No public buildings, and no barrel to carry them through the next elections, because without a barrel, none of them would come back here on such policies as Lumsden charges of over-classification, saw-dust piles that are called wharfs, Newmarket canals without any water in them, pot-boy palaces at Kingston, an expenditure of $112,000 for eight little cottages for the bung-starters who are to occupy them. And yet, they call upon this House to support a naval policy like that, a naval policy that they do not dare to submit to the people. If it is possible to say ' and worse still,' I will say it; and, worse still, they propose to put this navy under the management of a department of this government that under a very superficial investigation at the hands of Judge Cassels, not very long ago, w'as adjudged to be reeking with graft, crookedness and lack of conscience. That is where they are going to put this navy. It is scandalous. I am surprised that even a Liberal would stand for it-a department that has been in charge of the buoys that were set out at various places Along our coast. After a buoy broke loose at the Old Proprietor reef on the Bay of Fundy it took this department that you are going to give your navy to, ten months to get that buoy back in place, and during that time, owing to their absolute criminal negligence-and it was nothing else-forty valuable lives were lost, as was so realistically depicted in this House by the hon. member for St, John (Mr. Daniel) last year. Shame on your department. What will a department do with a navy that cannot manage a little old buoy? You have heard the slogan on the other side of the line. ' Remember the " Maine." You know what that text meant on the other side of the line. But, Sir, I would say to the decent Liberals, and there are lots of them
Yes, they are; they are warped politically, hut they are decent if you can ever get at their consciences. There is the trouble. I want the decent Liberals in this House when they are asked to vote for this navy to remember that it is going to cost millions and millions of dollars, not only to them, but to their children and their grand children, for all time and eternity. There is not get away from that. And, I will give them a slogan to remember it by- instead of ' Remember the "Maine" ', let the cry be: ' Remember the "Minnie M." ' with its stories of ballot boxes, and debauchery, and blackguardism; ' remember the "Arctic" ', another of your fleet with its stores of booze, drugs of all kinds unmentionable, and ladies spring hat3 for the Esquimo four hundred. Remember these things boys. Remember the ' Montcalm with its stores of cut glass and silverware bought from party friends at prices, three and four and five and six times more than they were worth. Remember these things when you go to vote, and remembering them beware of the navy. It seems to give gentlemen on the other side of the House a kind of nightmare when any one says ' emergency And I do not wonder at that because the First Minister for example, and the Minister of Militia and Defence mu3t remember when they hear that word the emergency rations that they sent to our boys in South Africa, and that is a sore spot with them. The hon. member for Pictou in his speech the other day gave to this House the sentiments of a South African veteran, and I do not think I can do better than quote from a friend of mine who was right at the front in South Africa, and who knows what he was talking about. He says:
I think the arrangement with the Dominion was, hut I am not sure that they supplied the rations and clothing that went with the men and horses, and the imperial government was to pay the Dominion the amount they charged, but you can find out, for sure, yourself.
The 2nd, 3rd 4tli. 5th and 6th Regiments C. M. Hides, and 10th Field Hospital were organized, paid, equipped and maintained throughout at the sole expense of the imperial government. It did not cost Canada one iota, not even the price of a bottle of ink for the orderly room. Wickwire was Sir Frederick Borden's purchasing agent at Halifax for these, charging the whole to the imperial government, and Oh, my, poor imperial government, they ought to give her four Dreadnoughts, and they would still owe her money.
Now in the case of the 1st C.M.R., we were to receive three shillings a day for a private soldier (and pay went up according to rank), but deducted from that was one shilling and two pence we received from the imperial purse, making a private get the handsome allowance of one shilling and ten pence a day from Canada. T*< comparison our comrades,
Canadian, and especially in the leader of a party, who made such statements. ' Let Laurier finish his work,' was the cry all over Canada at the last elections.
What was his work? Are hon. gentlemen crying 'hear, hear', because the right hon. gentleman said that the goal of his ambition was the independence of Canada? If that is his work, I will have none of it, but am against him first, last and all the time. But even if you could confine those idiosyncrasies, as our hon. friends opposite are pleased to term them, to the Prime Minister that would not be quite so bad because you could get rid of him, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has a similar record. In 1886 that hon. gentleman stumped his own province of Nova Scotia with the war cry of separation from the Dominion. When premier of that province he moved a resolution on the 5th May, 1886, declaring for separation, yet hon. gentlemen opposite will get up and say that- it is shameful the way in which we decry their ministers. Sir, that is not where the shame belongs. It belongs to the ministers who have said those things which give us an opportunity to show them in their true light, and sorrv we are to have such an opportunity. We are ashamed for Canada that we can throw those utterances in the teeth of - these men. On that occasion to which I have referred, telegrams were read on the same platform at the Champs de Mars, where the Prime Minister made the statement I have quoted, from the worst enemies of the British empire, the Fenians, attacking the empire. And on that platform, where these telegrams were read, the right hon. gentleman, who now leads this government, and who is the wTet nurse of this navy, got up and said that had he been on the plains of Saskatchewan at the time of the rebellion of 1885, he would have shouldered a musket on behalf of the rebels. I was out there with many other hon. gentlemen in this House, not because I blamed so much those poor, ignorant half-breeds, but because I realized that were the rebellion allowed to go on, it would mean that the defenceless women and children of Canada, scattered throughout the northwest, would be at the mercy of the Indians, who would have risen in all their numbers and might. I was out there in the fight for my country, taking my chances with the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie), the hon. member for Victoria (Alta.) (Mr. White), and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) and others Mr. CAMPBELL.
-fighting for what? Fighting for the solidarity of the empire, fighting for our flag, fighting for the women and children of Canada all through that country; and yet we had this hon. gentleman, who is the leader of the Liberal party, getting up among the people of Montreal and saying that had he been out in that country he would have shouldered his rifle and fought against us. The term 'United Empire Loyalist ' is one to be proud of, it is one almost too great for us to aspire to, but we were united empire loyalists in heart. What was the right hon. gentleman? What would you call that kind of loyalists who would go out and fight for the rebels? I would give them a new name and call them the E, U, or entirely unique loyalists. That was not the kind of loyalty we had in our minds and hearts. Had the right hon. gentleman been out there he would have been able to carry out hisi aspirations and join hands with those unfortunate rebels. And if he was a better sharp shooter then than when he madei a shot at the cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific, he might have' got myiself, be-, cause I was out there taking chances and, I would not now be able to give him my opinion. Or he might have got my hon. from from Victoria (Mr. White) who was there taking chances in upholding the solidarity of the empire. That is the, kind of loyalty I like, but the E. U. loyalty is a brand I never will approve. _ Down in the east you know the history of that rebellion from the point of view of this part of the country. You know that regiments went out there from Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, taking their lives in their hands, to fight for the unity of the empire. But there is a chapter of that rebellion which has never been written, and I would recommend the Prime Minister to get busy and write it before the men who can tell the truth about it are all dead. The chapter I refer to is this. As you know, that rebellion started in the neighbourhood of Prince Albert. Prince Albert people were poor in 1885, they had no way of getting money. The poor half breeds in that country had grievances against the government. They made demand after demand to this government and their demands were refused or neglected. The white people-some of the white people-of that district interested themselves with the half breeds, went to their meetings, incited them to rebellion, talked rebellion, talked secession. After a certain time they got up a subscription. What for? The half breeds had no money to subscribe. Some of the white settlers of that country did subscribe to send two delegates down to Milk river, Montana, and ask poor Riel, who was living down there in peace and quietness, teaching school, to come up and
agitate for them. He came up. He was a powerful speaker, a born orator, one of the greatest men to address a French audience that I ever heard. He could sway them as I move my hands. Whatever feeling or sentiment he wanted to put into them he put into them. The white people saw that the flames they had kindled were beyond their power to control, and they backed out like the cowards they were, and let the half breeds bear the brunt. There Is the story of the half breed rebellion.
Of course. These gentlemen who incited that rebellion, who sent Isbister and Lepine to Milk river, Montana, and brought Riel up, backed out like cowards, I say. And they went scot free; they were able to hide their misdeeds evidently did hide them-from the ken of the government. But poor Riel had to suffer the brunt of it; he had to die a felon's death on the gallows, the poor tool of men who, perhaps, should have been in his place.
I appreciate what the hon. member (Mr. J. P. Turcotte) said. It helps me out. Referring to the First Minister's remarks about shouldering his musket, I want to say further that those remarks had an ulterior meaning even in the right hon. gentleman's own mind, and I will trv to show it to you. Some years after he made that statement, he was running an election. He wanted to be certain of a seat-he had a seat, I presume, in Quebec, as he has now, but he wanted to run for two seats, so that he would be sure of being elected-in all the length and breadth of Canada, what seat did he pick out? The very seat I speak of, where that rebellion had been, where many of the French-speaking people were poor, illiterate half breeds, men who had never had the chance of an education, whose form of life did not call for education, for they were hunters, trappers, and engaged in other occupations of that kind. His opponent was James Mackay. He was a native of that part of the country, as I am, and he was one of the best scouts that Canada had in her service fighting for Queen and flag in 1885. He was known to every man in that riding. And he was an able man, for he has now become K. C. and is looked upon by his friends and by everybody as a very able, honest, decent fellow. When the election came on, what literature was sent to those poor people? None whatever, but Grit party heelers went through the country. They would go to a poor half-breed and say: ' Who are
you going to vote for, Jim?' The answer
naturally was: 'For Jim Mackay.' Then
the heeler would say: ' You can't vote for him; he was fighting you; he was killing your people like rabbits in 1885. You can't vote for him. Vote for Laurier, he was the leader of the Liberal party who was not afraid to say in Montreal that he would have come to help you to fight if he could have got there.' And Laurier was elected. United Empire loyalty again, I say. It did not die out even with that in the western country. I have mixed up in elections in that country ever since 1892, and I have never known a campaign yet where there was a French half-breed electorate but the Liberal party heelers have repeated the same thing: 'You can't vote for Campbell; he
was fighting against your people; vote for the Laurier candidate,- because Laurier would have helped you to fight if he could.' United Empire loyalty-I call it a bad strain of loyalty to teach the poor half-breed in my opinion. Why, the Liberal party in Manitoba even carried that E. U. entirely unique loyalty into the local politics of the province. When Mr. Roblin introduced what is called the ' flag policy,' when, in that country, having a cosmopolitan race of people, he tried to pass legislation to have the flag hung before the door of every school house of Manitoba, every Liberal in the legislature voted against it, and did everything in his power against it. Still, they say that they are loyal. Loyal? Entirely unique loyalty, to my mind.
Now, there is another matter that I will refer to very briefly. The debate is almost over
I will not detain the House very long. I regret if I am hurting the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, though this debate is almost over, we have not had any declaration from the ministry as to the kind of flag is going to fly over this tin-pot navy. I think we should have had such a declaration. I do not know whether it will come with good grace from me to make a suggestion, and I do not know that any suggestion I offer to the minister will be followed. But I suggest that they get a large white flag, with a yellow streak across it. That would signify that it was a fleet, made, as the Prime Minister suggests, to elude pursuit-ready, aye, ready, to fulfil the purpose of the construction of such a navy at all times. I do not know whether the First Minister will accept that suggestion, but I offer it to him in a free spirit. _
There is just one more point I would like to mention. I am a farmer, and this question strikes me as to be best illustrated in this way: The father of a large family has an estate of a few thousand acres. He gives his son a holding of 160 acres some-
where in the middle of his property. He has a fence all around this immense property, but there is no fence visible from the son's habitation. The son goes on and improves that land, breaks it up, grows crops upon it, puts money in the bank and is successful; he has no rent and no taxes to pay. He does not assist his old father or the rest of the family in any way whatever. Finally the father gets into difficulties, and he says: 'My boy, I want a little help; what can you do for me? I want to build a seven-foot- fence all around this big property.' ' Well, father,' says the son, ' I am entirely willing to help you; I will do so by building a dinky little two-rail fence all around my own lot. Now, Sir, it seems to me that that illustration is apropos of the naval situation. The supremacy of the British navy is this great big, fence that has been protecting little Canada. It has not been visible to us, but it has been there,^ and it has been efficacious. What good is our little tin-pot navy going to do in the defence of the empire? Would it not be^a great deal better for that son to say: ' Yes, father, I will do something for you. There are a lot of strange cattle maraucl-ing around the farm; there is danger of them jumping over the fence, and if they do jump over the fence, anything I can build around my farm will be no good to me, therefore I will help you to put two more strands upon the fence, and make it a little stronger and a little higher. 1 think that illustration puts the situation in a nutshell, so that any man in Canada can understand it. Sir, those are my opinions. I give them to you as the result of my careful deliberation, and the way they are received on this side of the House shows that there is a lot of united empire loyalty in us yet.
House divided on amendment. - Mr. Nort-hrup.
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn, Thornton,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-78.
Chisholm (Antigonish) Chisholm (Inverness). Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Currie (Prince Edward),
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
Ste, Mary's), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), , Mayrand,