November 24, 1910

CON
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

I did not say he was at that time, if the hon. member understood me to say that, he was mistaken. I said the gentleman who is now the editor of the Toronto ' News ' and I say that, he being one of the most zealous members to-day of the Conservative party, surely his testimony and evidence will be accepted by every member of the opposition.

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

George Taylor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).

That is ancient history.

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

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

I know no one fonder of ancient history than the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor); he is better versed in ancient than in modern history, and this is not such very ancient history. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) referred to what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier before the election of 1896, surely he was referring to ancient history and I would like now to refer to ancient history of just about the same period. In the first paragraph of chapter 28 of Mr. Willison's work entitled ' The. Man and His Methods.' Mr. Willison says:

Sir Wilfrid Laurier's public career is remarkable for consistent and unchanging devotion to three great objects; the assertion and maintenance of the principle of federalism, ardent and unflinching championship of civil and religious freedom, patient and courageous resistance to the denationalizing tendencies of racialism, sectarianism, and . provincialism.

That was the opinion of Mr. Willison. I turn now to page 363 of the same work. Mr. Willison here refers to two splendid speeches delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He says:

It seems to be Sir Wilfrid Laurier's habit to reveal himself at Quebec. There were spoken perhaps the two greatest speeches he has ever delivered outside of parliament.

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

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

Mr. MILLER.

You will observe that it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier's habit to reveal himself as a true Briton as well as a true Canadian-not in some particularly English part of Canada but in the great old French city of Quebec.

I ask the hon. gentleman for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and I ask the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) to notice the date:

The speech of 1894, like that of 1877, is a plea for moderation, for union, for civil and religious freedom, for a good understanding between the French and English races, for the subordination of all sectional aims and ambitions to the great work of unity and consolidation.

Sir, it may be said that Mr. Willison became too enthusiastic in his praise of the subject of his biography. I am glad however that in this book, Mr. Willison has given us the very text of that speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1894, for which every Canadian must be very grateful. Let me read to you from the speech itself:

He was happy, he said, to proclaim in the old French city of Quebec, that the basis and aim of the ideas and hopes of Liberals was to create a Canadian nationality. Their great object was the development of the work of confederation, to draw closer, to bind and cement together the different elements scattered over the face of British North America, and to weld them into one nation. This was the role of the Liberal party in the confederation, and so long as he had a part in the shaping of its destinies, this was the idea towards which it should gravitate. He did not forget that the Liberals of Lower Canada feared confederation. He did not forget that Dorion and the French Canadian Liberals were afraid .that confederation would prove the grave of the things which they should always regard as a sacred inheritance. But although he was a disciple of Dorion and a pupil of the Dorion school, he was bound to confess that on this point his ideas were those of Cartier's rather than those of Dorion's. There was no conflict between their interest and their duty. They belonged to different races, not to war upon each other, but to labour together for their common good.

Let me quote further from that same speech.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier went on to say:

What this country needs above all is peace, concord and union between all the elements composing its population.

It had been far better if, instead of sending his meaningless telegram, as the leader of the opposition did, if instead of sending the mischievous telegram which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did, if instead of sending his congratulations as the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) did, these gentlemen had gone to the province of Quebec and made there speeches similar to that made by Sir Wil-

frid Laurier in 1894, and similar to those which the right hon. gentleman has always made, whether speaking in Quebec or Toronto, whether addressing audiences of French, English, Irish or Scotch.

It is because the Prime Minister has always preached the same doctrine and stood by the same principles in every part of Canada on every occasion-it is for this reason that he has behind him, not a mere alliance of heterogeneous iragments but the solid backing of all those who sit behind him. And it is because of this that not only has he the loyalty of the House but the support of the Canadian people. Nothing more is required than this ill-assorted union between the Nationalists and the Tory party to add to the lustre of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's name in Canada and to his reputation as a Canadian and British statesman. It is just the absence of that strong adherence to principle and political steadfastness and stability which has handicapped the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and placed him where he is. It is the lack of those qualities which has caused the failure as a public man of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The other day that hon. gentleman, in a bantering tone, if you will, but with a touch of malice all the same and a little grain of political hope, referred to the age of the right hon. gentleman as being 69 years. Well, the right hon. the Prime Minister may be 69 years old, but he is as stalwart to-day as any man in this House, and his usefulness and his strength in the country were never greater. I see a great oak standing in a forest, stronger and more vigorous than it was ten years ago. Its roots have taken a greater hold in the soil, its branches stretch out on every hand and furnish generous shelter and protection to friend and foe. But just across the line there is another forest in which my attention was attracted to another tree, of an altogether different appearance. I asked the old forester the history of that tree. Ah, he said, that is a tree which we planted down in New Brunswick in 1847. I took every care of that old tree. I first planted it in one part of New Brunswick but it did not seem to thrive, I then transplanted it from place to place in that province, but still it seemed to wither, I then removed it from that province to the wilds of Ontario, into the northern part of the county of Ontario, but immediately it began again to wither and would * not take any root. So I took it up and planted it in North Toronto. I said to myself if there be any soil in the world where that tree can possibly take root and grow, it will be there. Yet' notwithstanding all my care you see there is no .sap in it, there is no substance

or strength in its trunk, its roots poison every atom of soil, evey well and spring they permeate, its branches afford no shelter, there is no healing in its leaves and nothing left of the old tree but its bark. Sir, the old oak to which I first referred is Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who today is Prime Minister and who will be spared, I trust, to be Prime Minister of this great Dominion for another fifteen years. The other tree is another man.

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

Thomas Chisholm

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. CHISHOLM (East Huron).

That is a very interesting story which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) who has just taken his seat has told us about the two trees. It was a very pretty little tale for children, and possibly will have some influence on hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, but I might point out that there is one thing which he failed to note and that is that the tree he described as not being very flourishing has at any rate no graft about it. As I cast my eyes to the other side this afternoon at the close of the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and saw the downcast looks and the thoroughly disorganized appearance of hon. gentlemen opposite, I could not help thinking that they must find themselves in a very perilous, discouraged condition indeed, and I wondered if it was possible by any means to revive their spirts. They have, however, put up this evening one of their ablest men. Perhaps the speech of the hon. egntleman who has just sat down is about the best tonic they could have had under the circumstances; and that hon. gentleman, after his very able effort, surely deserves to be rewarded by a portfolio at a very early day.

Referring to the beginning of this debate, I may say that I listened very attentively to the speeches made. I was very much pleased with the effort of the hon. gentleman who moved the address (Mr. McGi-verin). And I may add that I was as well pleased as any one on this side could be expected to be with the speech delivered by the hon. gentleman who seconded the motion (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. gentleman struck, I think, a very good and a very tender note. His reference to our departed King Edward VII. and the loyal way in which he expressed himself in connection with our present sovereign, King George V., were particularly gratifying to me.

I was pleased that this should come at this particular time, especially from him because I think it would be well if we should let the world outside understand that Canadians are not just quite so bad as some people on both sides would try to make others believe they are. I think the loyal part of the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska deserves thanks even from this side of the House.

And why should not the hon. gentleman speak in this way? He is a French Canadian ; why should not he be loyal to King George V.? When that Sovereign is the direct descendant of William the French Norman king who came over in 1066 and took possession of the English Crown, and the descendants of William have reigned there ever since. William and his nobles carried the French language with them, and it was practised not only in the King's own court but in other courts of England for hundreds and hundreds of years. If it had not been for the foolishness of King John, Normandy and Britain would still be under the same sovereign You must remember that the Norman French and the other French people are not the same race at all. The Normans are descendants from the North men and have m their veins the daring blood of the sea kings. For many centuries they fought shoulder to shoulder with the English speaking people who lived in Great Britain against their common enemy, the French. And when Jacques Cartier left St. Malo on the 20th of April, 1534, he left Normandy, and at that time the whole of Normandy had not been conquered by the French ; the city of Calais was still under control of the English. And we have even to-day.the Channel Islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and 'Sark, a remnant of Norman territory, where the people speak French, and there are no more loval subjects of our beloved King George V Those who left Normandy and came to the banks of the St. Lawrence and. took up their habitation there found themselves, in a short time, once more under a British King. But that British King was their legitimate and hereditary sovereign. I am not going to allow myself to -believe that the French 'Canadians of this country are not more loyal than would be indicated by what is being said of them in some parts of this Dominion.

Now, I had intended to say something, on the navy question but we have had so much talk about that question that it would toe as well, perhaps, if I said nothing about it. But I desire to say a word about one little point that was brought up to-day. A reference was made to the boundaries of Canada by the hon. member *for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who said :

The reason simply is because the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario or Quebec.

,, I a.m 1101 a lawyer. I can understand that it would be right to say that a man did not own a horse if he had sold it, but I do not see how he could possibly be justified in saying that he had never owned it. It seems to me that when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthriel made this statement either he was splitting fine legal Mr. T. CHISHOLM.

hairs or was altogether in error. Under the Quebec Act of 1774, the northern boundaries of Canada were defined by the British parliament. The boundary was stated at that time to be the watershed between the rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence system and those flowing into Hudson bay. Now, 'when King Charles II. made the grant to Prince Kupert and other gentlemen adventurers of the territory of Hudson bay, he stated they were to have that territory that was watered by the rivers that entered into Hudson bay. Therefore the whole northern watershed of Ontario and Quebec belonged to the Hudson Bay Company. We know that in 1869 the Canadian government purchased the Northwest territories from the Hudson Bay Company. Did not this include the northern watershed that now belongs to Ontario and Quebec? Why, I find in the year -book for 1904, issued by the government, this statement :

July 6. Order in Council enlarging the boundaries of the province of Quebec to the shores of Hudson bay, and adding 118,450 square miles of territory to the province.

How could the hon. member for South Wellington state that the Dominion of Canada never owned a foot of land in Ontario and Quebec? This territory added to the province of Quebec was larger, much larger, than the whole province of Manitoba. Now, the people of the Northwest have a right to complain. They say that at this time Quebec and Ontario have their public lands. Take the case of Quebec, for, while one will do as well as the other, some confusion might arise if Ontario were taken as the exemple because of the dispute as to the boundary. Quebec is given a large territory including minerals, timber, and everything and given it out of territory that was purchased by the Dominion government from the Hudson Bay Company. They can manage it, receive the revenue from it, have all the benefits of it. And at the same time the people of the northwest provinces are not allowed to have their lands. There are lands in the province of Saskatchewan aggregating about a million acres not yet alienated by the Crown. That land is very valuable. We see by reports that have come in from government surveys and others recently that a great deal of that land can be cultivated, even to the very northern part of the jprovince, and what can not be cultivated is exceedingly valuable, either as mineral lands, timber lands, or, particularly, pasture lands. And the waters of that country are full of fish ; I suppose there is no country in the world whose waters have a greater stock of fish than those of that territory.

Now then we have another complaint from the Northwest. Not only have they not received their lands, but they complain

that 'the pivotal province of the Dominion, the province that regulates the unit of representation, has been increased by 118,000 square miles and that under that arrangement, in a short time the unit of representation may so increase that the smaller provinces down by the sea will be deprived of their representatives in parliament ,and they are complaining of it now. The same effect will be felt in the western provinces, who are likely to find their representation less than it should be in consequence of the addition of this immense territory to the province of Quebec.

Another question that is mentioned in the speech from the Throne is that of reciprocity. Now reciprocity with the United States is a thing that I think we should consider very carefully. Personally, I would favour reciprocity if I thought we could get a fair deal. The-very word ' reciprocity ' implies fair dealing, even-handed justice, with no selfish or dishonourable advantage taken by either party. In fact, reciprocity has been defined as a condition of things in which equal rights and mutual benefits are given and received. . Now according to that definition, the very first step towards reciprocity between Canada and the United States should consist in an equalization of the present tariff rates between the two countries, if the United States will only do this, and thus put themselves in a position to begin negotiations on a proper basis, I feel satisfied that Canadians, irrespective of party, will support any just and reasonable tariff arrangements which this government may make. But unless a perfectly fair and equitable preliminary arrangement is made, it appears to me that the present Dominion government should either stop short in their negotiations, or at least proceed very guardedly. They should remember what Canada has suffered in the past from the unfairness and greed of their sharp and selfish southern neighbours. For example, in a very recent fiscal year Canada allowed $104,000,000 worth of United States goods to come into this country absolutely free of duty, while our big uncle across the way reciprocated by allowing less than one-half that amount of goods to enter his country free. Again, Canada purchased $164,000,000 worth of dutiable goods from the United States, this was reciprocated by the purchase of only $75,000,000 worth of dutiable Canadian goods by the United States during the same time. Then, Canada charged only a fraction over 24 per cent as an average duty on the portion of the United States goods that were not allowed to come into * this country free. This was reciprocated by President Taft and his friends by not only charging an average duty twice as high as the Canadian duty, namely, 48 per cent, but also by actually standing with a big club in the shaDe of the Payne-Aldrich tariff, threatening that they would put 25 per cent more on top of the 48 per cent if Canada did not still further reduce her already comparatively low duties on goods coming from the United States. This was a double injustice, in so far as it was partly directed against Canada's tariff preference for the mother country. To say the least, it was a very mean and ungrateful way to return Great Britain's kindness for allowing the free entry of hundreds and millions of dollars worth of United States goods into Britain's markets. One would have thought that a strong Canadian government would have resented this brutal and tyrannical conduct on the part of our neighbours. I may remark, however, that the present Canadian government is not noted either for strength or wisdom especially when they deal with the United States.

Now, how can we expect to have good results from negotiations that are to be conducted, in the near future, by the same parties who made the last treaty? Talk about Canada being a nation. Why, Sir, Canada's government dare not say their souls are their own. We made lately a little trade treaty with France, and the United States found fault at once, and demanded similar privileges. I presume the present Canadian government were taught a lesson at that time that they are not allowed to manage their own affairs without consulting their big neighour to the south. I think they would be careful not to do anything like that again without consulting our neighbours. Why, Sir, even our Canadian Railway Commission appears to be under the influence of the United States, for not only is Canadian farm produce sidetracked on Canadian railways after we have given them hundreds of millions of dollars in the way of bonuses and grants, but similar products coming from a foreign country over Canadian railways are allowed to have the right of way and to get a freight rate of less than one-half. Surely Canadian 'farm products should be allowed to come over subsidized Canadian rails without paying a freight rate which is twice as high as similar products coming from a foreign country over Canadian railways are allowed that charged on agricultural products coming from the United States. Again, a Canadian has to pay three cents a mile to ride over our subsidized railways in the Northwest, while an American citizen can sit in the same seat with him-I have seen it myself-and pay only one cent a mile. I say that our Railway Commission, or our government, should interfere to prevent such bare-faced discrimination against Canadians in their own country. It may be thought that I am speaking rather harshly. But it is1 well to Temember that the present is not the only Canadian government that has been over-reached bv the cool chicanery of Yankee diplomats. In 1871 Canadian fish

were to be given free entry into the United States markets in return for certain concessions granted to American fishermen in Canadian waters. The United States showed their ideas of decency and honour on that occasion by first monopolizing and alm'ost ruining our fisheries, and then evading their share of their treaty obligations by putting such an extremely heavy tax on the boxes or packages containing Canadian fish, that the free entry of the contents were of no advantage. By the same treaty it was arranged that the United States should give Canada the use of her canals in return for their use of ours. They, however, succeeded in wording the treaty in such a peculiar manner that although they had the full use of all our canals, when we came to pass our barges through their canals they were not allowed to carry any cargoes. Again, we were to have the privilege of conveying wheat in bond from Collingwood and Owen Sound to Ogdensburg, but just as soon as the United States found that we were exercising that right they gave notice and cancelled that part of the treaty. At the present time Canadian fish oil is supposed to go free into the United States, but the duty is so high on the barrels that our fishermen have no advantage under that provision. The packages and boxes containing other commodities are so heavily taxed that there is very little advantage under any concessions that are made. Both countries are supposed to give free access for anthracite coal. Canada does, but the United States does not. Canada's standard for anthracite is the usual one, but the United States will allow no anthracite to come into their country free of duty that does not come up to a certain standard of fixed carbon, and they have deliberately placed that standard so high that it is said that no anthracite in the world can meet it.

Then, take the question of copyright. Canadian publishers going to the United States have to set up the type, print and bind their books in the United States. American publishers do not require to do these things to get the same privileges in Canada and I would compliment our Minister of Agriculture upon the fact that he is about to put that right. I know he has taken this question in hand, I am pleased to see that he has done so and he deserves the thanks of the Canadian authors and publishers for it. I hope the result will be satisfactory.

However, I may say that the United States has never used Canada fairly. The first thing they did after they gained their independence was, under the treaty of Verseilles, to take advantage of the' fact that Lord Ashburton and other Britsh representatives were not so well acquainted with the wilds of America or the geography of the country as the people who lived in it, and by availing themselves of That cir-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.

cumstance they succeeded in juggling us out of the northern half of the State of Maine and out of our natural winter outlet to the ocean. We were deprived of the immense territory lying north of the Ohio and west of the Mississipi to the Great Lakes. That territory belonged to the French before it was ceded to Great Britain, and that same territory was granted to Canada by the Quebec Act in 1774, but Canada was deprived of this also. Immediately after the revolutionary war was over what do we find? It was natural that there were people in the American colonies who, when the rebellion broke out, were not willing to go out and fight against their king and country, and shoot down their neighbours. They were the best people who were in that country. But when the war was over, how were they treated? Their homes were taken from them, their property was confiscated, their children were ostracised, theiT lives were made unbearable, and the poor things were driven naked and homeless with their aged parents, wives and little children away into the unbroken Canadian wilderness, and I suppose that their neighbours thought that they would die of hardship and 'hunger. But, the British government came to the Tescue of these poor, destitute people, and the British people went down into their pockets and gave them a grant of as many millions of dollars as it would take to build two Dreadnoughts at the present time. Thus was averted what might otherwise have been one of the great tragedies of modern history. When the revolutionary war was over how do you find things going? The United Empire Loyalists with the aid they had received in the shape of food, clothing, implements, cattle and seed from the British government, soon had flourishing homes and waving cornfields in Canada. What do we find then? The greedy eyes of those who had driven them out from their homes in the United States began, to look across and to envy them. The peo-' pie of the United States found Great Britain engaged in a life and death struggle with the great Napoleon and when Britain had withdrawn her troops from Canada and from other parts of the empire in order to maintain her supremacy in the very centre of the empire then and not till then did eight millions of Americans attacked 300,000 almost unarmed and defenceless Canadians. They were the loyal French Canadians and the United Empire Loyalists, 300,000 strong, against 8,000.000 They knew what would happen them if they were conquered. They knew that once more they would lose their homes and property and be driven back to the wilderness to die. Therefore, these men fought with the courage of desnair and we know what the result was at Chateauguay and Queens-

ton Heights. Not one inch of Canadian territory was left in the hands or under the authority of the United States troops at the end of three years of warfare. What have we heard ever since? The histories and school books of the United States have been filled with fictitious stories of how the brave American heroes overcame the cowardly Canadians. The average American girl or boy has not the first idea that Montgomery failed in his attack upon Quebec, nor does he or she know that at the battle of Chateauguay a handful of Canadians defeated a whole army of Americans. Nor does he know anything of Queenston Heights, or Laura Secord, or Beaver Dams..

Tn 1817, what do we find? Under the Rush-Bagot treaty it was agreed that neither country should maintain any arm-[DOT] ed vessels on the Great Lakes. I find a correspondent writing from Alpena, Michigan, telling us that on the Great Lakes the Americans have the ' Nashville ' and the 'Don Juan d'Austria ' which they took from Spain in 1898. They also keep other vessels there. They have the ' Yantic,' which was formerly an American war vessel, the ' Dorothea,' the ' Hawk ' and the ' Gopher,' these vessels carry a thousand armed men, and this correspondent says that these vessels are armed with cannon that have a range of six miles, with Morris tubes and all the other modern appliances. Yet, the United States agreed that there should be no armed vessels on the Great Lakes. What are we to expect from a people that claimed that Behring sea was a closed sea and belonged to''the United States, that it was territorial water of the United States, when, at the same time, they claimed that Hudson bay did not belong either to Canada or Great Britain? They claimed that Chesapeake bay, which, at the mouth, is probably fifty miles wide, was American territory, but that the Baie des Chaleurs was not Canadian territory.

Now, I would say to the government to be careful how they deal with these gentlemen. I think that with all our experience we ought to be a little careful. We have a Waterways Commission, and I do not know whether in ten or fifteen years everything that is placed under the control of that commission will not be claimed by the United States as their territory. We gave them the privilege of using our Atlantic coast fisheries in common with our own fishermen and they subsequently claimed that this entitled them to exercise sovereignty in our territorial waters. We gave them the privilege of entering our harbours far wood, shelter, water, and repairs and they claimed that this gave them the right to enter these harbours for any other purpose. I suppose that" they will be claiming our waterways in fifteen years

from now. Again, we are going to have a joint Railway Commission. The United States will no doubt interpret this to mean in a few years that we intended to hand over to them the control of our railways too.

Some people have been talking about a century of peace. Certainly, it has been a century of peace ; not a century of p-e-a-c-e but a century of p-i-e-c-e and the United States have received all the pieces.

Now, if it is just possible that the United States, or the Republican party which, 1 suppose, represent the United States in the meantime, are about to make a dying confession. I think they are on their death bed and perhaps they have repented, and although the government may think that these Republicans and these representatives of the United States have experienced a change of heart and that they may go to a good place, still the government ought to be careful how they deal with those gentlemen, because I have generally found that these death bed repentances are not to be depended upon. I would say to the government: Be very careful; do not buy any wooden nutmegs or basswood hams from Yankees, because I believe a cargo of that kind was once sent over to Canadians. I have now warned the government not to deal in that kind of goods. I hope they will be careful, and if they bring in a proper Reciprocity Bill, r am a kind of an independent man and I might vote for them.

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

Frederick Luther Fowke

Liberal

Mr. F. L. FOWKE (South Ontario).

Mr. Speaker, I cannot attempt to follow the the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) in all the phases of the address he delivered this evening and I shall not attempt it, primarily because the beginning of his speech was absolutely answered in advance iby the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller). There was one remark however which the hon. gentleman made that affords one a sort of text, if it may be taken as the real expression of his mind in relation to Canadians. If it expresses the hon. gentleman's own sentiments in relation to the Canadian people I should be sorry to hold the entire Conservative party responsible far his attitude on the question. Speaking of Canadians he said : They are a people who dare not say that their souls are their own. Now Sir, if there is one feature .that is regrettable more than another in connection with much of the discussion that has taken place during the past week it is this : That some men are too ready to minimize the importance of Canadian citizenship and Canadian nationhood. I should like to suggest that a Canadian on Canadian soil is no less a Britisher than the Eng-

lishman on the soil of the British Isles. And I wish to lay it down here to-night at the very inception of my remarks, that the King of England is no less the King of Canada than he is King of England. And, as King of this Dominion he is King of all sections in this Dominion, and the spirit of loyalty when absent in the breast of any section of the Canadian people should determine at once as to what the attitude of the rest of the Canadian people should be towards that particular section of the community. Now Sir, in the discussion, we have had developed what I will suggest is fittingly described in the expression ' Nationalism'. We have had two Nationalisms spoken of : A Nationalism which has

asserted itself in a particular way in the county of Drummond-Arthabaska, and a Nationalism which does obtain over the greater portion of the Dominion of Canada. What is it, I would like to ask that gives piquancy and importance to the election recently held in Drummond-Arthabaska? Is it simply that the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in that election lost a supporter? It would not be the first time that a strong government had lost a supporter, and a government with a majority of 50 in a House of 220 does not greatly miss a supporter from a particular constituency. Is the significance to be attached to the fact that an opponent of the naval policy of the government has been sent to this House by that constituency? I say Sir, that that incident is but the flapping of the sail and not a rent made by the gale. The vote in that election was very close, and the people are supposed to have spoken only upon one particular feature of the policy of the government. Now Sir, we have to look for the importance attaching to that election elsewhere, and it grows entirely out of the fact that the quality of the campaign carried on in that constituency was such as merits the condemnation of the Liberals in this House and of the people of Canada generally. We had an able exposure of the methods which obtained in the constituency given to the House yesterday by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and it is to be regretted indeed that such a campaign was carried on under the name of Nationalism. Now Sir, there is a nationalism in this country wnich stands for the greatness of Canada as a nation per se and which stands for the greatness of Canada as a nation of the British Empire. That Nationalism has been represented before the people of Canada by the right hon. the leader of the government.. The other nationalism which needs a qualifying word and which I shall speak of as a ' bastard ' nationalism is that represented by Mr. Bourassa and vouched for by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), Mr. FOWKE.

by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and by the member for Halifax who leads the opposition in this House.

Now Sir, the Nationalism of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party stands in the first instance for a united Canada for a strong Canada, for a constantly growing Canada. There are incidents that may happen in the history of any nation which may retard or increase the growth or development of that nation, but that which evinces the spirit of the people determines as to what the destiny of that nation shall be. And I say Sir, that the spirit of the Canadian people as a whole, is the spirit which makes for unity from end to end of this country and from the frozen north to the international boundary on the south. That is the nationalism for which the Liberal party is distinguished in the thought of the Canadian people and the British public as well. And now Sir, what is one of the very first duties and responsibilities of a national party in a national parliament Is it not this very one thing: that they should provide for the defence of their country. And yet, that is the one thing which the Bourassa party are opposed to; it is the one thing which the party led by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. R. L. Borden) is opposed to. Our memories are not so short that we cannot remember the naval discussion a few months ago. What then was the attitude of the two great parties in this country and this House? Why Sir, do I not correctly represent the situation when I say that the party to the left of Mr. Speaker may fittingly be denominated, remembering what their attitude at that time was, as the emergency party of Canada. They based their whole plea for assisting the empire in relation to navy affairs upon the emergency which they believed existed, their belief being founded as I told them at that time and as I tell them now, upon the utterances of the yellow press of Great Britain. Now Sir, the leader of the government on a memorable occasion when he was sought to be stampeded into a particular course which would have brought this country into serious trouble, said that for himself he did not wish to adopt any policy in a panic. The proposal of the leader of the opposition was to take $25,000,000 from the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada and float it over to be expended in Great Britain on labour and material there; while the policy of the Dominion government-not undertaken in panic but in fulfilment of principles established by those who attended the imperial conference of 1902-was to establish better defences for the coast of our own country. And I stand here to-night as the representative of an Ontario constituency to say, that I believe we acted correctly then in supporting that policy; a policy

which stands for the creation of a navy within the Dominion of Canada, to be built as nearly as possible out of Canadian materials, by Canadian labour, and Canadian capital, and for the purpose of the defence of the Canadian nation, in unison with the other defences which we already possess. In the riding which I have the honour to represent distinguished Canadians at various times uttered their sentiments and became parliamentary candidates, some of them, all of them in fact, though not all from South Ontario, were at one time or another members of this House of Commons. One of these was the Honourable George Brown, another the Honourable T. N. Gibbs, Sir Oliver Mowatt, Honourable Mr. Speaker Edgar and Honourable Mr. Malcolm Cameron. Sir, if I called up the shades of these men to-night I am convinced that they would answer me in the line of my own tnoughts and say that I correctly represent the Canadian sentiment and the sentiment of South Ontario, which is a representative constituency of the great province of Ontario when I stand for the principle that this parliament should provide for the defence of our own country.

Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. Hear, hear.

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

Frederick Luther Fowke

Liberal

Mr. FOWKE.

And that in thus providing for the defence of our own country we place ourselves in a position to say to any who would assail the mother country at home or abroad that in attempting a descent upon the mother country they must reckon with the lion's whelps as well, that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the great selfgoverning dominions of the British Empire in case of any emergency when this parliament shall approve of our entering into the consideration of the hour of danger and of difficulty. The one thing that is regrettable in connection with the conduct of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska is that a spirit of fear was generated in the minds of the women and of the men of that constituency and rank disloyalty too was preached where it was thought that that sort of preaching would carry weight. I say heTe to-night that the people of that constituency, that the people of Quebec who may follow Mr. Bourassa and the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in the disloyal attitude which they have assumed, will have occasion to rise up and curse the very soil on which these men tread. I believe, Sir, that in speaking thus I speak of what will develop into a very small section of the province of Quebec, for the great mass of the people there have in days past proven their loyalty to the British Crown as well as to the constitution of Canada. In my belief the French province of Quebec is just as loyal at heart as is the province of Ontario, and when the final appeal on this 9

great question shall come in connection with the general policy of the government of the Dominion, we shall find that the statesmanship of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which stands for a united Canada as a member of the great confederacy of states which form the British Empire, will be a statesmanship which will be approved in the province of Quebec as in all the provinces of the Dominion.

The gentleman who preceded me referred also to the trade question on which I would like to say a word. He is very fearful of a treaty of reciprocity with the United States and is very much afraid lest the tariff policy of this government should inure to the disadvantage of the people of Canada. I have no such fears. The tariff question is a large question, yet there are but few people who do not think they know all about it and can tell the government what they ought to do in relation thereto. The question of a tariff is a very ancient question and one that in essence is rather disagreeable to consider at any time. The origin of the word is not very difficult in itself. It comes from an incident in connection with a victory obtained by the Moors in the 8th century when they built a castle at the entrance to the gateway of the Mediterranean and called the place ' Tarifa.' They were robbers, they pillaged everybody who came within their reach and compelled every merchantman to deliver up about one-half of its cargo before they would allow it to go on its way. The origin of the word is rather significant, and when a tariff is applied in a very definite and large sense to create monopolies and combinations in trade as it has notably in the republic to the south of us, in Germany and in France, the old word ' robbery ' is not misapplied. In so far as the tariff of this country permits the creation of monopolies, that not very euphonious word is applicable. I do not know whether or not the word can be made to apply to any industry in Canada. If in any particular instances the tariff is ministering to the creation of monopolies in restraint of trade then the time will come when it will have to be dealt with and dealt with vigorously. I am glad that the Prime Minister has promised that he will appoint a commission to deal with the tariff question. There are two or three points in relation to the tariff which it seems to me, without knowing too much about the subject myself, ought to have a determining influence. Some manufacturers in this country seem to think that the tariff exists for their particular benefit and advantage, and that it ought not to inure to the advantage of any one else.

There are three principles which are operative in connection with the creation of a tariff, and I should like these to apply in this country. First, there is to be considered the spirit of enterprise on the part of the

people, the wage earner and capital and I place these in their relations in the ordeal mentioned. I place the wage earners first, and after them the capitalists. Having a tariff in this country for revenue purposes, with incidental protection, my contention is that the people above all others who deserve whatever protection can be afforded by the tariff are the wage earners Of Canada. I hope that this will be borne in mind by any commission which may be called on to deal with the tariff.

I know that the right hon. the Prime Minister is sometimes spoken of as a freetrader, and I am glad to think that my leader is at any rate a free trader in principle, that he holds up free trade as an ideal, even if that ideal cannot be reached just now. We all understand that while free trade may be an excellent thing for an island in the midst of the sea like England, our system of taxation is altogether different, aiid under that system of taxation I am glad to believe that the Canadian people are the most lightly taxed of any people in the world. I wish to say, however, that free trade ideals are those on which any tariff we may enact should be founded. What are those ideals? They are stated by the free trade council itself as being, first, free trade, and next, peace and good will among nations. Those are principles that ought to make their way among the peoples of the world, and no man is to be condemned because he sets them up as an ideal to be worked for, even though not possible of attainment at present. As the hour is late, I would move that the debate do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10 p.m.

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

HOUSE 0E COMMONS.


Friday, November 25, 1910.


November 24, 1910