I have just been reading the words of the leader of the opposition who says it. Any hon. member who will read his speech in the debates of the 24th of November will see that he was deliberately playing into the hands of the Nationalists. He says we cannot do this thing until we have imperial federation. He knows that is generations hence, and therefore it will be generations before we are called on to do anything. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier introduced an amendment to this House. He was consistent, for he says: We ought not to do anything, especially until we have consulted the people. But the leader of the opposition says: That wont do, it wont do for us to show that we are working hand
in glove with the Nationalists, it wont do to accept all the amendment, we must put up something else. And so they have prepared the amendment which has been read so many times to the House. The amendment throws in a lot of flag-waving, it omits a sentence or two at the end of the amendment of the member for Jacques Cartier, because that condemns the free contribution policy which they voted for last year; they dont want to do that, therefore they omit it. You have all read the amendment of the leader of the opposition, now I want to read to you a resolution passed at a Nationalist meeting held in the city of Montreal on the 9th of November, a sort of congratulatory meeting _ on the part of the Nationalists over their great victory in Drummond-Arthabaska. At this meeting, at which were present the member for Jacques Cartier, and the member for Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr. Bourassa, I believe it was, moved the following resolution, which was seconded by the member for Jacques Cartier, and was unanimously adopted:
This meeting approves and. ratifies the verdict rendered by the electoral division of Drummond and Arthabaska, reaffirms the will of the Canadian people to uphold the rights of the British Crown in Canada
No Tory ever forgets that.
declares itself ready to approve all necessary and efficient measures to make sure the defence of Canadian territory, but it considers as contrary to the principle of Canadian autonomy and to the real unity of the empire, any policy tending to impose upon Canada, that_ has no voice in the government of the empire, any share in its external responsibilities and its military defence outside of the Canadian territory, the only portion of the empire upon which the Canadian people may exercise any political or constitutional action.
Why, Sir, one would almost think that my hon. friend had drafted his amendment from the resolution of the Nationalists themselves. They are as like as it is possible for one set of ideas to be alike and yet differ in being not exactly verbatim. The hon. member for West Elgin has attempted to draw upon our imaginations and has asked us to say that the Liberal party is advocating independence and everything else but what they call loyalty. He has quoted statements alleged to have been uttered by my right hon. friend the leader of the government twenty years ago in Boston. He has travelled through every book of the library of parliament and every speech of every Liberal member which he could find in the last twenty years in order to give some evidence of this being the attitude of the Liberal party. I do not care what the leader of
the government said twenty years ago in Boston, and I do not think the people of this country are bothering their heads very much about it. The people know the record of the right hon. leader of the government, they have pronounced upon it many times and they will have another chance in the not very distant future to pronounce upon it, and I have nc fear what their judgment will be. But the people are concerned, and very deeply concerned to-day with the unholy alliance that exists between the Conservative party and the Nationalists of Quebec. They may say that I have no right to make that statement in view of the denial of the leader of the opposition. But, I want to point out that it has not been denied by any member of the Conservative party from the province of Quebec in this debate. I want to point out that on every possible occasion since the night of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska every Conservative who has ever spoken on the question, and the Conservative press all over Canada, have made no attempt to conceal their joy and jubilation over the result. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller), pointed to a few of the evidences of this alliance. He quoted the telegram of the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster). The hon. member for North Toronto says : Vote
against Laurier; it is your Christian duty. Any man in this country is performing his Christian duty when he votes against Laurier. And my hon. friend goes further -I can forgive him for that because that is a part of his religion-and says: Do not be too hard upon this man Bourassa; there is good stuff in him. Of course, there is good stuff in him when he is working for the Conservative party. I do not believe that my hon. friend, who, I understand, is going to follow me, will deny that Bourassa is working for the Conservative party and working with the knowledge and consent of the Conservative party.
Then, we have the telegram from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in which he so heartily congratulates the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for the great victory which he and his friends achieved in Drummond and Arthabaska. That has been referred to before. And, we have the telegram of the virtual leader of the Manitoba government, who, I think, is probably one of the most active and militant Conservatives in Canada to-day and he congratulates them and endorses everything that they have said. But, we have something that, I think, is better evidence than that. We have the evidence of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) who has taken a very active part in this debate, a gentleman who has had two or
three opportunities of expressing himself here and defending his position, and a gentleman who has absolutely failed to deny the fact and who glories in the fact that there is an alliance between the Nationalists and the Conservative party. I want to read to you what the hon. gentleman says. You will find it recorded in the debates of November 23. This hon. gentleman is, I should judge, a scholar of no mean pretensions. He certainly has an excellent command of the English language and I imagine that he must be a very fluent speaker in the French language, a gentleman who evidently knows what he is talking about, and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot say that the hon. gentleman did not understand the true significance of the words when he was speaking because he was speaking in a foreign language. There is no doubt in the world that from the standpoint of the hon. member for Champlain he feels that he is perfectly justified in taking the course which he has taken. I am not blaming the hon. member for Champlain. I am concerned with the Conservative party who are urging him on. They are the real culprits in this case. Let us see what the hon. member for Champlain did say:
In spite of all the statements published in the newspapers and made in this House to the contrary, I declare from my seat in parliament, and I declare in the face of my fellow-countrymen that during the whole campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska we who spoke in opposition to the government candidate remained loval and faithful to our King, to our country, and to what we think are the true principles of the Liberal Conservative party.
Why, this hon. gentleman had not any doubt in the world that he was working in hearty co-operation with his party. He knew that he was working in co-operation with his party. He had not any apologies to make, and, therefore, he comes into this House and boasts of the work that they did.
Then we have, in addition to that, the conduct of the party as a whole as evidenced by the conduct of the leader of the opposition to which I referred a short time ago. We have them, in the first, place, in 1909, avowing and voting for the' principle of the Canadian navy. When the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in 1910, objected that there should be a re-i ferendum of some kind we have the (Conservative party following the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and when the hon. member for Jacques Cartier comes down now and when the Nationalists of Quebec come down now and say: We will have nene of this whatever, we are utterly and absolutely opposed to a navy of any kind, we are opposed to a navy because it means conscription, because it means that our