November 24, 1910

LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

I do not know that I do, I do not think I do.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

What was the minister talking about, then?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

I make the point that the cartoon that appeared in ' Le Devoir ' appeared in a newspaper the editor of which is Mr. Bourassa, the leader of the party with which our friends opposite are allying themselves to-day, aud Mr. Bourassa must therefore be held responsible for that cartoon. You cannot, however, fasten responsibility for a cartoon in ' Le Canada ' upon the Liberal party, because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries happens some time to write an article for that paper, not at all. And you cannot fasten the responsibility for a cartoon upon a man who says he never saw the cartoon, and never knew anything about it until it was referred to in this House yesterday. But the leader of the opposition says that a placard with a certain inscription ' The organ of Sir Wilfrid Laurier ' was painted upon the walls of ' Le Canada 1 at any rate, wherever posted, it was relating to ' Le Canada, ' and described it as the organ of Laurier. Sir, I have seen a label upon a bottle of mixed pickles, it may be, making a trade appeal and claiming the manufacturers to be purveyors to Her Majesty the Queen, or His Majesty the King, and I suppose that * Le Canada,' foT similar trade purposes, claimed to be the organ of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Now, talking of cartoons, 1 fancy that hon. gentlemen opposite have heard of the Toronto ' Telegram.' I would not be surprised to learn that some hon. gentleman opposite had contributed letters and articles to the Toronto ' Telegram,' I would not be surprised to learn that the hon. leader of the opposition himself had written letters at times, or articles for the Toronto ' Telegram.'

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I never had that honour.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

Then perhaps that honour is still in store for the hon. gentleman. But surely it would not have been a crime for him to do so. The editor and proprietor of the Toronto ' Telegram ' is a good

Conservative. He formerly occupied a seat in this House as a Conservative representing a constituency in the city of Toronto. The publisher and owner of the Toronto * Telegram ', I understand is a very wealthy man, a very philanthropic man, a man who is in the habit from time to time of helping substantially people in need. That being so, I would not be surprised if he had from time to time contributed to the campaign funds of our friends opposite who for some years have been needy indeed. But allow me to describe to you, and to invite your attention to a cartoon that appeared in the Toronto ' Telegram.' I would not have used this, though I think it is now quite fair to do so, had not the leader of the opposition displayed that cartoon in ' Le Canada ' in the most dramatic manner he did this afternoon. Under the circumstances I do not ask the leader of the opposition to excuse me for making use of this cartoon in the way that he made use of that in * Le Canada.' I do not go back to the files of the Toronto ' Telegram ' for 1904. but only to the day before yesterday. There is a cartoon, let me describe it to you if I can. In the back ground I see Mr. Henri Bourassa driving a fractious horse labelled Quebec. In the very foreground I see my hon. and very loyal friend, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). He is beating with all his might a drum, and upon the drum are these inscriptions: ' Eucharistic Congress. Question. Question, Question. Between the fractious horse and the fractious member of parliament there is hastily running, with an alarmed expression, and with the unkind winds taking away his hat, the leader of the opposition. He is endeavouring to overtake the hon. member for East Grey, and to prevent him from beating that drum and from asking those questions. The inscription I think is not exactly correct. I have heard my hon. friend from East Grey use a very slight Irish accent. Now I think an Irish accent is no disgrace to any man, but this inscription does make his accent rather more pronounced and emphatic than that which the hon. member uses. The inscription is as follows:

Dr. Sproule, M.P. Oh. T must stop the music, must I, for fear the drum bavtin would skeer the horse, yer friend, Bourassa's trviu-to drive 9

Sir, I do not mean to tuv- hao'- +-the Toronto ' Telegram ' of 1904 to find this other cartoon that I would like to describe to you, for it appeared on the 18th of November present. This time it. is a naval scene, described as upon the deck a vessel, nossiblv the * Rainbow ' or the * Niobe.' Sir Wilfrid Laurier is represented in the cartoon as dressed in a naval uniform, and he is hoisting a flag to the

2.35

mast of the vessel upon which are these words: ' Laurier expects Borden this day to do his duty.' In front of the mast., with his right hand raised, in an attitude of servitude with a big broom in his hand, *and with unclad feet, the leader of the opposition is engaged in sweeping the deck, and the inscription is as follows:

Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Come, come me man, this is a critical session, remember, and we want no insubordination on board this craft.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

Why. there is no joke ; it is rather a serious matter, because it is an implied denial of the statement of the leader of the opposition that there exists no alliance between himself and the government.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

No, by no means. For the credit of our party I would not say that. I say decidedly, ' no

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Again, then where is the point?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

No alliance. I have said that the cartoon would represent that there was an alliance between Mr. Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He says there is not. I quite believe there is not. I am not so ready to believe that there is no alliance *between the leader of the opposition and the Nationalists. I am not prepared at all not to take the word of the hon. leader of the opposition ; I take his word readily and at once 'but there are different ways of forming an alliance. I am quite ready to admit that there may have been no written contract under the hand and seal of either party, but there are other ways of making alliances. You tell me that there is no alliance. What are the evidences? I think one of the evidences is that when the election came on in Drummond and Arthabaska there was not the slightest attempt by the leader of the opposition to put a Conservative candidate in the field to lessen the chance of the Nationalist candidate. Furthermore, when the leader of the opposition was asked how he would advise the people of the constituency to vote, he did not wire them back and say : Vote as loyal British subjects ought to vote ; he did not say : Consider your loyalty to Britain when you vote, but he *practically said : It is no concern to me ; vote just as you like.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

No, no.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

I say that practically that is what it means.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON
LIB
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

No alliance? What about the mischievous telegram from the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster)? Could any better evidence of an alliance exist than that? What about the telegram from the hon. member from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) of congratulation upon the hard-won honours of one of the leaders, the third man in the team of the Nationalist party?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

With very much pleasure ; it is well worth reading.

Accept heartiest congratulations on your great fight and success.

No alliance indeed ! If further evidences were required we have them in the resolution of the lieutenant of the Nationalists and the resolution proposed by the leader of the opposition.

Now, the leader of the opposition has spoken, in regard to the navy question, of the apprehensions which were his in 1909. I would like to know whether, his apprehensions at that date are still entertained by him. Turning to ' Hansard ' of last session, page 1757, the leader of the opposition said :

In other words Germany, the dominant military power upon land beyond all challenge does not propose to rest satisfied until she can successfully challenge the control of the seas by Great Britain.

The hon. member for Halifax had a right, of course, to his own opinion at that time. He had a right to believe at that time if he chose that there was danger of Germany attacking Great Britain. I would like to know if he thinks that danger exists to-day. He thought at that time that there was that danger. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister said that he did not think there was any danger of Germany attacking Great Britain. Whatever the world may have thought at that time, I think the world thinks to-day that the Prime Minister was right and not the leader of the opposition. A few days ago, before I came to Ottawa for the opening of the session, I was talking to a German Canadian, who had just returned from a tour of several weeks in Germany. He was a German Canadian, able to speak the German language, having friends in Germany, and in a position to get at the innermost thoughts of the German people. When he came back I was talking to him, and I said: Are the German people getting ready to attack us? He said: They are ready. I said: Is there any thought of or desire to attack Great Britain, and he said: Not at all. But, he said, Great Britain has been talking in her newspapers about a war with Germany, and the German people simply say: We are ready. I said: Is there any ill-feeling as far *as you were able to discover it on the part

of the German public against Great Britain, and he said: Not at all; there is a very friendly feeling. If British politicians, for political purposes, stir up a wax scare and talk about a war with Germany, can we blame Germany and can we wonder that Germany places herself in readiness for war? I say that public men in Britain and public men in Canada do a great injury to their own countries and to the world at large when they talk over much of the probability of war, because nothing creates war sooner or more effectually than to talk of war.

The hon, leader of the opposition thought that there should be central control of the naval force, and not a disconnected force.

I do not know why that should be so in regard to the navy any more than in regard to the militia. But, again, the leader of the opposition says: Shall we build a navy, shall we equip a navy and shall we send that navy to fight in Britain's wars without having any voice in the matter, and shall the humblest taxpayer in Great Britain have a greater voice even than any of the 220 members of the Canadian parliament?

I turn again to the words of the hon member spoken during last session, and I find them on page 1742 of 'Hansard.' The hon. gentleman, himself, upon that occasion, raised the question of having no voice, and then he proceeded to talk, I think more reasonably upon it than he has done this evening. On the 12th January, 1910, the hon. gentleman said:-

I know that it has been urged, and with some force, that we in Canada cannot properly take a permanent part in the naval defence of the whole empire unless we are to have some voice as to the wars in which Great Britain may engage. Let me say in the first place, that I do not believe Great Britain will in the future engage in any great war-except indeed it may be a war forced upon her without a moment's notice-before consulting the great dominions of the empire. I have some warrant for that statement when I recollect that before Great Britain engaged in the South African war, which was in the end forced upon her, she came to the great dominions of the empire, she came to Canada and she sought advice and counsel. And, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, standing in his place in this House moved a resolution in 1899 expressing the sympathy of this House with the efforts which Great Britain was then making to bring about better conditions for her subjects in the Transvaal republic.

Now, Sir, to-day the hon. gentleman contends that we ought to have a voice in imperial affairs and that it ought to be provided in our legislation that we shall have a voice if we are to insist on maintaining a navy. A little less than a year ago he said I think we will have a voice. He was not alarmed at that time. He said: I do not think that Great Britain, unless

war be forced upon her without notice, will go to war until she consult with us. If the hon. gentleman was right last session I would like to know where is the cause of his alarm on the present occasion?

The hon. gentleman vouchsafed, as he does not very often, to tell us what he would do were he in power. He said: I would obtain knowledge as to the exact situation and as to the imminence of whatever peril Britain might be in; I would get that information from the British government, from the authorities at home. But, Sir, if there is as much confusion as we are led to believe and as much difference of opinion in Great Britain as to what is the imminency of the peril and the danger, the hon. gentleman would have very hard work in obtaining the knowledge from Britain for which he would seek. But, he says: We ought to have a voice. Sir, if we have to go to Britain for information as to what is the danger, then if Britain has the information and if Britain is the only source from which we can get that information, let Britain have the voice. The hon. member said last session ('Hansard,' page 1746) that he was opposed to annual cash contributions to the navy, and he gave very strong reasons for his position in that respect. He said:-

It has been said that instead of the organization of a Canadian naval force, there should be a system of annual contributions from this country to the mother country; and I am free to admit that, from the strategical point of view, I would be inclined to agree with the view of the admiralty that this would be the best way for the great self-governing dominions of the empire to make their contributions. But, Sir, from a constitutional and political standpoint, I am opposed to it, for many reaeons. In the first place, I do not believe that it would endure. In the second place it would be a source of friction. It would become a bone of partisan contention. It would be subject to criticism as to the character and the amount of the contribution in both parliaments. It would not be permanent or continuous. It would conduce, i.f anything could conduce to severing the present connection between Canada and the empire.

Now, Sir, if the hon. member is opposed to a cash contribution; if he is as loyal as he claims to be, and as I believe he is, I wonder what he would advise. And, speaking of his loyalty, is there anybody in any part of Canada who has any lack of confidence in the loyalty of the leader of the opposition. If there be any one who has such a notion let me dispel it by quoting what the hon. gentleman said in this House on the 12th of January, 1910:-

I am the descendant of those who have never lived under any other than the British flag since it first streamed to the free winds of Heaven. I am as profoundly and unalterably attached to British institutions, and connection, and as ready to work, and if necessary to fight for them as any man in Canada. But if my country, one of the richest in the world

in proportion to its population, should accept the humiliating, the degrading, the pauperizing position of receiving future protection and safety at the hands and cost of the British taxpayer without contributing one dollar in aid of assistance, I would say that the sooner the empire was rid of her the better for all.

Does it require any lessening of that loyalty to effect an alliance with the Nationalists, or is that loyalty as live and as keen to-day as it was in January last? What is the position in this respect of Mr. Bourassa? What is the position in this respect of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier? They each of them say: We are quite willing that the relations of Canada to the British Empire shall continue as they are. The Montreal ' Witness ' puts that very well when it says: Of what value is such loyalty and fealty; of what value is the willingness of a young man to remain at home who grows up in his home, who has been supported by father and mother until he arrives at his maiority and the days of his strength, and who then says in the time of their need: I am willing to remain a member of the household, I am willing that the household shall provide for me and shelter me, but upon the express condition that I shall not contribute a stiver towards the household expenses.

I have spoken, Sir, of the amendments proposed to the main motion before the House, as being evidence of an alliance, and let me read them. The amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier says:-

The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.

That resolution was submitted to the House a few days ago ; it was moulting at that time and since then it has grown a feather or two. The amendment as proposed by the leader of the opposition is as follows :

We beg to assure Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and devotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the empire

That is an expression of loyalty that will be of more or less value, but I would rather be inclined to think that it is of no particular practical value. Here is the meat in the amendment of the leader of the opposition:

We desire, however, to express our regret that_ Your Excellency's gracious speech gives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Excellency's advisers to consult the people on the naval policy of Canada.

These two amendments in effect and substance are as like as two peas. Why then Mr. MILLER.

should there he an amendment and an amendment to the amendment. I have here a clipping from a newspaper, and the whips and the ex-whips of the Conservative party will tell me whether or not it is a true account of what took place in the recent Conservative caucus, or, possibly they will not tell me.

Ottawa, Nov. 22.-Mr. Borden's followers in caucus this morning found that they were on the horns of a dilemma in regard to Mr. Monk's amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. This amendment says: ' The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever as to the intention of the government to consult the people on the naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.'

The amendment is in effect what the opposition voted for last session in the final attempt to obtain a united opposition line-up. But the wording has not the proper imperialistic flavour. An effort was made yesterday to get Mr. Monk to change the wording of his amendment a little, so as to provide a little flag-waving accompaniment, but he declined. Moreover, there is a general disinclination in the Conservative ranks to effect any visible alliance with the Nationalists. To vote cordially for the Nationalist amendment would look like endorsing the Nationalist campaign in Drummond-'Arthabaska.

After talking the situation over for over an hour the caucus adjourned without any definite decision being reached. It is probable that a second amendment to the Address will be moved, in the hope of reaching a nicety of wording that will be acceptable to both wings of the opposition.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

What paper is that from?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS EXCELLENCY'S SPEECH.
Permalink

November 24, 1910