traitor to his race and as ready to sacrifice that race in order to take part in the wars of the empire.

But in spite of those appeals to prejudice and to popular feelings, the electors of Canada know very well how to appreciate th'e attitude of both parties and they endorse the truly Canadian policy laid down by the government in that matter.

The organization of a Canadian naval service is a measure which is called for by the development of the country.

Fifty years ago, we laid down the foundations of our militia. Its beginnings were unpretending indeed; but it went on gradually developing itself and to-day its usefulness and efficaciousness are questioned by nobody.

Why should we not do for our navy what we did for our militia? _

Other countries whichi are not considerable nor wealthier than Canada and whose population is not -so large as ours, such as the South American republics, have their own navy. Why should we not also have a navy of our own?

In virtue of what law are we to be dispensed from taking tHe means resorted to by other countries for their protection on land and on sea?

Is it the Monroe doctrine which thus warrants us in derogating to the general rule? . .

Does that doctrine warrant us m relying upon an efficacious protection on the part of the United States? It would indeed be sheer nonsense or recklessness on our part to look exclusively for security and protection, in time of war, in that ill-defined and vague doctrine which might perhaps never apply to Canada.

But even were that doctrine to apply, national self-respect and our personal interest should warn us to beware of accepting that doctrine as our only protection, because that doctrine is incompatible with our national development and with our notions of autonomy. .

In fact, not only would it be humiliating for Canada to have to appeal for aid to the United States, but the practical result might be still more disastrous. _

At what cost to us would not the United States give us that protection, and might they not demand that we should abandon to them a portion of our territory or that we should concede to them certain exorbitant privileges.

If we cannot rely on the Munroe doctrine for the defence of our country, we cannot either rely solely upon the protection of England.

In many cases, England could not come to our assistance, were she anxious to do so; for, to give an instance, she might be called upon to meet an enemy attempting to attack her in the very heart of the empire. Besides, the great distance at which she is from Canada and the risks and perils of the sea are so many obstacles that England might be powerless to overcome, at a given moment.

Therefore, we cannot leave to England alone the task of protecting our territory, our sea ports, our trade, our institutions, our homes, in short, our country. We have to find, in a confederation like ours, the elements of our defence, on sea as well as on land.

Such was the opinion held by Sir George Etienne Cartier, at the time of confederation, and as early as 1864, he formulated his programme in. these words:-

Another consideration of the greatest importance is the defence of the country. As we are now, a province cannot ask another province for assistance, in case of attack; but with confederations, we shall have an army of 300,000 men and a navy of 60,000.

The words I have just quoted go to show that this project of a marine is by no means an innovation, as it was referred to

as early as the beginning of the era of confederation, and we find moreover that Cartier himself was in favour of the creation of such a navy, as he declares that it was one of the considerations which induced him to ask for the establishment of confederation.

Therefore, by contributing the policy of the government on that question and in repeating everywhere the statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier at I.aehine, that Canada stands in no need of a navy, the opponents of the government in the province of Quebec abandon the traditions of that great statesman, Sir George Etienne Cartier, while professing on every occasion to be his disciples.

But while, in the province of Quebec, the opponents of the government attack the naval defence Bill as inopportune and contrary to our autonomy, in the 'other provinces, . the policy of the government on that question is being denounced, because we keep the control of the fleet and refuse to place immediately at the disposal of England a sufficient sum for the purchjase of two Dreadnoughts.

But all those so-called objections to the policy of the government are refuted by each other.

In fact, while in the province of Quebec, the adversaries of the government oppose the establishment of a naval service, because they pretend that we should not then [DOT] have the control of our navy, which would be under the direction of the British Admiralty in the other provinces, they attack the Bill now under consideration, because it enables the Canadian government to prevent the naval forces of Canada from acting in concert with those oi the empire, in time of war.

While in the province of Quebec, the adversaries of the government claim that we are in no need of naval defence, that there is no impending danger, in the other provinces, they pretend that war is on the eve of breaking out in England, and that we should immediately place at the disposal of the imperial authorities a sum of at least $20,000,000, for the purchase of two Dreadnoughts, in order to guarantee the supremacy of England.

In short, while the opponents of the government ask for a plebiscite and want the people to be consulted as to the expenditure of about $15,000,000 for the construction of a fleet tbiey are disposed to pay immediately into the imperial exchequer, without any previous consultation of the people, a sum of from $20,000,000 to $25.000,000, and even a great deal more.

In face of the diametrically opposed attitude of the government and of the opposition, I need hardly adduce any further arguments to destroy that legend which thjey are endeavouring to spread through-Mr. DUBEATT. [DOT]

out the province of Quebec, to the effect that this Bill is but the result of a compromise between the right hon. the prime minister and the hon. the leader of the opposition.

If both have approved, as did the whole House, the resolution of the 29t.h March, 1909, it is quite evident to-day that the hon. the leader of the opposition, is supporting to-day by the amendments he has submitted, a policy different from that of the government.

Having to make a choice under such circumstances, between the government's Naval Bill and the suggestions coming from . the opposition, I have not the slightest hesitation in giving my support to the government measure. I feel satisfied that such a policy is an absolute safeguard to our autonomy, that it is in conformity with our national aspirations, and that it will be approved of entirely not only by the great majority of the people of the county which I have the honour to represent, but also by a majority of the voters in this country.

I may add and it is, I think, to the honour of the electors of the county of Joliette to whom I, as in duty bound, explained the principal points of the policy formulated in the resolution of the 29th March, 1909, which the government is now implementing, that these explanations were favourably received in the different parishes of the county where meetings were held.

In voting as I propose to do at the end of this debate, I feel secure in the continued confidence of my constituents and in the execution of a duty as a Canadian and a British citizen.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVY ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JAMES J.

DONNELLY (South Bruce) moved the adjournment of the debate.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVY ESTIMATES.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned. On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.33 p.m.



Thursday, March 3, 1910.


March 2, 1910