April 8, 1918

UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Would the hon. member have any objection to stating how the gentleman to whom he refers libelled his people?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Yes. If my hon. friend will go to the library, and akk for Max Aitken's Epitome of the War, one edition published in English and one published in French, the one purporting to be a copy of the other, although it is not, he will see where Sir Max Aitken libelled the province of Quebec. [DOT]

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

I do not believe it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:

Read the Daily Express, his newspaper.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

At all events, thank Heaven, the French Canadians are not alone in gauging the nobility of Lord Beaverbrook. In England to-day, if yon read the Westminster Gazette, the Manchester Guardian, and some of the most influential organs of public opinion, his appointment is very seriously questioned. Aristocracy, I say, is not healthy for this country; it is not congenial to Canada. In the old days we had some nobility during the French domination, but if Canada is what it is to-day, we do not owe it to the French nobility. It is a matter of history that as soon as our ancestors were defeated

on the Plains of Abraham, the whole of the nobility returned to France, and the peasantry, the habitant of French Canada, with his cures, remained in the colony, and made it what it has become since. The nobility of the French regime, with a few honourable exceptions, which exceptions only prove the rule, did not take much interest in the colonization, the settlement and the industrial development of New France. That nobility was busy breaking the law enacted by His Majesty the King, *against trading with the Indian and exchanging liquor for furs. They were indeed most picturesque, those coureurs des bois. They were mostly all noblemen, but nevertheless they were breaking the King's laws.

I repeat it, the best ndbility that French Canada ever produced was the French Canadian habitant himself, the honest simple *peasant of old. It has been stated, and quite erroneously, that the province of Quebec had been a feudal country until 1854. That statement is an historical error. Tbere was never in French Canada any feudal system. 'The seigniorial tenure was only an undertaking tfor the colonization and the settlement of lands in Canada. There were , a few of the old seigniorial privileges enjoyed by the seigneurs, and for the time being all went well, but, Sir, after a while, it became evident that the seigniorial system created an impediment to not only colonization bnt to the industrial development of the country, and in 1854 the French Canadian censitaires demanded the abolition of the seigniorial tenure. I said a *moment ago that titles were a source of corruption. in Canada. Does it not strike you, Sir, that on the eve of an election the Government of the day bestows titles on journalists? IHon. gentlemen will have noticed that during the past five, six or seven years past many journalists have been made knights, baronets and lords. That is where the greatest source of .corruption is felt. The wells of public opinion are poisoned by those new aristocrats, who, in return for the titles that are being .bestowed on them, libel one good half of their fellow-countrymen-one good half of Canada. Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the President of the Council spoke of the progress which self-government had made in the Empire, and he sard that Canada had been in the van in each off these progressive movements, lit is quite true that Canada has been in the van of progress in the many developments which have been accomplished by the various dominions composing the Empire. In my judgment, the greatest forward

movement that was ever accomplished was the granting of responsible government to Canada by the Mother Country, thanks to the efforts, the energy, the courage and the true Canadianisim of the men of 1840. Responsible government made a step further by the coming of Confederation, and, Sir,

I regret that my hon. friend forgot that it made one step further when the right hon. gentleman beside me (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) created the Canadian Navy, >and obtained from the Mother Country the right for Canada to control her own zone in the Pacific and in the Atlantic ocean, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to find that at least in the Canadian House of Commons we have had a Canadian field day. We heard expressions of opinion from the other side of the House which make me think that imany of the hon. gentlemen should sit on this side. I see no one on this side who. would want to cross and take a seat on the other side. I believe there has been a healthy injection of good sound Liberal doctrine into the present Government, hut I must warn my hon. friend, the President of Conn-oil, that if titles are abolished, as they will be if this amendment is voted upon, this evening, there is great danger that with blatant jingoism, acute Imperialism and haughty militarism, the curse of every land, titles might still revive in Canada.

Imperialism which invariably leads to jingoism, because it is a more acute form of imperialism, breeds aristocratic tendencies, it is the seed plot of titles. Sir, there are some gentlemen in this country who do not care much now to be called Canadians. In this city of Ottawa a society ot women gravely decided that in future they ishould not sing "0 Canada." It was too vulgar; it was too common! We have reached a point in our history when some people are ashamed to claim Canada as their native country. I think my honourable friend the president of the Council (Mr. Rowell), when he was a Liberal, claimed that he was proud to be a citizen o: the British Empire, but it is not our only citizenship as we are all proud to be Canadians. The one citizenship doesn't exclude the other. But, when a journalist has acquired a large fortune in this Canadian commonwealth, if he tastes the wine of imperialism and of jingoism, if perchance he goes across and meets lords and dukes, he suddenly asks himself: "Why should I not get a title?" That is the psychological moment when he forgets his Canadian citizenship and adopts flunkey-ism. He then is ready to sacrifice the independence of his paper, to sell his pen

and that of his editors in order to parade as Sir So-and-So, or Lord So-and-So.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that in the House of 'Commons, Conservatives and Liberals have united this evening in the sentiments which have been embalmed in both the resolution and the amendment. We have at last realized that the time has come to do away with all these trappings, with all this fuss and feathers, proclaiming that we are proud to be simply Canadians, simply British subjects, law-abiding citizens of a great democracy.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, I would not have interjected any remarks into this debate but for the unfortunate reference made by the honourable member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) to Lord Beaverbrook.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

I can prove that, you know.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

The honourable gentleman has undertaken to prove things before and has signally failed. Lord Beaverbrook is a gentleman of whom every honest Canadian may be proud. The statement which my honourable friend made that Lord Beaverbrook had reflected on French Canadians in his book is absolutely untrue and without foundation in any way, sense or shape. His reflections on Lord Beaverbrook in connection with any business transactions in which he has engaged are utterly unfounded. The cement merger, or any other merger that has been spoken of, or any other transaction that the honourable member has mentioned, is clean in comparison with deals that my honourable friend has been associated with. He will not question me; I have the facts.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Laurier Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Sir Sanford Fleming had the facts.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

The hon. gentleman failed to get a knighthood when nearly every Liberal in the Cabinet of the right hon. gentleman who sits at his left (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was plastered with titles, hereditary and others, obtained from the British Government. Lord Beaverbrook's name will go down in history while the names of some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken here to-night will have been forgotten. Lord Beaverbrook will stand as having done more for the cause of democracy and humanity than all the Lemieuxs that ever wore mufti or uniform in any part or at any time in the history of the world. It is absolutely uncalled for to drag in the name of an honoured man who has done so much for the cause of democracy

in this war and who has derived no profit while engaged in upholding this great cause. The hon. gentleman has vituperated the leader of the Opposition to-night. Why did not the leader of the Opposition recommend for a knighthood the hon. member from Maisonneuve? Nearly every man in his Cabinet got one. Canada was dosed with them as never before, and if there is a revulsion of feeling against titles coming from Great Britain now it is partly due to the fact that the leader of the Opposition accepted a title himself after declaring on every platform that he was a democrat to the hilt, and then labeling his own followers for sixteen years until titles got to be common.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

What about honorary colonels?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Honorary colonels

were conferred, as honours are conferred on men at the front, on citizens who had done this country some service. Take Jack Stewart and scores like him; their names will go down as men who have done something in this war. We are proud of what some of these honorary colonels have done. We are not ashamed of the honorary colonels. I would not have said one word if it had not been (for the reference made .to my friend, Max Aitken, who has done not only more than I can tell here to-night but has practically saved the situation on more than one occasion in connection with this great war. I have examined statements which have been made about Max Aitken over .and over again, and I tell the hon. member from Maisonneuve that the meanest transaction that Aitken was ever associated with is clean compared with the best that the hon. member from Maisonneuve and his friends were ever associated with.

I am in a position to back that up. I had the honour to be talking with a gentleman in Montreal and he said that he could not understand ho.w it was that I would associate with Max Aitken. He named Max Aitken and a couple more of my good friends.

I said to him: "My Christian friend, I have heard of all your palavering from one end *->t the country to the otheT, and I am in a position to tell you that the dirtiest transaction in which Lord Beaverbrook was ever concerned was clean in comparison with the best I have heard of you, and I know of your doings from British Columbia to the Atlantic." Now I make the statement to my hon. friend from Maisonneuve-let him take it up and I will meet him on his own ground: Lord Beaverbrook's dirtiest transaction, that I have heard of, is clean

compared with what my hon. friend has been associated with. Come along, now.

I stand here to-night to endorse the Order in Council as read by the Prime Minister. As far as the amended resolution is concerned, I am not just prepared to endorse it; I have never yet been troubled, either on account of my crown, stars, cross-swords or titles; I do not have to be. Let me supplement the remarks of my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson), my good old opponent and colleague in days gone by in the House. He quoted from Robbie Burns about some character who was .a laird in the old days in Scotland. Let me point out to him that one swallow does not make the summer. There is a supplementary statement to the verse he quoted from, it runs like this:

And man for man the world o'er

The best is he, an' a' that

Who stands erect in self respect

And acts the man, an' a' that.

Whether labouring man or laird the individual who counts and whom we want in this part of the world is the "man" and not the "autocrat." I want to point out, Sir, that the spirit shown by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in his little braggadocio was amusing to me. Imagine for an instant, if you can, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier sliding over the market square to deposit his insignia of office in a pile. Why, wjld horses would not drag him there. Talk about autocracy and democracy, there is not a democratic act I have known of that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has ever practised. In the past he has taken the most autocratic position, and * as a (member of the old Liberal party he always did that. He ruled his following then and rules them now more' firmly than the Kaiser ever ruled Germany. We have sitting on the

floor of this House to-night a gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who was Minister of Finance in the Cabinet of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, .and when the great question of creating two new provinces in the Northwest, was consummated, the gentleman to whom I refer never was consulted hut was led into the House to vote like a whipped child.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNI L

William Stevens Fielding

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. W. S. FIELDING (Shelbourne and Queens):

If the hon. gentleman will allow me to interrupt. I was in Europe when the Bill respecting the organization of the new provinces in the Northwest was drawn and I could not be consulted. When I came back I took my stand on that matter, and my position was stated in the House. When

the hon. gentleman states that I was not consulted he is not putting the facts fairly before the House.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

I made the statement that the hon. gentleman was not consulted, and I repeat it. I do not know where he was, but I make the statement that he sat in the House and went back on the principles which he had enunciated year after year, to my certain knowledge. The then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Clifford Sifton, now Sir Clifford' Sifton, was not consulted either. He told me that he had not been consulted in relation to these matter^. But the Apostolic Delegate from Rome was consulted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in regard to the formation of the provinces in question when responsible ministers of the Crown and responsible members of the House of Commons were not consulted. Talk about your democracy, why that is the very height of autocracy.

I might point out to this Government that a great many persons consider that many of the Orders in -Council passed from time to time by the present Administration do not savour of democratic ideas as interpreted 'by the people. I might point out further that we talk of democracy, -but where in the world can you find-and I am no defender of the nobility, I have taken just as strong .a stand against the aristocracy of Great Britain as any man living, I believe now and have always believed in democracy and try^to prove myself a consistent democrat-where in the civilized world can you find a race of men who have So solidly stood for the cause of democracy and have again and again intervened between the tyranny of the Crown on the one hand and the tyranny of the mob on the other, to such -an extent and to such a degree as the so-called aristocracy of England -have done whether you take the laws made on the field of Runnymede, which has been referred to by the Prime Minister, the time of King Charles referred to by my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson), or the time of King William. Alwayis the British aristocracy have been on the side of true democracy, and I say here that the aristocracy of England have ever been the greatest democrats. That is, taken as a body. Of course now and then you will find autocrats among them, but taken as a body they have stood more for the liberty of the people than the people themselves have ever done, and always to a greater degree than the Sovereign himself has in that regard excepting William Prince of Orange. Moreover, in the

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

William Folger Nickle

Unionist

Mr. NICKLE:

Possibly the hon. gentleman did not quite catch my meaning this afternoon. I said nothing about sowing - grain, I talked about raising sheep.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

My hon. friend does hot know what he is talking about. Let me inform him that the ground formerly devoted to raising oats is now used for raising sheep. On the island of Mull the very ground that for the last thirty years has been raising sheep was once raising oats. There were once 37,000 people in the Island of Mull. There are now only 2,500. They raised oats then, and they raise sheep to-day, and it is not due to the

fact that there is a landlord, but that their fields could not compete with the prairies of the United States, and accordingly the settlers have gone hither and thither, and the inhabitants are now raising sheep, because it does not pay to raise oats. The honourable member for Kingston should be more careful, and know whereof he speaks.

They are truly democratic in England. I remember the first time I was over there many years ago. The toast to the King was honoured by every one standing. The next toast was to the Prince of Wales, and in this country, this land of autocrats and nabobs, everybody bobs, up when the toast to the Prince of Wales is drunk. I stood up, but a gentleman pulled me down, saying: "We never stand for the toast to the Prince of Wales in England." They toast the King, not because he is King, but because of the sovereign position which he occupies. They never stand for dukes, lords and princes; they remain in their seats and drink in silence. England is where you find the truest democracy.

Now, speaking of labour unions-and I had no intention of bringing this up-the great danger to this country to-day is the autocracy of labour unions. I use that statement advisedly. We have had in recent times the example of Bolshevikism, and the greatest autocracy that has ever disgraced the world, to my mind, has been in Russia, where the attempt to raise a nation from labour unions is being tried by those who pose as democrats and who are looked up to as democrats. The greatest tyranny we have to face now is the autocracy and tyranny of the men who pose as democrats, though they have not a democratic principle in their whole constitution. Until these labour unions are put in their place, until the country sees that these organizations have no right to limit the production of commodities in our factories, until labour unions abrogate the right to hold themselves as a separate and distinct body in the nation-a nation within a nation,-we will never have democratic government, we will have government by the most irresponsible and autocratic element in any land. I back labour unions so far as they benefit their members and help production; but when they say: You shall limit production, and no man shall act on hiis own behalf-even the Order in Council introduced last Friday which ties up every naan for labour-limits a man that goes out on strike; that is the only thing that I objected to in that Order-until that time arrives we are going to have

trouble, and we will be ruled by tbe most irresponsible autocracy.

I have no intention of saying a word in this debate, but the unfortunate rejoinder of the bon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), wbo probably feels hurt that he was ignored by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in the days when he w.as securing titles for everybody, and who was smarting under that disappointment, evidently caused him to speak as he did.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

Would the hon. gentleman be willing to throw 'his title on the bonfire in the market-place?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

I do not have to

depend on titles. The people know I am one of the boys, and that I am .always ready to deliver the goods

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

If they do not, then you tell them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink
UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Well, never mind.

Let me repeat: Lord Beaverbrook has been attacked most maliciously in this country. I tell the hon. gentlemen, and those 'who have been attacking him here, and the ir-responsibles in England, who are not fit to black his shoes, that I know the man himself as I know the hon. member for Maison-neuve, and I am speaking of what I know.

An hon. MiEMBER: What about Flavelle?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.
Subtopic:   HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA.
Sub-subtopic:   MOTION BY MR. NICKBE FOR ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY NOT TO CONFER THEM.
Permalink

April 8, 1918