November 30, 1910

CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

agreement with the United States. The last word he had with the people of Canada was, that we will make no more efforts towards securing reciprocity with the United States, and, therefore, before he does anything more, he should consult the people of the country. We all understand, as the right hon. Prime Minister said the other day, that if the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs go to Washington and bring back a treaty, it will be submitted for ratification to the people's representatives in this House. We all understand that very well, but we also know that such a procedure is very unsatisfactory. I do not want to say anything that may appear to be harsh, but I will just say that a treaty made at Washington by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs that would not be ratified by this House, as it is now constituted, would make interesting reading indeed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to say anything further with regard to reciprocity. I have only a word or two more before I am through with reference to the navy. I do not propose to go over the arguments that I presented to this House last year on this question. It seems to me that a great deal of that sort of thing has been done during this discussion and some might think it was difficult to point out the difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party on this question. It seems to me there is no difficulty whatever about it. To me it is perfectly clear that the difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party on this question is that the Conservative party desires to render some effective aid towards the. strengthening of the British navy, and that the Liberal party does not desire to do anything for the strengthening of the British navy. Why? Do we desire to remain in the British Empire? Is there anything in the British Empire for us? Almost every man says, certainly, we want to remain in the British Empire. The British Empire, constituted as it is, with nations and colonies surrounding the globe, with thousands of miles of high seas between the centre and the various parts, is it essential to the progress and prosperity and safety of this great empire of which we form a part that she should continue to be mistress of the seas? Is it essential to the prosperity of this part of the empire that the great highways of the seas should be protected and kept free? Is it so that the British navy has protected us for the last 150 years, and that if we were attacked to-morrow we would call upon the British Empire to assist us with its navy? My right hon. friend said the other day, as a reason why we should build this navy: We have a Pacific coast, and the time may come when Japan, or China, or Russia may

attack us. Well, Mr. Speaker, suppose Japan were to attack us to-morrow, where would you get your defence? Who would protect you? It has taken Japan 40 years to construct the navy she has to-day, and it would take this country 50 years to provide a navy as strong as the present navy of Japan; and if during those 50 years we were attacked, as the Prime Minister apprehends we may be, who would protect us? The British navy, the greatest weapon on earth to-day, as was truthfully said the other day in this city by a great American, for the advancement of peace and civilization, and it belongs to us. I have no patience with those men who talk of defending the coasts of Canada and the trade routes of Canada, while doing nothing for the British navy. The Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) said last year that our proposition was to send $25,000,000 to England, where we would have no possible advantage from it, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said, during this debate, that had our proposition prevailed and we had sent $25,000,000 to England to strengthen the British navy it would have been sent out of this country to no purpose. Why, Mr. Speaker, I submit that these hon. gentlemen, in making these utterances, show that they have never grasped the idea of empire. The difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party is that we desire to do something effective for that great central weapon that protects Canada, that protects New Zealand, that protects every part of the British Empire; that great weapon which the leaders of both political parties in England, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour, in the British House of Commons, spoke of as being not merely for the defence of the coasts of the United Kingdom. What did they say? They said: We must have a navy sufficiently strong to protect not only the coasts of the United Kingdom, but every part of the British Empire. That includes us. Can we, a population of eight millions of people, retain our self-respect in these circumstances, that we have accepted that protection for 150 years and have never contributed a dollar towards it, and that we propose for the next quarter of a century, if we are attacked by China or Japan or any other foe, to accept that protection from the British taxpayers without contributing a cent towards it? I do not believe it, Mr. Speaker. I have conversed with hundreds of farmers during the last year, since this matter was up in this House, and I have never found the man in the province of Ontario who was not prepared to stand up at once and say: Yes, certainly, we must make a contribution to the strengthening of that central weapon, not to be frittered away on wasps and hornets, as the ' Globe ' characterized the little ships which the government propose to build. The right hon.

leader of the government tried to show that he had been consistent in the position he had taken. You will remember that at the Colonial Conference of 1902 the right hon. gentleman told the British authorities that his government was prepared to consider a naval defence as well as a milita defence. Well, he came back to Canada. Five years transpired. I fancy that during those five years he did consider the question of naval defence in his cabinet. He did not promise to do anything more than consider it. I fancy that he carried out his promise when he came back to Canada, and that in the cabinet councils he did consider with his colleagues the question of naval defence, and it is fair to assume that they reached the conclusion that they would do absolutely nothing towards naval defence, and why? Because we find the right hon. gentleman going back to England to attend the Imperial Conference in 1907, and we find Dr. Smartt, Commissioner of Public Works for Cape Colony, moving this resolution, to which I ask the close attention of the House:-

That this conference recognizing the vast importance of the service rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make 6uch contribution towards the upkeep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures.

Notice this now:

The contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.

There was a proposition submitted to the conference in favour of the various dominions beyond the seas doing something, not confined to a monetary contribution alone, but, a monetary contribution, a local naval defence, or such other service as the local parliaments might determine. Was not that broad enough to let in anything that had for its object the strengthening of the British Empire? But, what do we find the Prime Minister of Canada saying to that proposition, he says:

I am sorry to say so far as Canada is concerned we cannot agree to the resolution.

He could not agree to a monetary contribution, he could not agree to construct a local naval defence, he could not agree to render any service under heaven towards the strengthening of the British navy. And then, the Prime Minister of Canada went on to say:

I am sorry to say that so far as Canada is concerned we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in that respect in our

country before committing ourselves to a general claim. We have too much to do otherwise. . . . For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.

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

Thomas Aaron Hartt

Dr. SMARTT.

I should like very much to hear the opinions of the representatives of the other portions of the empire.

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

Mr. DEAKIN@

I have no hesitation in entering into the discussion if desired; but if we are not going to pass the resolution, is it worth while?

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

Dr. SMAETT@

I think it is a great pity we do not pass something. We have done so much in the way of pious affirmation, that I am anxious we should do something of a practical character.

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

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

It can be passed if there is a majority. For my part I must vote against it.

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

William John Ward

Sir JOSEPH WARD.

To do any good we would require to be unanimous about it.

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

Thomas Aaron Hartt

Dr. SMARTT.

Yee, I suppose so.

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

Charles Edward Church

Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL.

It is not much good to have a resolution at all if we cannot be unanimous.

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

Gilbert Howard McIntyre (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN.

I think we had better not proceed any farther just now.

An lion. MEMBER. Who blocked the whole scheme?

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

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

Who blocked the whole scheme but the representative of Canada, who, in 1902 stated that the government would consider the creation of a naval force, and who five years afterwards said: we will do nothing, we will give you no money, we will construct no naval force, we will not render you any service of any character that will tend to strengthen the British navy. And why did he take this course? Sir, we have got the answer in the character of the campaign waged on behalf of the government in Drummond-Arthabaska; we have got it in the statements made by Liberal campaigners to the effect: we do not desire to do anything for the British navy; what we desire to do is to strengthen the Canadian navy as a step in the direction of independence. I was surprised the other night to hear the Minister of Customs, in dealing with the resolutions passed by the House on this subject, omit a very important amendment that was suggested, as I understand, by the leader of the opposition, and which would make it quite possible in accordance with these resolutions for us to give a contribution. For my own part, and I in this respect speak for myself, I see no difference between our situation to-day, and our situation two years ago. Talk about an emergency. We have gentlemen in this House getting up one after another and declaring in the presence of heaven that if there was imminent danger to England they would rush to her succour at once. Why, Mr. Speaker, what good would their rushing to the succour of England do, unless they are prepared in advance. Suppose a foreign country

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

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

were to attack England to-morrow it would be to late for those men to talk about rushing to the aid of England to strengthen the navy then, and if thousands of them rushed they would do no good because the strength of England's defence depends on her ships and the trained men on these ships. There is as much of an emergency to-day as there was two years ago, and there was then as much emergency as there is to-day. England is reconstructing her whole navy at a cost of a thousand millions, and for what purpose? Is it not for the purpose of protecting the British Isles alone, but for the purpose of protecting all parts of the British Empire, Canada among the rest. And she asks us to render her some assistance and our answer is as expressed by this government: We will not give you a dollar, there is no emergency, you have money enough of your own to construct ships to protect us; but we will build a few ships in Canada to protect our coasts and our trade routes, and as the Minister of Marine says, to keep away the pirates down in the Gulf of Mexico. It would take us 50 years to prepare a navy that would be of any service whatever to protect us against any attack by a foreign nation, and in the meantime the British navy would have to be our protecting arm. And, are we willing to accept that protection for nothing during the next 50 years, as we have for the last 150 years. Mr. Speaker, the difference, in a few words, between the two parties is this: that the Liberal party wants a few ships, as they say, to protect our own coasts, and as many of them say to be a step in the direction of independence, while the Conservative party declares for: One King, one flag, one navy.

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

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).

Had I time before the hour of adjournment I should like to refer to the question of our trade relations with the United States and also to the question of the naval defence which are in my opinion the two most important references in the speech from the Throne. Time will not permit me to discuss our trade relations at any length, and I, therefore, shall devote myself principally to the naval question which seems to be the paramount purpose of this debate. Let me say, however, that I have not yet understood that it is the policy of the present government to conclude what may be called a reciprocity treaty with the United States; I do not understand that there has been any proposition made by the government of the United States or the government of Canada with the object of securing what might be called a reciprocity treaty; at least in the sense of the reciprocity treaty which we had from 1854 to 1866. The speech from the Throne does not say so, but simply says that there has been a demand for more

improved trade relations. Well, I may have an opportunity to discuss this question later on, but I want to ask this House now if it would not be to the benefit of every producer in the Dominion to-day to sell his products at better prices than he now gets. That is all we want. I must confess that in the past the attitude of the government of the United States was not very friendly; and so far as I am concerned, I would not be willing to consent to any negotiations which would jeopardize in the slightest degree the interests of the Canadian people. But if our farmers can obtain freer access to a market in which they can sell their produce to better advantage, if our fishermen can be given the opportunity of selling the results of their toil at more profitable rates, if our lumbermen can be enabled to dispose of their lumber at better rates-if all those in this country who have anything to sell can do so more profitably, without giving away any of the rights we now enjoy, by some mutual arrangement between the two countries, I think it is the duty of the government to conclude an agreement of that kind. And should they fail to bring about any agreement, no harm will be done.

We have had two weeks' discussion over a proposal of the government, enacted into law last year, to make the commencement of a Canadian navy. All sorts of arguments have been advanced by our hon. friends opposite; but there is one thing in this debate which stands out prominently above all others, and that is that our friends opposite are a little ashamed of the position into which they have been driven by the arguments put forward in this matter, and rather ashamed of the position into which they have been driven by a repetition and rehear-*sal of the facts and occurrences during the last two or three years. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers)-who, I regret to see, has left the Chamber-was evidently put up for a purpose, and that purpose was to draw a herring across the track, and endeavour to escape from the attacks made throughout the country on the party opposite because of-I will not say their alliance since my hon. friend the leader of the opposition says there is none- but on account of the arrangement evidently made between the Conservative party and the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman spent one solid hour this afternoon in trying to show that some members of the Liberal party have in their minds the possibility of an independent Canada in some distant future. In that connection he referred to my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte), and I am convinced that every one who heard him must have concluded that his intention was to charge that hon. gentleman with having gone into the counties of Drummond 17

and Arthabaska and preached there Canadian independence. It was only when brought to book by my hon. friend himself (Mr. Turcotte) that he was compelled to drop the charge. He also tried to make this House believe that the hon. member for St. James division (Mr. Gervais) had gone into Drummond and Arthabaska and preached there the same doctrine. He likewise charged my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) with having made certain statements at Victoriaville. That charge my hon. friend positively denied and the hon. gentleman had not the fairness to accept that denial, but tried to escape responsibility by saying that he had been quoting only from a newspaper. Then he went on to make a charge still more reprehensible. He said that the Liberal candidate in that county had declared that the object in establishing this navy was to bring about the independence of Canada. In that connection he quoted the Montreal ' Witness,' but he must also be a reader of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire,' for no man who can preach as much lip loyalty as my hon. friend did this afternoon could live in Ontario without being a constant reader of that paper. He must have known, therefore, that the defeated candidate, Mr. Perrault, wrote to the ' Mail and Empire ' on the 9th of November, three or four days after the election, a letter in which he positively denied having ever made any such statement. I do not think I am making an unfair statement when I say that my hon. friend did not do himself justice as a gentleman when he neglected to read that letter which was published in the ' Mail and Empire.' That letter is as follows:

Sir',-In your issue of Saturday, the 5th inst., the following appears in your editorial column: ' Mr. Perrault, the defeated government candidate in Drummond and Arthabaska, appealed to the electors on the separation platform. He said in one of his speeches: " Our fleet is not, and never will be, imperialistic ; it is a step towards the independence of Canada." '

I wish to give to that statement an unqualified and emphatic denial. I never gave expression to any such opinion or sentiment, and no words of mine ever could, even with the wildest stretch of imagination, be construed as conveying that meaning. On the contrary, at every meeting which I addressed I dwelt on Canada's duty to assume the naval defence of her shores and commerce, and I declared that she would come to the rescue of the mother land should the supremacy of Britain on the seas be ever threatened. I endorsed unequivocally the policy and statements of Sir Wilfrid Laurder on the navy question. I missed no opportunity of asserting that the British flag protects our civil and religious liberties, and that we are proud to live under it. My position was interpreted so differently from that contained in your columns that I was violently assailed for being too ardent an imperialist. My opponents insisted that Canada owed nothing to England,

and did their utmost to represent the government as being sold body and soul to Great Britain. These unpatriotic appeals did me sufficient injury without my being saddled with opinions which I never professed and which I repudiate.

I rely on your sense of fair play to insert the present letter.

Believe me, dear Mr. Editor,

Yours truly,

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

J. E. PEER AULT.


Liberal candidate in Drummond and Artha-baska. Arthabaska, Nov. 7. Did my hon. friend from West Elgin possess the spirit of fair play to the extent which evidently the ' Mail and Empire ' possesses since it publishes that letter, he would not have failed to read it to the House. I do not think it would be possible to review the hon. gentleman's speech from the standpoint of the utter lack of logic and the utter unfairness of the arguments used by him, because that would take much more time than I have at my disposal. He quoted one gentleman from the province of Quebec as having said in that campaign that no country ibut a nation could have a navy, and in his most melodramatic style he approved of that and said that no country could have a navy unless it was a nation, the inference being that Canada, not being a nation, had no right to have a navy. Mark the inconsistencies, mark the absurdities and contradictions into which the gentlemen opposite fall whenever they open their mouths on this question. This compels me to read, what has been read in this House, perhaps half a dozen times during the present debate, the resolution passed on March 29, 1909, as follows:- The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence. Mr. Speaker, compare that with the magnificently loyal peroration of my hon. friend from West Elgin, that the only thing to do is to contribute money by millions and declaring for one nation, one flag, one King. And yet that same hon. gentleman voted for this resolution. He swallowed everything that was put up to him. He swallowed a change when it was proposed last session; and if, before the end of this parliament, the leader of the opposition can think up half a dozen more changes, I am sure no one will be more ready to swallow them than my hon. friend from West Elgin. He swallowed this: The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the


LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

j

organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last imperial conference and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.

Two years ago he had no hesitation in voting for the resolution which declared that it was the duty of the people of Canada not only to enter into a policy of selfdefence but a speedy policy of self-defence. And as the Minister of 'Customs (Mr; Paterson) pointed out, the word ' speedy ' was introduced by the leader of the opposition to make sure that there should be no delay in getting to work on this navy. But why attempt to follow a gentleman who places himself in such a ludicrous position from the logical standpoint as did my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) this afternoon? He committed another breach of etiquette, which I think is more unpardonable than anything else he did or than anything else that I have seen done since I first had the honour of a seat in this House. He deliberately read from ' Hansard ' statements which had been quoted by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) statements, in my opinion, of the most damnable nature, made by certain Nationalist orators during that campaign, and I believe his intention was to make the people of this country-if his words could reach the country-believe that they were the sentiments of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and it was only when called to book by members on this side and asked whose words he was quoting,-and he did not, even then, have the manliness to say whose words they were, but he believed he was quoting the words of some person who had spoken in the campaign. I do not wish to be harsh or to say anything against the hon. gentleman or his mode of conducting an argument, but I do feel that when a member is put up by his party for a specific purpose and places himself in such a position as that in which the hon. gentleman placed himself, it is not right to let his action go unnoticed. I hope the House will pardon me for taking up so much time, not exactly in replying to, but in noticing such statements as those the hon. gentleman made.

The history of this naval question and the history of this Drummond and Arthabaska election have been so thoroughly discussed that I felt it would be only trespassing upon your patience were I to go into the facts again. I have read here a portion of the resolution of March 29, 1909, which was voted for by every member of this House. I think the House will

pardon me if I read one or two quotations from the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) on that occasion, because, to my mind, it is the finest illustration of what appears to me to toe the true principle governing this question that I have heard or read in these debates on the question of the navy. These words of the leader of the opposition were spoken in support of the motion of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I believe that my hon. friend from North Toronto was sincere when he moved that motion. Possibly he may have had the hope that he was getting the government into a little difficulty, because I have found that when the hon. gentleman assumes the aspect of fairness, you need to watch him a little more closely than you would on ordinary occasions. However, he appeared to be sincere. He introduced this resolution which was read by the Prime Minister last evening, the substance of which was that we should get together and get to work as soon as possible and start the nucleus of a Canadian navy. In that debate, the leader of the opposition said:-

I do not desire to say anything more on this subject. I believe that the defence of out own shores and the protection of our own commerce is due to the self-respect which should fill the heart of every man in this country. You say that we may rest contented to depend for our naval defence on Great Britain. Well, if we had assumed the status of a nation in one respect, shall we adhere to the status of a Crown colony in other and still more important respects?

These are noble sentiments. These are the sentiments that actuate the Prime Minister to-day and have actuated the Liberal party for the last two or three years, and they are the sentiments we are trying to carry out, and which we will carry out, and of which, in my opinion, the people of this country will approve when they first have an opportunity to express themselves. The hon. leader of the opposition went on to talk about the Monroe doctrine, showing in what an unenviable position we should be placed if we relied upon the Monroe doctrine for our defence. Then he added:-

We desire that this resolution should go out as the unanimous resolution of the parliament of Canada to the whole world, and I believe it may go out as a message which will do much to keep the peace of the world in these days of uncertainty. It should go in such terms as would entitle the Canadian people to the gratitude of the empire and do much to restore to the people of this country that self-respect in which, it seems to me, we have been somewhat lacking in these days when others have done so much, and we so little, for naval defence so absolutely essential to .the integrity and the maintenance of our great empire.

I can only say that I concur with that sentiment in every particular. I only wish 17}

that I-could say that my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) and his friends had continued in the manly course which they marked out in March, 1909. Had they done so we should not have had this long discussion, but the matter would have b.een settled and out of sight long ago.

But these hon. gentlemen did not want it out of sight. There was a time, I believe, v'hen they would have been glad to have it buried. 1 do not wish to intimate that there are not dozens of men on that side of the House as loyal as those on this side. If there is anything I have particularly disliked in what I have heard since coming to this House it has been the periodical shout of ' disloyalty ' on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not impeaching their loyalty, but I do find fault with the means they are adopting to get into power. I believe that when the resolution of March, 1909, was introduced, practically every member on the other side was in entire accord with the sentiments expressed. And, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister last night, members went away from that session believing that all were a unit on this question. But something happened. The first thing that happened was that the Tory leaders in Manitoba and in Ontario saw that it would never do to have their party fall in line with anything proposed by the Prime Minister. So, some means had to be found to get out of it. The means found were very simple. The Tory bosses of Manitoba came down to Toronto and set up a cry that there was an emergency, and so we must not create a navy, but must contribute money to the navy of Great Britain. That was taken up by the Conservative leaders all over Ontario, and when my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) reached Toronto he found that his position depended upon going back on the alliance he had made with the government-a manly alliance I call it-and trying to do something else. He said: All right; we will go back on what we said a year ago and come out with a policy of contribution because there is an emergency. Of course, I am not to judge whether they believed at that time that there was an emergency or not. If they were honest about it and believed that the Germans were likely to attack Great Britain and believed that it was necessary to send $20,000,000, or $5,000,000 to the old country, I give them credit for being logical. But there was a little trouble staring them in the face. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier is reported to have kicked over the traces. He says: No, I don't believe in contributing to the navy, nor do I believe in having any navy. But I believe we ought to do something, we ought to consult the people about this thing. Mr. Borden says: Oh, that is very easy, we will put both planks in our platform and we will make a

new olatform; we will say we believe there is an emergency to-day, and we will give $25,000,000. Then we will say that it is not constitutional to build this navy, and we will go to the people and find out what they want to do about it. Now, I want to read to you what the leader of the opposition proposed in 1910, on the 20th of April, as found in volume 5 of the debates, starting at column 7535. After arguing the matter to some extent, he says:-

This is the principle I stand for, and the principle I desire to see carried out. It is desirable, in the first place, that we should co-operate upon some permanent basis. It is desirable, in the second place, that if the conditions of the empire at the present time are emergent, we should bear some immediate and effective aid to the empire as a whole. I still maintain, notwithstanding all the arguments that have been advanced to the contrary, that the proposals I submitted to the House involved the true principle in that regard; and that the true solution, the wise solution, of the great problem that is before the people of Canada to-day would be, in the first place, to bring immediate and effective aid in the manner I have already indicated to the House on the second reading of the Bill, and in the second place to mature more carefully and wisely the proposal for permanent co-operation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire, to bring those proposals into parliament and discuss them, then to submit them to the people at a general election, and after that to have them carried into force according to the mandate and the direction of the free people of Canada.

Well, Sir, there is nothing in that declaration which says that we must have imperial federation before we can have a navy; but he simply declares that we should make a cash contribution first, then mature our plans and bring them forward. Now, let us see what he says to-day. I want to quote to you the words of my hon. friend in this House on the 24th of November instant.

I do not know whether I have made my position clear, but I have done so according to my humble capacity. I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in imperial defence involves very large and wise considerations. If Canada and the other dominions of the empire are to take their part as nations of this empire in the defence of the empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole empire, shall have absolutely, as citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the councils of the empire relating to the choice of peace or war throughout the empire? I do not think that would be a tolerable condition, I do not think the people of Canada would for one moment submit to such a condition. Should members of this House, representative men, representing 220 constituencies of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, no one of them have the same voice with regard to those enormous imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British isles has at this moment. It does not seem to me that a condition of that kind would stand for the integrity of the empire,

Topic:   J. E. PEER AULT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

for the closer co-operation of the empire. These issues would have to be taken into consideration, and a permanent policy would have to be worked out, and when that permanent policy had been worked out and explained to the people of Canada, to everv citizen in this country, then I would say it would be the right of any government to go to the people of Canada to get them to pronounce their mandate and their disapproval or approval of that policy.

Now, Sir, if you will analyse these three propositions for one moment, you will see whether there is any relation between them. The first proposition was, build a Canadian navy, make a start at once, and do it speedily. The second proposition was, contribute a sum of money, then mature a plan, bring it to parliament at the next general election, and submit it to the people. He comes down now, after the Drum-mond-Arthabaska election, and after a resolution passed at a Nationalist meeting in Montreal, to which I will soon refer, he comes down to this House with a third policy, and that third policy is-not a contribution, because he admits he was wrong last year, and that there was no emergency-he abandons that proposition, he no longer says: Let us get together ourselves and mature a plan, bring it before parliament and then send it to the people; but he says: We should not touch this

thing until we have imperial federation, until we get the whole empire together. He says it is unreasonable to expect the self-governing colonies of this empire to contribute to the expense of a war with the declaration of which we have nothing to do. He says it is beneath the dignity of the people of this country to be asked to do such things until they have had a chance to discuss them, or until we have imperial federation. I would like to ask my hon. friend from Victoria-Haliburton (Mr Hughes) if he will tell us how many generations it is going to be before that comes about.

Topic:   J. E. PEER AULT.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

I have just been reading the words of the leader of the opposition who says it. Any hon. member who will read his speech in the debates of the 24th of November will see that he was deliberately playing into the hands of the Nationalists. He says we cannot do this thing until we have imperial federation. He knows that is generations hence, and therefore it will be generations before we are called on to do anything. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier introduced an amendment to this House. He was consistent, for he says: We ought not to do anything, especially until we have consulted the people. But the leader of the opposition says: That wont do, it wont do for us to show that we are working hand

in glove with the Nationalists, it wont do to accept all the amendment, we must put up something else. And so they have prepared the amendment which has been read so many times to the House. The amendment throws in a lot of flag-waving, it omits a sentence or two at the end of the amendment of the member for Jacques Cartier, because that condemns the free contribution policy which they voted for last year; they dont want to do that, therefore they omit it. You have all read the amendment of the leader of the opposition, now I want to read to you a resolution passed at a Nationalist meeting held in the city of Montreal on the 9th of November, a sort of congratulatory meeting _ on the part of the Nationalists over their great victory in Drummond-Arthabaska. At this meeting, at which were present the member for Jacques Cartier, and the member for Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr. Bourassa, I believe it was, moved the following resolution, which was seconded by the member for Jacques Cartier, and was unanimously adopted:

This meeting approves and. ratifies the verdict rendered by the electoral division of Drummond and Arthabaska, reaffirms the will of the Canadian people to uphold the rights of the British Crown in Canada

No Tory ever forgets that.

declares itself ready to approve all necessary and efficient measures to make sure the defence of Canadian territory, but it considers as contrary to the principle of Canadian autonomy and to the real unity of the empire, any policy tending to impose upon Canada, that_ has no voice in the government of the empire, any share in its external responsibilities and its military defence outside of the Canadian territory, the only portion of the empire upon which the Canadian people may exercise any political or constitutional action.

Why, Sir, one would almost think that my hon. friend had drafted his amendment from the resolution of the Nationalists themselves. They are as like as it is possible for one set of ideas to be alike and yet differ in being not exactly verbatim. The hon. member for West Elgin has attempted to draw upon our imaginations and has asked us to say that the Liberal party is advocating independence and everything else but what they call loyalty. He has quoted statements alleged to have been uttered by my right hon. friend the leader of the government twenty years ago in Boston. He has travelled through every book of the library of parliament and every speech of every Liberal member which he could find in the last twenty years in order to give some evidence of this being the attitude of the Liberal party. I do not care what the leader of

the government said twenty years ago in Boston, and I do not think the people of this country are bothering their heads very much about it. The people know the record of the right hon. leader of the government, they have pronounced upon it many times and they will have another chance in the not very distant future to pronounce upon it, and I have nc fear what their judgment will be. But the people are concerned, and very deeply concerned to-day with the unholy alliance that exists between the Conservative party and the Nationalists of Quebec. They may say that I have no right to make that statement in view of the denial of the leader of the opposition. But, I want to point out that it has not been denied by any member of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec in this debate. I want to point out that on every possible occasion since the night of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska every Conservative who has ever spoken on the question, and the Conservative press all over Canada, have made no attempt to conceal their joy and jubilation over the result. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller), pointed to a few of the evidences of this alliance. He quoted the telegram of the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster). The hon. member for North Toronto says : Vote

against Laurier; it is your Christian duty. Any man in this country is performing his Christian duty when he votes against Laurier. And my hon. friend goes further -I can forgive him for that because that is a part of his religion-and says: Do not be too hard upon this man Bourassa; there is good stuff in him. Of course, there is good stuff in him when he is working for the Conservative party. I do not believe that my hon. friend, who, I understand, is going to follow me, will deny that Bourassa is working for the Conservative party and working with the knowledge and consent of the Conservative party.

Then, we have the telegram from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in which he so heartily congratulates the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for the great victory which he and his friends achieved in Drummond and Arthabaska. That has been referred to before. And, we have the telegram of the virtual leader of the Manitoba government, who, I think, is probably one of the most active and militant Conservatives in Canada to-day and he congratulates them and endorses everything that they have said. But, we have something that, I think, is better evidence than that. We have the evidence of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) who has taken a very active part in this debate, a gentleman who has had two or

three opportunities of expressing himself here and defending his position, and a gentleman who has absolutely failed to deny the fact and who glories in the fact that there is an alliance between the Nationalists and the Conservative party. I want to read to you what the hon. gentleman says. You will find it recorded in the debates of November 23. This hon. gentleman is, I should judge, a scholar of no mean pretensions. He certainly has an excellent command of the English language and I imagine that he must be a very fluent speaker in the French language, a gentleman who evidently knows what he is talking about, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot say that the hon. gentleman did not understand the true significance of the words when he was speaking because he was speaking in a foreign language. There is no doubt in the world that from the standpoint of the hon. member for Champlain he feels that he is perfectly justified in taking the course which he has taken. I am not blaming the hon. member for Champlain. I am concerned with the Conservative party who are urging him on. They are the real culprits in this case. Let us see what the hon. member for Champlain did say:

In spite of all the statements published in the newspapers and made in this House to the contrary, I declare from my seat in parliament, and I declare in the face of my fellow-countrymen that during the whole campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska we who spoke in opposition to the government candidate remained loval and faithful to our King, to our country, and to what we think are the true principles of the Liberal Conservative party.

Why, this hon. gentleman had not any doubt in the world that he was working in hearty co-operation with his party. He knew that he was working in co-operation with his party. He had not any apologies to make, and, therefore, he comes into this House and boasts of the work that they did.

Then we have, in addition to that, the conduct of the party as a whole as evidenced by the conduct of the leader of the opposition to which I referred a short time ago. We have them, in the first, place, in 1909, avowing and voting for the' principle of the Canadian navy. When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in 1910, objected that there should be a re-i ferendum of some kind we have the (Conservative party following the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier comes down now and when the Nationalists of Quebec come down now and say: We will have nene of this whatever, we are utterly and absolutely opposed to a navy of any kind, we are opposed to a navy because it means conscription, because it means that our

Topic:   J. E. PEER AULT.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

sons are going to be taken away and roasted and disembowelled by the enemies of England, and we are opposed to a navy because it is English, and we have had too much of English tyranny-when these people come before their leader and put this proposition to him, what does he do? He moves another amendment, and he supports it by a speech in which he declares that we cannot have this Canadian navy for at least two or three generations and probably half a century. Now, I would like to know, in the face of all that: Have not the people of Canada a right to ask what kind of a coalition or compact exists between the Conservative party and the Nationalists of Quebec? Do hon. members opposite deny anything that was said by the Nationalists in that campaign? Has any member of the Nationalist party denied a word they have said? The hon. member for Champlain says: I did not

say some of these things, but I did say some things, and he takes mighty good care not to tell us what part it was he did say. He has had three different opportunities since this debate commenced, and he has never told us what he did say, but he reiterates the statement: I have not

been properly reported in the newspapers, and I did not say all that you say I said. Well, heaven knows, he said enough. He said more than I think the Conservative party like to stomach, but, for political purposes, they are compelled to do so.

Now7, do we need a Canadian navy? Are w7e right in the policy which we are adopting? Our Conservative friends said we were two years ago. To-day I do not know what they say. They do not know themselves where they are at on this question. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), who has just preceded me, comes out, I think, frankly, if you can form any conclusions from his remarks, and says: We do not want a Canadian

navy. He says that we should contribute in money. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) talked for an hour and a-half the other night, and he did not say anything. He hopes that possibly before he dies his party may be in power, and, of course, in order to get the reward that he is after, he must vote for them, although he is not in accord with them. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) discussed this matter the other night, and he said nothing. The hon. leader of the opposition has discussed this matter twice during this debate, and w7hile he has moved a resolution which intends to put the thing off forever, he has not said: We do not want a navy.

The only logical men on the other side of the House are the Nationalists. They come out flat-footed and say that they do

not want a navy; they are men enough to say so, and I respect them for having the courage of their convictions.

But, Sir, I cannot speak in that way of the members of the Conservative party who talk one thing, and two things, and a half a dozen things, and say nothing in the end. It has been said in the House to-day, that we have halT the kindly protection of the British navy for 150 years. Yes, and we had the protection of the British army for 125 years down to the year 1861, when trouble impended between Canada and the United States. Since then we have looked after our own defence, and only once in my lifetime was it necessary to have recourse to arms, viz., the Riel rebellion, when the people of Canada looked after their own defence. In 1899 Britain was at war, and although we were not compelled to send soldiers to South Africa, we sent them of our free will. Then, comes the present time when we are asked to do something to protect ourselves on sea as well as land. The South African war demonstrated that the British Empire is able to protect herself no matter in what part of the globe she may be attacked, and Canada demonstrated during that war that an armed force capable of doing pretty fair work in the field can be made effective in a few mpnths. But, it is not so with a navy. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) told us it would take 50 years to build a navy, and I agree with him, and that being the case there is the greater reason why we should get to work on our navy at once. It is, Sir, the duty of Canada to protect herself, it is the duty of Canada to take her place in the empire, it is the duty of Canada to do whatever is necessary to protect herself and to take her place in the defence of the empire if trouble should come. I am not here to shout loyalty, I leave that to members on the Conservative side of the House. But, Sir, I do believe that in the British Empire there is the greatest freedom, the greatest advancement, and the highest conditions of civilization to be found in this world. I believe in the British Empire because it stands for everything that is best. Perhaps, I have not that sentiment towards the gentleman who happens to occupy the position of King which some other hon. gentlemen may have, but I respect the high office he holds, and I venerate the principles he represents rather than the man;, although, I have nothing but the most eulogistic words to speak of the present King. To my mind it is to what he represents that we should be loyal, and if the British Empire of which he is the head be all that I think it is, then it is worth fighting for. As I have said, in 1899 we sent 10,000 soldiers to South Africa and we spent a few million dollars, but in sending these soldiers we did more to consolidate the British Empire, in conjunction

with the other colonies, than anything that has occurred in the last 100 years. At one period of that war we heard stories of European intervention, but that was before the colonial contingents were sent to South Africa, and, when the world saw that a new force had arisen in the British Empire, and when our colonial soldiers took the field, from that very moment nothing was heard of interference by European nations, I say, Sir, that we accomplished more by sending these 10,000 men to South Africa than we could accomplish by sending $100,000,000. It is not the money that counts, for they have lots of money in England, it is the men that count. The same argument would apply to the navy. We could send the mother land $25,000,000 this year and $50,000,000 next year, and it is only so much taxation taken off the shoulders of the British taxpayer, but, Sir, the thing that counts above all is the sending of the men, and we cannot send men and make them effective unless we have ships on which to send them. You cannot send 10,000 men out to man a navy unless you have a navy to man. We can do nothing that will so solidify the empire, as by doing our duty to ourselves first, and do our duty to the empire as a whole. And, Sir, let me say here that I have never been so proud of the Prime Minister of this country and of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the whole delegation from the province of Quebec as I have been during this campaign. There has been no white feather shown by these gentlemen. They nailed their colours to the mast in 1909, they stuck to them in 1910, and now even after a temporary reverse in Drummond and Arthabaska brought about by a combination of the Conservatives and Nationalists, the Liberal delegation from the province of Quebec still stick to their colours, and they come here in the face of the whole world and declare that they are ready to do whatever is necessary to protect Canada, and the empire as a whole. And, Sir, when the right hon. gentleman appeals to the country as he will in the course of the next two or three years, and when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries goes back to his people, I have enough confidence in the fair common sense of the people of Quebec to feel that they will give them the same support they have given them in the past, and I know that so far as the English speaking provinces are concerned they will give their support to the naval policy of the government, and that hon. gentlemen opposite will receive from them the condign punishment which they deserve.

On motion of Mr. Foster the debate was adjourned.

House adjourned at six o'clock.

Thursday, December 1, 1910.

Topic:   J. E. PEER AULT.
Permalink

November 30, 1910