February 1, 1916

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL.


Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the Table his recommendation and the' clerk's report respecting the appointment of Mr. C. W. Boyce as clerk of Votes and Proceedings, House of Commons.


PRIVATE BILLS INTRODUCED.


Bill No. 17, to incorporate The Canadian Indemnity Company.-Mr. Schaffner. Bill No. 18, respecting W. C. Edwards and Co., Limited.-Mr. Fripp. Bill No. 19, respecting a patent of James W. Owen.-Mr. Middlebro. Bill No. 20, respecting Queen's University at Kingston, and to amalgamate therewith the School of Mining and Agriculture. -Mr. Nickle.


REPORTS AND PAPERS.


Report of the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner for the year ended March 31, 1915. -Hon. Martin Burrell. List of Shareholders, Chartered Banks of Canada, as of date December 31, 1914.-Sir Thomas White. List of certified cheques, drafts or bills of exchange, dividends remaining unpaid and unclaimed balances, chartered banks of Canada, as of date December 31, 1914.-Sir Thomas White. , Governor General's warrants issued since last session.-Sir Thomas White. Expenditure on account of unforeseen expenses from April 1, 1915, to January 12, 1916.-Sir Thomas White. Temporary loans, Dominion of Canada, outstanding December 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White. Report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas JVhite. Report of the Royal Society of Canada for the year ended April 30, 1915.-Sir Thomas White. Statement of the National Battlefields Commission for the year ended March 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White. Statement of Treasury Board over-ruling of Auditor General's decision.-Sir Thomas White. Statement of superannuations ini the Civil Service during the year ended December 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White. Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White. *458


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.

* ADDRESS IN REPLY.


Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening' of the session, resumed from Monday, January 31.


LIB

Levi Thomson

Liberal

Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):

Mr. Speaker, I purpose to confine my remarks to one question, namely, the commandeering of wheat at the head of Lake Superior by the Government's order issued about midnight on the last Saturday in November. The leader of the Opposition referred to this question, and I was rather surprised to see the Prime Minister object. He appeared to think that if the leader of the Opposition was not prepared to make a charge, he should not refer to the question at all.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I did not say quite what my hon. friend suggests. I said that if he did not intend to make a charge he ought not to refer to a charge. I did not say the question ought not to he referred to.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Levi Thomson

Liberal

Mr. THOMSON:

My reason for making the remark I did was the following passage in the Prime Minister's speech, which 1 think bears me out:

Well, if he had not any charge to make, it might perhaps have been in better taste if he had not referred to a charge at all.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Yes, "to a charge' -that is what I said.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Levi Thomson

Liberal

Mr. THOMSON:

I have no charge to-make myself. I do not wish to deal with this question in any fault finding spirit, but rather with a view to eliciting information, and to stating as clearly as possible the viewpoint of the western farmer. I think my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) and my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) have clearly shown that one class of the farmers of the West sustained considerable loss through the Government's action in commandeering the wheat. I do not intend, however, to deal with that phase of the question. I do not think that that was the most serious loss sustained by the western farmers through this seizure. The most serious loss, in my opinion, was caused by the disturbance of trade. We have been told that the Government have loaned to the millers a large proportion of the wheat that was seized. I believe that this is unquestioned. We have also been told that a large portion was loaned to the dealers to

enable them to fill their contracts. This, however, has been denied, and I think we should be told whether it is a fact or not. If it is a fact, I think we have a right to know how much was loaned, to whom, and when it was repaid. If the dealers had to buy wheat at a higher price at a later date, whether to repay the Government or to fill their original contracts, they would be the losers unless the Government recouped them, and we have had no information so far that they were recouped. If there was a loss, who bore that loss? If I am selling goods to a purchaser who has had other lots of goods which he had bought on former occasions, forcibly seized, and if he is still in fear of further seizures, it would be -absurd for me to expect as high a price from him as if he were not afraid of further seizures.

It would be absurd for the western, farmers to suppose that they would get the same price from the grain dealers after the seizure in question, as they would have received had there been no seizure and no fear of any future seizure. It would be absurd also to suppose that the dealers did not recoup themselves from the only source from which they could do so, that is, from the farmers. That they did iso recoup themselves is clearly indicated by the fact that there has -been since the date of the seizures a tremendous increase in the spread between the prices at Minneapolis and those at Fort William. I find, on a careful perusal of the market reports from the 1st of September of last year, the beginning of the wheat season, up to the time of the seizure, that the price for the highest quoted grade at Minneapolis was on an average -about 5 cents a bushel higher than the price for the highest quoted grade at FoTt William. The Minneapolis quotations, however, are for No. 1 hard, while *the For-t William quotations are for No. 1 northern, and the Canadian spread between No. 1 hard and No. 1 northern is about a cent. Therefore, assuming that the value of the Minneapolis No. 1 hard is the same as that -of the Canadian No. 1 hard, we should ^deduct one cent, which would reduce the -difference between the two quotations to four cents. That, however, has nothing to do with my argument at present.

I find that, since the date of the seizure, -the average spread has been nine cents a bushel; or, if you deduct the one cent, it has been eight cents. -What is the reason for that increase of four cents in the spread? I do not .think the western farm-

ers will be very long in coming to the conclusion that the Winnipeg dealers are in this way making up whatever loss they have sustained. It is a simple way, and in fact, the only way in which they can. make it up. The loss to the farmers is unquestionable, but it is not necessarily unjustifiable. If it can be shown that the action taken by the Government'was in the best interest of the Empire and absolutely necessary, then it was 'justified notwithstanding any losses to the farmers or anyone else, and no one will be more ready to agree to that proposition than- the Western fannex; but I think we are entitled to some explanation of the action of the Government. We have heard what have been termed explanations, -but unfortunately the explanations do not explain. Let me refer to some of these explanations. I will quote an extract from an editorial in the Winnipeg Telegram of November 30, 1915, as follows:

Instead - of condemnation and criticism, it will be found that the Dominion Government is deserving of the highest credit for having taken an unprecedented course to protect the British consumer, overburdened., as it is by the colossal burdens of war, against the designs of the wheat gamblers who think of profits day and night and of practical patriotism, not at all. -

One reason is given to us in this editorial; but the trouble is that it does not explain how the action of the Government protected the British consumer, and we have no explanation of the necessity of that action further than that the Winnipeg dealers are a pack of scoundrels waiting to rob the British Empire whenever they get a chance. I am a life-member of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, and have attended a number of conventions-. I have heard some pretty hard things said there of the Winnipeg grain dealers, and perhaps with some reason but I have never heard anything half as hard as this. I have never heard it suggested that they are utterly devoid of patriotism, and I do not believe that charge is true, whatever else may be said of them.

The following is an article from the Winnipeg Telegram, written by its staff correspondent at Ottawa under date of November 30, 1915:

The Government In commandeering the wheat had several objects in view: to protect the Allies against exorbitant prices, to secure to the producer any subsequent rise in wheat values, and also to demonstrate to the Allies that as purchasing agents they could he depended upon to fill orders promptly and economically.

A number of reasons are given in this article, but it does not explain how -the action taken could protect the Allies; it does not explain why it was necessary to take these steps to protect the Allies, nor how this action could secure to the producer any subsequent rise in wheat values. As was shown here yesterday, instead of securing to the producer any subsequent rise in wheat values, the Government absolutely deprives him of it. That is a publicly known fact. I think we should have an explanation as to how the action of the Government would demonstrate to the Allies that the Dominion could be depended on as a purchasing agent to fill orders promptly and economically, and how they were useful as purchasing agents in the case cited. The extracts I have quoted are at best semi-official statements; but we have some official statements; we have copies of telegrams sent by the Solicitor General to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. One of them which I have copied from the Manitoba Free Press of the 29th of November, 1915, is as follows:

Government hopes Winnipeg Grain Exchange will realize that the action taken by the Government arises primarily from war conditions and is also actuated by earnest desire to secure timely markets for our very abundant crops. The present opportunity to that end might otherwise have been lost.

That is very fine, like most of the productions of my hon. friends of the Solicitor General, but, like the rest of them, it explains nothing. We are not told what the war conditions are which rendered this action necessary, nor how this action secured timely markets for our abundant crops, and it is very hard for us to see how it would do so.

From another official document issued by the Government some quotations were given by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. Here are some short extracts from that document-I will not read it all:

The phenomenal crop of wheat in the Canadian west has brought upon the Government the duty of assisting to the farthest extent possible in this marketing.

Further on it says:

The British Government has requested the Canadian Government to provide within a short time a very large supply of No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 northern wheat.

And at the end of the document appears the following:

The action taken by the British Government is based entirely on war conditions, and the response of the Canadian Government has been dictated by the same state of facts.

In this statement it is nowhere said that the Imperial Government had requested this Government to commandeer the wheat. There is no doubt, however, that the statement sent that impression, abroad throughout the country, nor is there any doubt that the intention of the Government was that that impression should go abroad throughout the country. There is no doubt that tihe same impression was conveyed in Great Britain by that statement, for we find the following British statement quoted in the Manitoba Free Press of 30th November:

London, November 29.-The official Press Bureau made the following statement to-day: "With reference to the announcement from Ottawa on November 28, that the Canadian Government had commandeered sixteen million bushels of wheat at the request of the British Government, the Board of Agriculture states that the Government has made no such request and that at present they have no information on the subject."

So I say not only was the impression conveyed throughout Canada, but also throughout Great Britain, that the Canadian Government's action was at the request of the British Government. And from the last clause of. the statement I have quoted it is quite clear that whatever our Government did they failed hopelessly to keep in touch, as they should have, with the Imperial Government. While on. this subject I must refer to a point that was dealt with by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) yesterday. I refer to the calling of Mr. Crerar, President of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, and of Mr. Crowe, a prominent member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, to consult with the' Government. Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia quoted from the interview with Mr. Crerar in the Winnipeg Telegram, and I do not need to read that again. But it is quite clear that'these gentlemen were called in to advise the Government, and their advice was eminently good, but it was turned down flat. Let me quote very briefly from an interview with Mr. Crowe, published in the Manitoba Free Press of 30th November:

I argued as strongly as I could against commandeering of the wheat.

To get back to the question of the effect of this action on the people of the West: I repeat that, even though the effect were to cause loss to the western farmer, if it were necessary in the interest of the British Empire, the commandeering of the wheat would be justifiable. Further, I grant that it is conceivable that circumstances may

fMr. Thomson.]

arise under which, in order to protect the British consumer, commandeering would be necessary. But it seems to me that tihat time will come later, if ever it does come. The time of danger is when the wheat has got out of the farmers' hands. Never be alarmed about reports of a sudden rise in price when the grain is in the farmers' hands. But if the Government wishes to secure necessary supplies for the British consumer while the grain is in the farmers' hands there need ibe no difficulty about it, provided the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes the farmers into his confidence. If I may be allowed a personal word, I may say that I still have a carload of wheat in the granary on my own farm. I have sold the rest of my grain to meet the demands of the most clamorous of my creditors, but the rest of them I am holding at arm's length and trying to keep this car of "wheat in the hope of a rise later on. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will assure me that it is necessary to the welfare of the Empire that he should have that wheat, I am prepared to send a telegram to my home now asking them to ship the wheat to the minister's order. We will not quarrel about the price, either he can pay me to-day's price, tomorrow's price, next week's price, or the price of the week after that. Nor am I alone; there are thousands of farmers in the West who are of the same mind with me. The hon. minister may say that it would not be possible to deal with individual farmers in that way. Then, my hon. friend from Assiniboia has shown him a way out of that difficulty. Let him deal with the farmers' companies, the Grain Growers, Grain Company, and the Saskatchewan Oo-oper-ative Elevator Company. Let the minister make a request of the secretaries of those companies and say that it is necessary and advisable in the interests of the Empire that wheat should he secured, and if those officials turn down the request and fail to do everything possible to assist the hon. gentleman there will he a day of reckoning coming for those officials; the next company elections will clear them out.I pain assure the minister that the patriotism of the Western farmer is enough to ensure that. I can tell him that the main difficulty in, dealing with the western farmers is that he has not hadsufficient confidence in them. He hasbeen rather devoid of faith in .them.

The greatest teacher the world ever

produced says that if we had faith as a grain of mustard seed we might do wonderful things. The lack of that faith as a grain of mustard seed is the trouble with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. " To him that believeth all things are possible," ' amid I would say to the Government: "0'h ye of little faith, wherefore did ye doubt? Why did not you deal openly and fairly with the western farmers instead of launching that thunderbolt on Saturday night or Sunday morning, whichever you like to call it, disturbing the Sabbath rest of the ' grain dealers in Winnipeg as the Solicitor General kept telegrams flashing throughout the day?" I do not see any occasion to disturb the Sabbath rest of these gentlemen Bind deprive them of the consolations of religion. I do not know that I blame the Minister of Trade and Commerce very much, for he is not in touch with the western farmers, and I do not think he understands the mind of the western farmer. But the Solicitor General, who was acting for him, is inexcusable, because, if he does not know the western farmers by this time he should. Either he does not know or he altogether ignored the facts of the case. The farmers are willing to do anything in reason for the benefit of the Empire, but we want to know why the action taken by the Government was necessary. We want explanations, that explain. We want to know how the action taken protected the consumer and the producer; how it secured markets and supplied requirements. Could not the end have been accomplished better in other ways? We want to know exactly what -was done with every bushel of wheat seized, and I think we Have a right to know that. Was grain loaned to the millers and dealers, and if so on what conditions, and how was the loan repaid? What was done in regard to. the increase in price? We are satisfied to lose if it is necessary in the interests of the Empire, but we want an explanation that explains, and we believe we are entitled to it. .

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

Mr-Speaker, I shall not claim the attention of the House at great length, but there are a few things I wish to take this opportunity to discuss. As to the question of wheat referred to by the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Thomson), I still believe that it would be good policy for this Government and for Parliament to secure the entrance of Canadian wheat free into the United States.

I have^ looked into this question rather carefully, and while arguments can be brought forward for both sides, I still believe that the western farmer ought to be the best judge of where his interests lie, and that what would be good for him would be good for the 'Country at large. Although I say this, I am still a protectionist; I have not changed my views with regard to reciprocity or what would 'have, been the effect of the freer trade that reciprocity would have brought about.

As to what is called the seizure of the wheat, I think that it is quite within the duty and competence of the Government, especially on an occasion of this kind, to take possession of wheat if they think it is in the public interest to do so. I believe also-and I think this will come out after the farmers have studied the question;- that it might be the duty of the Government of Canada to stabilize the price of wheat, the one thing that we produce more of than anything else. I do believe that it is possible to valorize the pries of wheat and in that way to get

I wish for a few moments to come to the war situation. I have the honour to represent a constituency which has, I believe, sent more soldiers to the front than any other constituency in Canada. When I say that, I must ask hon. gentlemen to remember that the population of South York is much above the average constituency in Canada. There are over 100,000 people in South York now, and thousands of men have gone from that constituency to the war. I know one little mission church in that riding from which 120 men have enlisted and are at the front. I was at a little church service on Sunday last which was attended by scarcely twenty people; yet on the list of the -men who have gone to the war from that church there are nearly thirty names. All through South York is found that spirit of determination to fight for the cause of the Empire and the cause of Canada. I have been at recruiting meetings in that riding where more than fifty men have enlisted. Such

American continent, the leadership in advocating the cause of liberty, by sending their sons, as they have sent their sons, to the front; and by being prepared to spend the last dollar and to send the last man until the war is carried to a successful issue. That is to the credit of the Canadian people, and that is the new view that we are taking of our position. Therefore, anything and everything must be done by this Parliament to carry this war to a successful issue. It will take time; it will require great sacrifices, it will take any amount of money; and yet we will have to give it cheerfully, and we shall have to bear the loss of blood and treasure. By doing that, we shall rise higher in the scale of nations; we shall be doing only our duty, and we shall come out tried by the fire, a better and a nobler people.

So far as I oan gather from what I see throughout the province of Ontario and the whole Dominion, and judging by the recruiting that is going on, the people are more determined to-day than ever to bring about a successful issue of this war, and, Sir, they want to see the main energies of Parliament, and of the nation, devoted to the successful prosecution of the war. We can discuss the important question of munition contracts, and I do not obj ect to that, but there are greater questions that Parliament must deal with, and they should deal with them now and not be deferred until after the war is over. We have got to finance this war, and we h-ave got to have' a new fiscal policy for Canada, not only during the war but for the future, ajfter the wlar. ' I have taken the view that the commitments of this country are' such that we will have to change our whole currency and banking laws, as they have been changed in nearly every other country. I believe that Canada will have to nationalize the currency, and to replace the bank currency by national currency, and the sooner we do it the better. We cannot finance this country, finder the present war conditions, with a bank currency. We ought to have an absolutely national currency, and to do that we must change our laws so as to follow the example of the United States. Not only must we have a national currency, but we will have to have the system of re-discounting and reserve banks, which they adopted in the United States as an elementary and essential feature of their banking system, and which have been most successful. I have no objection to our present banking system, or, rather, I have no objection to

our banks as they are now conducted; they are doing well. But we should have a better system, and it would not injure our banks if we had ia national currency instead of a bank currency. There is a way of supplying them with a national currency, and they should have it on reasonable terms, so that they can give the country better service. We will not be able to finance Canada under these war conditions unless we change our currency and banking systems in the two directions which I have indicated.

' There is another great question that must be dealt with, and it cannot be left until after the war. I refeT to the question of getting some kind of mortgage credit loan system for the farmers, not only in the West but all over Canada. I have read a good deal about the meetings that have been held in Western Canada within the last few weeks and of the efforts that the local governments are making to get better credit for the farmers of the West. They are trying to bring about an improvement, but I wish to direct their attention to a plan which was introduced in Congress the other day by a joint committee of both houses, a committee which was unanimous in recommending this new plan to create national mortgage banks which shall have for their object the furnishing to farmers cheap money on long term loans. The ordinary bank system of this country or of the United States is not organized to give the farmer long credit. If he wants to go into the live stock business or to improve his farm, he cannot do it on short loans negotiated with the banks. But in Australia, and New Zealand, and in neatly every country of Europe, they have a system of lending money to the farmers at long dates and at low rates. They have propoised in the United States1, which has been so progressive in the matter of her banking law, a system whereby they will give mortgage loans to farmers based on the national credit of the United States. Of course they form loan bank associations, and smaller associations of farmers under them, and a mortgage is drawn on the farmer's property for which he has to pay practically 5 per cent principle and interest, hut at the end of thirty years the Whole mortgage is paid off, and he has nominally paid only 4 per cent per annum. The object of this legislation, which has the support of the Administration, is to give the farmer of the United States any sum up to $10,000, if his farm property justifies

it, practically at 4 per cent interest foT the development of his farm; and they are enabled to do it, as you will see when you get to the bottom of the system, by using the national credit for the benefit of the ' farmer, just as it has been used for supplying money -at low rates for commercial requirements. And. this Act, under which these district loan banks are to be created, contains one little clause, the sense of which you do not get until you investigate the details. It is, that these banks are made depositories for the United States. That is, the United States can deposit in - them its own notes and all the money its agents collect, with the exception, I believe, of the customs revenue. .In taking that .stock im these- great banks, the whole resources of the United States can be used, and will be used, after this law is passed, for securing for the farmers of the United States four per cent money. They have done it in Australia and in New Zealand, and on a somewhat similar system, and I see no reason why we should not do it too. What I should like to know is why Parliament is not now devoting its attention to this great question of financial reform, which may involve the nationalization of the currency of this country, and which does involve the creation of these mortgage banks for the benefit of the farmers.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Murphy

Liberal

Mr. MURPHY:

Is there a limit to the amount subscribed by the United States Government?

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN:

There is practically no limit. Its limitation is in the control of the mortgages. They must be undoubted. It has the object of creating a new and first-class security for investment in the United States, and the investor is invited to put his money in these mortgages, which are to be absolutely first-class. Of course, there is a danger of the Bill not being passed, but the Administration that adopted that great banking reform which has been tried for a year now, and which is the most successful financial revolution ever effected in the United States, has committed itself to its passage. The business men of the United States have all accepted the system of national reserve banks. This system of credit loans for farmers is not being tried for the first time. It may be an experiment in the United States, but it has been successful in Australia, as I have said, and in New Zealand, and in nearly all the countries of Europe. Ireland has been regenerated by the credit system inaugurated there

for the benefit of the farmers, and France, Germany and Russia have adopted this important reform in national finance.

What I want to see at this time is Parliament discussing these questions of financial reform. It will not do to wait until the war is over; that may be some time yet. The important thing is to get ready now, so that if we should have a great influx of settlers, as we may have after the war, our finances shall be organized in such a way that business men will be able to get what credit they want in connection with our banking system, and our farmers and settlers will get a reasonable credit to help them in the development of their farms. It will be a benefit especially to the farmers in the West engaged in stockraising. A mlan in the West ciatnimot get the money he wants from a bank for stockraising, as it involves a loan extending over three years. It is necessary, if we are to settle this country as it ought to be settled and in view of the great war, to reorganize our financial system from top to bottom; and we cannot begin too soon. I give the legislatures in the West credit for what they have tried to do. The legislatures of two or three of the western provinces have considered this question, and some of them, particularly those of Saskatchewan and Alberta, seem to think it is' within their power to create a system of credit for the farmers, based on land mortgages. Now it may be possible to work it out in that way, but to my mind it would be. better to work i-t out on the national credit of Canada, as it has been worked out in Australia, New Zealand, and in Europe. That question is calling for .settlement, -and- so also, as I have said, is the question of (refbrim in regard to our -banking. This is the time when Canada ought to place a great loan in the United States. I believe there never will be such a favourable opportunity as the present for Canada to secure her national currency by a gold reserve. We can get money to-day on the New York market at a lower rate, I believe, than Great Britain and France got their loans recently. In the United States they have unbounded -confidence in this country, land what we want is the use of their capital. We want settlers from their country, but we also want to have this country so financially reorganized that in the recovery from the war we will be able to accomplish these reforms, and ensure for Canada a new era of prosperity.

The more I consider this question the

more I am convinced that Parliament ought to be here and now dealing with it, and trying to arrive at a solution. We are creating a great war debt, and we will have to meet it. How are' we to meet it, and what is this Parliament going to do in connection with it? If we double our population we will reduce the debt by half; but we can do things now, and we ought to be doing them now. We ought to be conserving our national resources for the benefit of the country and for the payment of the war debt. We have the greatest store of nickel in the world. There is no such amount of mining wealth in any part of the world as there is at Sudbury. The part that nickel plays to-day in the world is enormous, and if we can conserve it and develop it, it will pay the whole of our national debt. What are we doing in regard to the development of that industry? So far we have allowed it to- be -controlled by an American company, and we do not know -I have studied the matter very carefully, and I do not- know-what interest -a certain group of German people have in the nickel monopoly in the United States. It is time w-e did know it, and it is time we conserved that great resource, our greatest resource. It is time we conserved it for the Empire, and refused to allow a pound of that ore to go out of this country until it is treated and reduced in this country. We have possession of it, and ought to know where it is going. I do not accept the -assurances that have been given that that nickel has not passed to Germany. Perhaps it has not, but Germans own a large section of the stock of that company; that I do know, and I would not put anything past them.- I repeat, it is high time that we controlled the nickel products of this country. It is an enbrmous asset, and I believe it should be under the Canadian flag, and not in the United States. I want to know what the Government is doing in regard to that. I am told-I see it in the newspapers-that there is a policy of some kind coming, and that it is intended to start refining industry in the province of Nova ''Scotia. I have no -objection to that 'being dope, but I want to see it done in Canada. I want to know how -much t'hei'e is of this nickel, and what the other products of nickel matite are. We do not know how much platinum there is in it, nor how big a profit this company is getting out of it; we do not even know whether they are paying their dues to the Ontario Government, -as they are supposed to do under 30

the law. We do know that their profits within the past year w-ere in the neighbourhood of twenty million dollars, and they may be double that for all we know. They control the nickel supply of the world, and they are getting over fifty cents a pound for their nickel. If Canada has the greatest store of nickel in the world', we ought to have in Canada the largest production of nickel steel in the world, and we should work out a national policy, in that direction. If we do that, and if we provide for a proper conservation of our resources, no one need fear for the future of Canada.

In the great Northwest to-day-and I now address myself to the western members-we probably have an enormous -store of petroleum, and petroleum is one of the essentials in this war. The war has established the fact that motors, aeroplanes, and traction engines of all kinds depend on gasoline. What are we doing, to find out how great a supply of petroleum we have in the Northwest, and how we are going to conserve it? If we do happen to have a large supply, are we ready to nationalize it, and use it for the pause of the Empire? I say we ought to nationalize this petroleum, w-e ought to nationalize nickel; and above all things we ought to see that none of 'these resources is alienated by private persons, or private companies, and especially by private -persons outside of our own country. We must not delay about these things. The war debt is on us now, and what are we doing to make our natural resources assume a portion of that war debt? This is a question which must be considered, -and it should not be left for discussion until the war is over. Parliament should ibe busy now on this question, as well as on conservation reforms generally.

Not only -have we great stores of nickel, petroleum, and probably platinum, all of which are essential in this war, but we are developing a great silver and gold mining industry in this country. Within *three years, I believe, two or three of the greatest mines in the world will be up at Porcupine and in the Timisk-aming district of Ontario. At present we are letting that gold and -silver go out of our country. In view of the great scarcity of gold, >and -the part that gold is playing in the eoo-mo

mics of this war, I do not know but that our Government -should take possession of our gold -and silver supplies. Some objection 'has been made to the commandeering of wheat. I -certainly would be in favour of commandeering -all the gold

and silver produced in this country, and in view of the part that these metals are playing in the war, doing everything possible to encourage production. Nothing counts like gold in this war, although the day may come when it will not be of so much importance. We know that Canada possesses these great stores of nickel, and gold, and silver, and yet we are not using them for ourselves and for the Empire as I think we ishould. Certainly a way could be found to utilize onr nickel and petroleum for the benefit of the Empire, but ol -course we -can do nothing unless Parliament takes the matter up, and Parliament should deal with it at once.

There are still other questions that -must be dealt With. For a moment I am going to refer to the railways. I have always been in favour of the nationalization of railways. The Government nationalized the railways in England as a war measure, and now that that policy has been adopted it will never be changed. Now that the necessity for conservation and efficiency and for saving wherever it can be effected has been brought home to the people of Canada, I think our people will come to see that all unnecessary overhead expense in connection with railways, all unnecessary competition, and all unnecessary duplication should be done away with. This could be done either by state ownership or by increased state regulation. In the interests of the nation we shall also have to nationalize our telegraph lines and our express companies-and that because of the war if for no other reason. We cannot afford the wastages that are taking place. There seems to be unnecessary competition and duplication of service in everything, and the people are suddenly going to rise up and say to Parliament: What are you doing to distribute

the great war debt that has been created, and what are you doing to improve conditions in this country? I do not think we are doing all we should do. I think we are discussing questions that are not of such vital importance as the questions I have raised here to-day. I think Parliament should be prepared-to sit down now and deal with these questions, and try and find a solution, instead of thinking how soon we can get through with the business we have before us.

I also wish to say a word or two about munitions.

I should like to have seen our country get a larger share of munition orders, although it is surprising the number of orders we have got, and what we

have done. A short time ago I spoke about the improved conditions of -this country, and contrasted the present state of affairs with conditions a year ago. I see a great improvement, and probably the manufacture -of munitions in this country has bad something to do with . it. But I am not satisfied that we have done everything we could to bring orders from the Allies to Canada. I do not know that our agent-general in the Old Country has done everything he could; I do not know that we are fully seized of the importance of this question. I admit that we have done a lot, but I believe that we could do a great deal more. If 'the war is going to be -long-and we do not know whether it will or not-we shall have to go more fully into this question of munitions, -and inquire just to what extent they can be manufactured in this country. I say that the great workshops belonging to the Canadian- railways should be devoted to that purpose. We should be producing all the munitions we can, and at the lowest possible price consistent with giving -a fair wage to our people engaged in the work. It is well worthy of the consideration of this Government as to whether they should not change somewhat their policy in this respect, in order to increase the production of munitions here.

The last -thing I wish to say is this, and it also deals with the war: I have -heard a great deal of talk -about the part Canada is to play in the peace negotiations when they -come about. To me what seems of more importance, now that Canad-a is engaged in the war, is that we should -be asking -ourselves: what part are we playing in the strategy of the war, in the appointment of generals for example. Rather than be represented in- th-e peace proposals, .1 should like -to see our country placed on the status of an -ally of the Old Country, so that we could have a say in the -conduct and strategy of this war. Grave mistakes have been made in this war in the m-atter of policy, and in the appointment of generals, but no protest has gone forth. The time has come when, instead of having a s-ay in the peace proposals, it is, perhaps, of more importance that we should have a say in the conduct of the war, seeing ho-w much we are committed to bringing it to a successful conclusion. I am absolutely in favour of Canada's participation, in the war, but if the war is to be continued there should be some change in our connection with it. We

ought to have more say in the matter, and we ought to be represented in London by someone who has absolutely the confidence of the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people; one who will take a part in the deliberations of the army council, or whatever the body may be that has under its control the direction of this war.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

I would like mjr non. Friend, because he takes a great deal of interest in this question of representation in the councils of the Empire, to elucidate a little more the point which he is making.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN:

Now that I have introduced the question, I will give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of elucidating his views in regard to it. I will go this far and say, that we have not had that representation that we ought to have had. There is now a war council in which all the Allies are represented, and if we are to have a say in the peace settlement, which everyone says we are to have, I think we ought to have a say now when these urgent questions of general policy are under discussion. When I say that I come back to a short speech that I made the other day in Toronto, when I said that I believed more than ever in maintaining, the national integrity of Canada under the British Empire. That may mean a great deal, or it may not mean much, but there are people who wish to see what they call a great Imperial Federation. I do not see the necessity of that yet, but I think we ought to be an absolute part of the British Empire, although I 'believe in our maintaining our national integrity all the time, no matter what the situation may be.

As to the outcome of the war, J do not wish to assume the role of prophet. There are so-called reverses happening every day, but the cause is going on all right. The British navy is upholding its supremacy and maintaining the liberty of the world on every sea. Great Britain has been backward as regards the army as compared with the navy, but she has seen that she must have a great army, and so have her Allies. Now, that army is being created and the struggle will sooner or later have to come. We believe that the Allies will be successful in that struggle and that the liberties of the world will be preserved, although it will be a struggle to the end. This is a war between two peoples who have put themselves, the one against the other, the one to uphold liberty, and the other to assume an unfair military ascendency. I hope that the tyrant will be put down and

30i

put down forever, and that Canada will never release her efforts until that result has been successfully accomplished. But, until such is the case, this Parliament will have to make innumerable sacrifices. We shall have to stand for any amount of taxation; we shall, have to revolutionize our system of finances and our way of controlling our natural resources, and we shall have to do many things which we formerly thought we might not have to do. The people expect us to deal with these matters, and the question I ask this Parliament is: What is it doing with these great questions, in view of the situation, in view of the debt that has been created, and in view of the things that Canada must do for the regeneration of herself and for the reconstruction of the Empire after this war is over? We are not doing all we ought to do. If Parliament would be seized of the seriousness of the situation, it would pay more attention to these matters and less to questions of party. Saying that, I have said all I intended to say to-day. I may, if an opportunity is presented later on, go into some of these questions in a little greater detail, and especially into the question of financial reform in this country; but for the present I have said enough. I have tried to reflect the views of a great many of the citizens of this country in regard to the necessity of greater action on the part of the Parliament in connection with this war.

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink
CON

Paul-Émile Lamarche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PAUL EMILE LAMARCHE (Nico-let) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, since the opening of the session, you have been tendered numerous congratulations by the mem bers who have addressed the House before me. I, as an old companion in arms, may be allowed to join in with most earnest wishes that you continue to fill with the same tact and distinction the exalted position to which you have been raised.

This year's address of His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada, has now occupied our attention for about two weeks, and, in the course of the debate, what is known as the political truce has been largely disregarded. The usual accusations of maladministration and boodling have been bandied across by politicians on both sides of the House; and, certain opinions have been expressed and certain assertions made as statements T>f facts, which it is my duty, representing as I do a French-Canadian constituency, to refute or rectify.

My purpose is not to enter a plea in justification or explanation of the particular stand 1 have taken in this House, during

the last five years, on Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire. I feel there is no need of my enlarging on that question; my opinions are the same and the principles I uphold are those I had already laid down when I took a seat in this House.

Nor shall I stop, Mr. Speaker, at criticising piecemeal some unhappy utterances that may have slipped the lips of orators during this debate and which were rather offensive to the race to which I am proud to belong. My compatriots, I know, are above such insults.

I shall also eschew the assumption or even the mere idea that among my Englishspeaking fellow countrymen-among whom I enjoy some of my best friendships-there may be found a majority to endorse the opinions of a few extremists. My purpose in rising to-day, Mr. Speaker, is to stand up in this British country, before a meeting of free men, in order to defend two of my compatriots, ex-members of this House, against whom have been borne accusations of the utmost gravity.

I let a few days elapse in the hope that members older than myself would take the cudgels on behalf of men, to whose principles and efforts they are indebted for their seats in this House.

But, as the debate is drawing to a close, I take pleasure, before the third crowing of ithe cock to take up the task.

The fact is notorious that, in a certain section of the country, newspapers from whom we might expect fairer treatment and men who, on account of their position, should .show greater moderation, are clamouring that Mr. Henri Bourassa and Mr. Armand Lavergne be hanged or shot.

I feel like expressing to

I confess I feared at first that the hon. member for . Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) would, advocate incarceration into that penitentiary at Kingston, of which he has already spoken so haTshly. No better opportunity will offer for him to settle his dispute with the hon. the Minister of Jus-

tice. Once Bouras&a and Lavergne secure behind the walls of that famous jail, the hon. member for Frontenac will certainly make an end of his requests for the mitigation of the treatment imposed on convicts. .

In any case, should the counsel prevail that Bourassa must be banished, I fully agree with the hon. member for Frontenac that, outside certain regions not far distant from us, 'Germany would be the most proper place where could be utilized the talents of a man whose life has been given to the defence of minorities and smaller nationalities.

But what is the nature of the impeachment against Messrs Bourassa and Lavergne? In different localities, it is called now high treason, now disloyalty, or simply the expression of German sympathies.

So far I know, the gentlemen in question have not urged any of their compatriots .to take up arms against their Sovereign. No citizen of this country has been guilty of such a crime. Yet t'he records of Great Britain bear witness to the fact that only recently an important .man in the Kingdom, Sir Edward Carson, has, in the course of .a religious squabble, sounded the call to arms to resist the enforcement of the laws of His Majesty's Government. But his conduct did not debar him from 'being called to fill in the British cabinet the important position of solicitor-general, whose office it is to see to the proper execution of the laws of his country. Nor, to my mind, have those gentlemen, made pronouncements nearly as serious as those 'made only recently by Sir Herbert Holt, Who, on his return from England, declared that the War Office was rotten to the core.

Those orators did not claim with the late Sir Richard Cartwright that all we owe England is Christian forgiveness for all the harml she has done us.

Have they ever gone the distance of my excellent friend the hon. member for 1'Islet (Mr. Paquet), who, in bygone days, after calling upon the steeple of his village church to crush him to the ground if ever he should fail to keep any of his pledges, could be heard to exclaim that the British Empire could be likened to imperial Rome that drained her colonies' blood.

I must acknowledge that the old communard that was then found in the hon. mepber for 1'Islet has been tamed through his coming in touch with the powers that be. The other day, in seconding the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, he

used all possible caution anld delivered himself of all possible flattery towards the hierarchy and the clergy of his province. His words recalled vaguely his yesteryear's speeches on maple syrup, and I doubt not but such efforts will earn him his bishop's absolution. To this electors, however, is reserved the right of assigning the penance.

Messrs Bour-assa and Lavergne, as well in Lie Devoir as on the platform, have merely insisted on and developed a principle which he himself has been advocating for years, namely, that in the present state of our relations with Great Britain, Uan-ada's duty is limited to the defence of its own territory, and that this principle should not be departed from except after the country has been constitutionally consulted.

The assertion of that principle not only is not tantamount to treason or disloyalty, but it has been professed by the most eminent exponents of both political parties, who in the past have held the helm of the State.

This principle, moreover, accords with the spirit of Confederation.

My first proof of that fact is an excerpt from an address delivered at London, by Sir Alexander Campbell, at the Colonial Conference of 1887:-

An interview was held here between members of the then Government of Canada, including Sir John Macdonald (who is the Premier there-now) and I believe the then War Office authorities, and I think the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being. The result was this : The Imperial Government had previously given us notice of their intention to withdraw from the colony Her Majesty's troops, and they declared their resolution to carry that out. The Government here agreed to undertake the naval defence of Canada, the Canadian authorities undertaking the land defence of the colony. Upon that basis the confederation of all the provinces was formed, viz: that Her Majesty's troops

were to be withdrawn (the withdrawal was then in course of being carried out), and that the local authority were only to undertake the land defences.

Further on he added:-

I obtained, before I left Canada, the last return of the Department of Militia and Defence, a department which was organized after the conference of which I have spoken with the authorities here, and after we had undertaken that the confederation should rest upon the basis of our maintaining the land defences.

Such was the position taken at the time by that statesman, and such was his own interpretation and what he declared to be Canada's interpretation of the constitution.

Nobody then blundered to the point of charging him with disloyalty.

Some time later, in 1908, from his seat in this House as [Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfred Laurier made on his return from the London conference the following declaration:-

The Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) : . . . There is a school in Great Britain to-day, especially in the official world, whose object for years past has been to bring Canada into the military organizations of Great Britain. The views of that school and their expectations were presented to us by the Right Hon. St. John Brodrick, Secretary of State for War and by Lord Selborne, First Lord of the Admiralty. But we could not see eye to eye with them, we could not approve their views, and had to propose an absolute demurrer to their contentions. I am aware that there are men, even in Canada, who use the argument that, because Canada is part of the British Empire she should take part in the large expenditure necessary to provide the heavy armaments that Great Britain has to maintain because of her dominant position in the world. I cannot see the force of that logic. It would imply that Great Britain and Canada were on a footing of equality, whereas we know that they are not on such a footing. Great Britain has powers that we have not. To mention no others, she has the treaty-making powers which we have not. And the powers not being coextensive, the obligations cannot lw' co-extensive. That argument would imply also that Canada and Great Britain have the same interest in all things. But we know by experience that we have not the same interests. The interests of Canada are divergent from those of Great Britain in many instances. This is seen in the fact that no two of the self-governing parts of the British Empire have the same fiscal policy. That argument would imply also that Great Britain and Canada are on the same footing of development. Sir, we know only too well that we have obligations in this country which Great Britain is rid of. As a consequence of our geographical position, the immensity .of our territory and the sparsity of our population, we have to assume obligations, to face difficulties and to perform works which in the parent country are left to private enterprise. But though, in all these, the position of the Mother Country and the colony may be unequal yet, in the colony there is equal national pride and constitutional jealousy of our rights. This, therefore, makes it absolutely impossible to entertain the proposition made to us. But I confess that we owe it to ourselves as a nation-as we claim to he-to assume our own defence. And, so far as that goes, if we have to spend more money upon military and naval service, I am sure that 'Parliament and the Canadian people will not grudge any sum demanded for that purpose. But .to spend money outside of Canada for military purposes is a proposition that the Canadian people, I believe, are not prepared to accept at this moment. When, in 1899, we took part in the South African war, we did it not under any obligation, not in the execution of any duty which rested upon us-and, to give Great Britain her due, she did not claim it on such grounds either-but we did it simply because we thought it was right and proper to do so. But we refused to be bound for the

future/ and the position we took then I maintain still. . . .

I am unaware that the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was accused of treason as a consequence of these declarations.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read a most interesting excerpt from the minutes of the Colonial Conference of 1907, held at London, and attended by the prime ministers of all the colonies of the British Empire:

Dr. Smartt (Cape Colony) : Would I be in order in moving this naval resolution after the discussion yesterday? I do not think it will take any time because it is a resolution which requires no remarks to make it acceptable to the conference: "That this conference recognizing

the vast importance of the services rendered by the Navy to the defence of the Empire and the protection of its trade, 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 such contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-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."

Chairman (Lord Elgin, Colonial Secretary) : I may say I communicated with the First Lord of the Admiralty what occurred, and he desires me to say he leaves himself entirely in the hands of the conference with regard to any modification or omission of the words referring to the Admiralty. Otherwise he has no objection to it (p. 541).

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say, 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. The Government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. It is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter: the disproportion is too great between the Mother Country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise; in the Mother Country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion,

I should have to vote against it.

Dr. Smartt: But the public works to which

you refer are of a reproductive character which are vital to the interests of your Dominion.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Some of our railways

have never paid a cent of interest or expenses.

Dr. Smartt: Still, it is developing and opening up the country to an enormous extent. All the colonies are building and developing railways of a character which may not be revenue-producing for years. I thought the wording of this resolution would have specially met your

views because you will And to make such a contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy it may take the form either of a grant of money, or the establishment of a local defence force or other services. I understand Canada suggested strongly the other day that some of their other services were in the nature of local defence.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I have said all I have to say on the subject.

Chairman: I think it is a pity to pass the resolution if it is not unanimous.

Dr. Smartt: I should like very much to hear the opinions of the representatives of the other portions of the Empire.

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?

Dr. Smartt: 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.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: It can be passed if there is a majority. For my part, I must vote against it.

(Translation): The views expressed by

the members of the conference, clearly show their disappointment at the refusal of our representative, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to vote in favour of the resolution put forward at the conference. But forsooth nobody ever dared insinuate that the Right Hon. 8ir Wilfred Laurier had gone to the very heart of the Empire there to commit treason and display his disloyalty. This principle, after all is said, anent our participation in the Imperial wars, is .but the logical consequence of that autonomy which is guaranteed us by the Constitution of this country and which, as I find, was formulated in very clear terms by the right hon. the leader of the Oposition in his speech on the Address a few days ago:-

Such is the spirit of British institutions, such is the lofty character of the Constitution under which we live, that not even the King of England, not even the Parliament of England has the right to order a single soldier to go out of Canada or to take a dollar from the Treasury of Canada.

(Translation) : The least that may be said, even should the conclusion be reached that such principles are not logically sound, is -that, at any rate, they undoubtedly belong to the domain of free discussion, and any one in this country, especially one who occupying in this House the important position representative of the people brands as disloyal and a traitor whosoever raises such a discussion or participates in such a debate, shows his utter ignorance of the laws and institutions under which we live, or must admit that he has been blinded by his prejudices. From the outcry raised in

certain quarters, one is led to believe ttrat the position taken by Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne on the question of Canada's participation in the war, is all a new question. Yet it is common knowledge that seventeen years ago, when the question came up as to Canada participating in the South African war, Mr. Bourassa, then representing in this House the county of Labelle, resigned and was immediately re-elected by his constituents on the same principles which he holds to-day. As proof that Mr. Bourassa is to-day advocating what he urged seventeen years ago-and of that everybody is aware who has in the least kept track of the politics of the country- I shall read an excerpt from the letter which he sent the Prime Minister of Canada in the month of October, 1899, tendering his resignation as member of the House of Commons. His words are as follows:-

We are called upon to decide whether the Canadian people will have to take part in all the wars of the Empire, with the doors of the Imperial Cabinet and Parliament kept closed against him, and without even his representatives being consulted on the advisability of those bloody conflicts.

I will never give my approval to such a retrograde policy.

As a British subject, proud of his birthright and jealous, of his liberties, loyal to England and its august Sovereign I stand ready to give of my person and my money, of my speech and of my acts, for the defence of the British flag throughout the whole extent of the Canadian confederation.

But loyal before all, above all and always to Canada, I have pledged myself to my electors that I should work for the advancement of my country without impairing the fundamentals of its Constitution. To redeem that pledge, I have given my support to your Government so long as you have remained within the limits which the Canadian people have set. I have ^approved and still approve your administrative policy. But I see in this last act the announcement of a governmental policy which has always been repudiated by the majority of your followers and upon which neither Parliament nor the electorate have ever been consulted.

Such are the principles which I should have laid down and the opinion I should have urged in the House of Commons.

As I am deprived of that right, only one course is open to me in order to assert and justify my position. It is painful for me to take it, on account of my personal admiration for you and my attachment to the other political principles which you have always followed and which it is my desire to continue to defend.

But the deep conviction I feel does not allow of any further hesitation. I therefore resign to-day my seat in Parliament and I shall seek re-election in the County of Labelle. To my electors I shall loyally explain the situation and confident in the issue of the test, await their reply before resuming my seat in the House of Commons.

I have the honour to be, sir, etc.,

Henri Bourassa.

All the older members, who had a seat in this House at the time, remember that after his re-election Mr. Bourassa advocated the same policy within these walls.

On the 1st of March, 1903, an important group of citizens of Montreal formed themselves into a league called " the Nationalists ". The principles held by this organization are well known, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout the whole country. They may be summarized in three fundamental propositions:-

(1) Canada to enjoy, in its intercourse with Great Britain, the widest autonomy, political, commercial and military, as is consistent with the maintenance of the colonial tie.

(2) The Canadian provinces to. enjoy, in their co-operation with the Federal Government, the widest autonomy as is consistent with the maintenance of the federal tie.

(3) The whole Dominion to adopt a policy of economic and intellectual development on exclusively Canadian lines.

The founder of the league was Mr. Olivier Asselin, a man endowed with great talents and great energy, and whom the hon. the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) has lately raised to the rank of a major in the Canadian forces.

Later on, there was introduced in Parliament the Bill commonly known as the Lau-Tier Naval Act. During the debate prior to and at the time of the passing of this Act, there occurred in the ranks of the Conservative party, then in opposition, a most noteworthy event.

The Hon. Mr. Monk, the recognized leader of the Conservatives of the province of Quebec, parted company with the Hon. Mr. Borden, the then leader of the Opposition. The reasons of the disagreement between Messrs. Monk and Borden had reference to the participation of Canada in the Imperial military preparation. The psychological moment of the severance of the partnership was on the occasion of a memorable banquet at Lachine on the 8th of November, 1900. Mostly all the Conservatives of the province of Quebec rallied around their leader in his protest against the policy of Mr. Borden.

Mr. Monk at that banquet delivered an address of the highest import in reply to a speech which had been made a few days before at London.

Among the leading orators on that occasion, who all were of one mind with Mr. Monk, I notice the names of Senator Landry, to-day President of the Senate, Mr. COMMONS

Bruno Nantel, who, if I mistake not, was later on called to the Dominion Cabinet, Mr. Philemon Gousdmeau, the orthodox leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in the Quebec Legislature, and Mr. Charles Beau-bien, recently appointed to the Upper Chamber by the present Government.

The banquet was presided over with much dash and dignity by one of the leading citizens of the county of Jacques Cartier, who now sits in this House -as its representative, namely, Mr. J. A. Descarries.

About that time, on the 10th of January, 1910, Le Devoir made its first appearance. It was founded precisely with a view to the propagation and defence of the principles of nationalism. Many and generous were the subscriptions, a fact that accounts for many members of this- House becoming and still remaining shareholders of that excellent newspaper.

Hon. Mr. [BUREAU (Trois-Rivi&res) (Translation) : On what side of the

House are they found ?

Topic:   THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.
Subtopic:   * ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Permalink

February 1, 1916