[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HUGHES (Kings):: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint another or fourth judge to the hench of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island?
2.	Have the judges asked for more help?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	No. The law of that province unless modified by legislation at the last session of the provincial legislature, the statutes whereof have not yet been received, does not provide for a fourth judge of the Supreme Court.
2.	No.


TANNER'S POINT LIGHTHOUSE.
*Mr. KYTE:: 1.	To whom was the contract for Tanner's Point lighthouse in Lunenburg county awarded?
2.	What is the amount of the contract?
3.	Who tendered for the work and what is
the amount of each tender?	'


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Contract has not yet been awarded. It will be offered to the lowest tenderer.
2.	The lowest tender is for $728.
3.	A. L. Mury, contractor and builder,
West Arichat, N.S.,	$728; H. Henry
Bouchie, carpenter, Arichat, N.S., $733; C. A. Strum and Son, contractors and builders, Mahone Bay, N.S., $855; Harris Strum, contractor and builder, Mader's Cove, N.S., $895; James W. Smith, carpenter and contractor, Lunenburg, N.S., $935; L. Mury, contractor, West Arichat, N.S., $994; Robert H. Lamb, contractor and builder, Bridgewater, N.S., $1,000.


QUEBEC MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.
*Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture received from the Hon. J. E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, a letter or communication respecting the document read in this House on the 21st instant, by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres, on the subject of a certain assembly at the time of the Horticultural Exposition in the county of L'Islet on the 21 tb September, 1912?
2.	If so, what are the contents of this letter P	|	. I


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Caron denies the truth of the allegations made and states that he did not mention the federal subsidy or the name of Dr. Paquet.


THE .SIXTH HUSSARS.
Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Who is second in command of the 6th
Hussars?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	How long was he connected with the regiment?
4.	Was Major Churchill the ranking officer .for the position at the time this appointment was made?
5.	Why was Major Churchill not promoted to the vacancy when it occurred?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Major J. Long.
2.	12th December, 1912.
3.	Since 8th January, 1909.
4.	Yes. Major Churchill was the senior major.
5.	Because he was not recommended.


PUBLIC WORKS IN L'ASSOMPTION.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Does the hon. Minister of Public Works intend to have placed in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to secure the construction of a breakwater at St. Gerard de Magella, in order to give effect to the vote already passed by Parliament in favour of this construction ?
2.	If not, what are the reasons that prevent this construction and at whose request has this undertaking been abandoned?


Mr. ROGERS:: Information will be given when the supplementary estimates are submitted to Parliament.


Mr. SEGUIN:: _ 1. Does the hon. Minister of Public Works intend to have placed in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to secure the construction of a breakwater on the river de l'Achigan, in order to give effect to the vote already passed by Parliament in favour of this construction?
2. If not, what are the reasons that prevent this construction and at whose request has this undertaking been abandoned?


Robert Rogers: Information will be given when the supplementary estimates are submitted to Parliament.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: _ 1. Does the Department of Public Works intend to place in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to secure the construction of a wharf in the town of L'Assomp-tion, in oTder to give effect to the vote already passed by Parliament in favour of this construction?
2. If not, what are the reasons that prevent this construction and at whose request has this undertaking been abandoned?


Robert Rogers: Information will be given when the supplementary estimates are given to Parliament.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Is it the intention of the hon. Minister of Public "Works to place in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to secure the early construction of a public building at St. Lin, a town of the Laurentides, a construction admittedly urgent, according to the reply which the hon. minister made in December last?


Robert Rogers: Information will be given when the supplementary estimates are submitted to Parliament.


EXPRESS RATES.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What is the express rate per pound per mile on railway lines in Canada east of Port William?
2.	What was the express rate per pound per mile on railway lines in Canada west of Fort William on March 31, 1913?
3.	What is the present express rate per pound per mile on railway lines west of Fort William?


Mr. COCHRANE:: See attached statement of rates given toy the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada:
						
			Miles.			
100	200	300	500	700	1,000Merchandise- Per 100 lbs.	9 c.	$ c.	$c.	S C.	8 c.	$c.Eastern Canada	
Sudbury to Rockies-	0.75	1.00	1.25	1.75	2.25	3.00Old rates	1.25	1.75	2.25	3.25	4.25	5.00New it 	
British Columbia-	1.00	1.50	2.00	2.75	3.25	4.00Old rates	1.50	2.50	3.50	4.50	5.25	6.00New n 	
Scale 'N'- Per 100 lbs. Farm produce, &c.-	1.25	2.00	2.75	3.50	4.00	4.75Eastern Canada	
Sudbury to Rockies-	0.60	0.80	1.00	1.40	1.60	2.10Old rates. . 	1.00	1.40	1.60	2.25	3.00	3.60New ii 	
British Columbia-	0.80	1.20	1.50	2.00	2.25	2.80Old rates	1.20	1.80	2.40	3.60	4.00	4.20New ii 	
Scale 'K'- Per 100 lbs. Ale, beer, mineral waters-	1.00	1.50	2.00	2.40	2.80	3.40Eastern Canada	
Sudbury to Rockies-	0.50	0.60	0.75	1.05	1.35	1.80Old rates	0.75	1.05	1.35	1.95	2.55	3.00New H .... 	
British Columbia-	0.60	0.90	1.20	1.65	1.95	2.40Old rates	0.90	1.50	1.80	2.70	3.15	3.60New ii 	
Mr. SEGUIN.	0.75	1.20	1.65	2.10	2.40	2.85Miles.	1L0	200	300	500	700	1,000Small shipments ' Graduate '- Each 10 lbs.	[DOT]f c.	$ C.	$ C	$ c.	[DOT]8 c.	$c.
Eastern Canada		0.40	0.45	0.50	0.60	0.75	0.80
Sudbury to Rockies-						
Old rates	0.50	0.60	0.75	0.85	1.00	1.10New 	0.45	0.55	0.70	0.75	0.85	1.00British Columbia-	Old rates	0.55	0.75	0.90	1.00	1.10	1.15New M 	0.50	0.70	0.75	0.30	1.00	1.05Each 20 lbs.	Eastern Canada	0.40	0.50	0.60	0.75	0.90	1.10Sudbury to Rockies-	Old rates	0.60	0.75	0.90	1.15	1.30	1.40New ii 	0.50	0.70	0.85	1.05	1.15	1.25British Columbia-	Old rates	0.70	1.00	1.20	1.30	1.45	1.65New ii 	0.60	0.85	1.05	1.20	1.25	1.35Each 30 lbs. Eastern Canada	0.50	0.60	0.70	0.90	1.10	1.30Sudbury to Rockies-	Old rates	0.70	0.90	1.10	1.40	1.65	1.75New ,i 	0.60	0.80	1.00	1.25	1.40	1.60British Columbia-	Old rates	0.80	1.15	1.50	1.70	1.85	2.10New ii 	0.70	1.00	1.25	1.50	1.60	1.70Each 50 lbs.	Eastern Canada ....	0.65	0.80	1.00	1.00	1.13	1.50Sudbury to Rockies-	Old rates	1.00	1.00	1.13	1.63	2.13	2.50New ii 	0.80	1.00	1.00	1.38	1.63	2.00British Columbia-	Old rates	1.00	1.25	1.75	2.25	2.63	3.00New ii 	1.00	1.00	1.38	1.75	2.00	2.38


DISMISSALS.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	For what reason was J. B. IMacKenzie, district fire inspector for district No. 1, in the railway belt of British Columbia, with residence at Revelstoke, dismissed?
2.	When was he dismissed?
3.	What was his salary at the time of his dismissal ?
4.	Who was appointed in his place?
5.	What was the occupation of the person so appointed before his appointment?
6.	What is his salary?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Political partisanship.
2.	15th August, 1912.	,
3.	$5 per day.
4.	D. R. Macdonald.
5.	Barber.
6.	$5 per day.


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was there an investigation held in reference to the dismissal of OBpiphane Nadeau, immigration agent at 'St. Leonard, Victoria county, N.B.?
2.	If so, when and where was it held?
3.	Who recommended the dismissal of said Epiphane Nadeau?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The minister.


FRUIT MARKS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Burrell it was ordered that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend, the Inspection and Sale Act, chapter 85 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide: (1) that the Governor in Council, by regulation, may prescribe the kinds of imported fruit, the packages containing which must be branded or marked; the brands or marks to be used thereon; the manner and places in and at which such fruit is to be inspected and such packages branded or marked; (2) that all packages of fruit not branded or marked in accordance with such regulations shall be forfeited; and . (3) that any person violating any regulation shall be liable to a fine of not more than $50 and costs.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Cochrane, it was ordered that the House go into Committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Railway Act, and to provide that the Chief Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada shall be paid an annual salary of $12,500.

Mr. BUREAU:: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Militia to the following statement which is reported in the Citizen this morning as having been made by him:
He laughed to scorn the idea that the rebels of 1837 were patriots and were fighting for a gust cause, and vividly portrayed the march of L.O.L. to fight against them. They waited not for the call to arms, but rose as a man to crush the rebels who were nothing but cranks and crooks who were driven out of their own country and tried to take Canada for the United States.
I	desire also to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia to the fact that Sir George Etienne Cartier


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is
proceeding in a very irregular way. It is not proper to bring in papers and to read articles from them upon which to found questions .or to initiate a debate. According to both Brand anl Peel, the rule is distinctly that a member ought to be responsible for the correctness of an article before he brings it up in the House. In this Parliament that rule has been more honoured in the breach that in the observance. I think it would be well to follow the proper practice as closely as possible.


Jacques Bureau: I desire to ask the Minister of Militia if this report is true, and, before he can pronounce on the truthfulness or untruthfulness of it, he must know what it is. I desire to ask him if he uttered these words which are reported in the Citizen as having been pronounced by him last night at Hintonburgh Orange Hall dedication.


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: I
am very sorry that the hon. gentleman was not present on that occasion. I shall be glad to take him with me the next time that I go. If he will be good enough to put the question in the constitutional way, I shall be glad to answer it.


Jacques Bureau: If I may be allowed, I
shall ask the hon. minister another question. The Citizen reports that he made this
statement:
Confederation was founded on the principles of the Orange Order, and he was of the opinion that , the Orangemen of the time had a lot to do with it in dividing the country into counties and districts and provinces.
Were those words uttered by the hon. minister at the Hintonburgh Orange Hall dedication?


Samuel Hughes: I promise my friend to
call for him the next time that I go there. If he will also put that question in the proper way on the Order Paper, he will- get an answer to it.


Jacques Bureau: I think this is a fair question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. It is one of
those questions that could very properly be put upon the Order Paper, and I think that ought to be done. The custom which has grown up rapidly in this House in this regard should be abandoned as far as possible. Answers have just been furnished to a number of questions and are being furnished from day to day, and it would hardly be expected that upon the spur of the moment a minister o<f the Crown would be prepared to answer a question. If the question is put on the Order Paper, it gives an opportunity for a proper answer to be given.
UNIFORM BRITISH .	ZATION.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: At an earlier period of the session, I brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) a question as to the improv-ment of legislation in regard to the naturalization of aliens within the Empire. He mentioned at the time that a measure had been prepared by the Imperial authorities, and that it would likely be dealt with at the session of Parliament then being held at Westminster. I would like to ask

the minister in what position the matter is. Has that legislation been proceeded with or can he give to the House any information as to the likelihood of the passage of such legislation at an early date?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Since the matter came up before, there has been this additional proceeding. At that time I stated that we had submitted to the Home authorities some suggestion as to modifications with a view to carrying out the principle that had been agreed upon between us. Since then we have received from the Home Government their Bill recast so as to meet the suggestion that we made, with a request that we inform them whether it as satisfactory. I may say that in the new Bill there is a distinct part dealing with the subject of naturalization. The Bill deals also with the general subject of iBritish nationality. That part of the Bill is to come into force -in the dominions if adopted by the legislatures of those dominions, and is to remain in force in those dominions only so long as the adopted legislation may not be repealed by the legislatures of those dominions. The Home authorities sent the Draft Bill to us with the request that we should make known to them whether that particular part requiring adoption by the dominions would be acceptable. We have sent an answer declaring our readiness to accept that particular part of the Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister intend to (introduce this session the legislation to which he refers, and will he be good enough to bring down copies of the proposed Bill and also such correspondence as there may be on the subject? .


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the introducing of legislation into this House, of course, that cannot properly be done until the Bill proposed by the Home authorities has been passed and has become law there. We cannot adopt the law before they have passed it. I understand that it is the intention of the Government of the United Kingdom to introduce the Bill at the present session of Parliament and to pass it. As soon as that is done, we shall be prepared to take the necessary steps With regard to the request that I should brmg down the further documents, I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I ask the Minister of Justice if he has received the Bill introduced some weeks ago by Lord Haldane concerning the contemplated changes in the Privy Council, and when we may expect a statement to be made by the Minister of Justice on the subject?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, we have received the Bill, together with a copy of the re-Mr. MACDONALD
marks by the Lord Chancellor in introducing it. I may say that the Bill does nothing more than provide for the appointment of additional members, so far as we are concerned, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Under the law as it stands at present the number of judges or retired judges in the dominions who are eligible to become members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is limited to five. The Act provides that the limitation shall be seven. I understand that the reason why it is considered desirable to increase the number who may form part of the committee is that under the present distribution all the dominions are not provided for, that there are not enough to enable representatives of all to be called in view of the fact that one,- Australia, I think,-has three of the five. In particular I understand the object of the Lord Chancellor was to make it possible to have a representative of New Zealand.


NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration in Committee of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire- Mr. Borden-resumed from May 7. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 4:
The said ships when constructed and equipped shall be placed by the Governor in [DOT]Council at. the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire.
Mr. BOIVIN:: Before section 4 is carried, I would ask if sections 2 and 3 have been passed. I understand the discussion on these has been postponed. Could you tell us now, -Mr. Chairman, or could the Prime Minister tell us, when the discussion on sections 2 and 3 will be resumed ?


Mr. BORDEN:: As soon as we get 4
and 5, and perhaps earlier-certainly tomorrow.


Georges Henri Boivin: It appears to me absolutety ridiculous for this Parliament to discuss sections 4 and 5 of the Bill before we know what form sections 2 and 3 will take. I quite realize that the right hon. Prime Minister believes that his Bill is so perfect that it cannot possibly be amended. I should respect his opinion, even if I cannot share it. I will do him the justice to say, however, that I believe that if an intelligent amendment to section 2 or section 3 were moved by any hon. member of this House, be he on this side or on the other, and when I say a reasonable amendment, I mean one which in the opinion of the Prime Minister himself would render his Bill better, for everyone knows that perfection does not exist in this world-he would be willing to accept


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will of
course remember that the discussion upon the Bill in committee, which I think has occupied nearly twenty whole days, has been technically on clause 2. The discussion has not been restricted; it has wandered over every phase of the Bill; but, as the discussion was technically on clause 2, although other clauses were discussed, it was not competent to any hon. gentleman to move an amendment to any other clause. There is no desire to prevent the offering of amendments. The difficulty has been that hon. gentlemen opposite, in the exercise of what they deemed to be their rights, would not-


Mr. GERMAN:: Their duty.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us say duty, then, to please my hon. friend-would not permit us to come to a vote on any of these amendments, and therefore they precluded themselves from offering any other amendments. There is no desire whatever to restrict any reasonable discussion on this Bill. If a date can be reached by agreement as to when the Bill shall go out of committee, and also when it shall receive a vote on its third reading, hon. gentlemen can dispose of the time on the various clauses in the interval as they deem fit. There is no difficulty about that. But if we cannot reach any agreement of that kind, as has usually Seen done in these cases, we shall be obliged to proceed in the best way we ran, not with any desire to restrict free discussion, but merely with a desire to make progress on the Bill, so that the session may come to an end at some reasonable time.


Georges Henri Boivin: Under the new rules does not the Prime Minister believe that in the course of four days he could dispose of the four remaining clauses, and have each clause definitely disposed of before forcing this committee to discuss the following clauses.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am asking if, under the new roles, the amendment to rule 17 which w'as voted on by this House a few days ago, it would not be possible for my right hon. 1 friend to dispose of, say, clause 2 before he obliges us to discuss clauses 3, 4 and 5; If he could not then dispose of clause 3 before discussing clauses 4 and 5 and the same with clause 4. Could he not, in four days' time, dispose definitely of these four clauses before making us discuss the following clauses, without obliging us to be placed in the position which we are in to-day, of discussing clause 4 and clause 5 before knowing what clauses 2 and 3 are going to be?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether I exactly apprehend what my hon. friend means. If he desires a certain time on clause 2 and on clause 3 and on clause 4, and will agree that we shall take a vote
935]

on these clauses at a particular date, I am perfectly willing to come to that agreement; in fact, it is what I suggested and offered six or seven weeks ago. There is no difficulty about making a perfectly reasonable and fair arrangement on the subject-not the slightest; but if my hon. friends on the other side of the House will do nothing of that kind, if we cannot come to any arrangement of the kind, we shall have to get on as best we can.


Georges Henri Boivin: I quite realize that my
right hon. friend has made such proposals to the Opposition and that the members of the Opposition have not been willing to agree to them. I understand that it was precisely for that reason that the closure rules were introduced in this House. Those rules were interpreted by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins), and by the Prime Minister himself in a manner which has made them quite comprehensible to everybody in this House. Now, as I understand these rules, in spite of the fact that the Opposition refused to agree to a vote, and I think it will be impossible to get the members of the Opposition to agree to a vote, in spite of the fact that we refused to agree to this vote, is it not within the power of the majority of this House, directed by the Prime Minister, to force clause 2 through this House tomorrow night? In my opinion it is and after clause 2 has gone through the House we can discuss clause 3, clause 4 and clause 5 with a great deal more common sense than we will be able to do without knowing what clause 2 is going to be. I understand that notice can be given now whereby clause 2 will have to go through this House to-morrow night, clause 3 then to go through the next night; or a notice could be given that both would have to go through to-morrow night. If that notice is given on the four clauses altogether, I would point out to the Prime Minister that, as he admits himself, we have been precluded from moving any amendment to the last two clauses. Clause 2 will be discussed, perhaps, during the last six or eight hours before the conclusion of the debate and the other clauses will have to go through without any amendments being presented by hon. members of this side of the House who might have amendments which would appeal to the Prime Minister. Such a member will be precluded from presenting these amendments.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will, of
course, see the difficulty. As a matter of fact, an amendment has been moved to clause 3 and an amendment and a subamendment have been moved to clause 2. That is the way it stands at present. If my hon. friends opposite are not willing Mr. BORDEN.
to make any arrangement about a vote on the Bill, and insist upon our making use of the new rules in order to obtain a vote, then the result is that it is difficult to arrange so that they can move other amendments after those are disposed of. I have no desire to prevent such amendments being moved, but I desire to point out to my hon. friend the difficulty which is created, not by our action, but'by the action of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is not this the difficulty, that these clauses can be guillotined one at a time, although it would take a little longer. But the Prime Minister desires to guillotine them wholesale, all at once, and is postponing them one after the other until he gets them all in the slaughter house and then he will kill them all at one blow.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: There is no
difficulty; the game is plain. My hon. friend is too candid when he says he expects to have common sense applied. It is not intended to have common sense, but to have the gag, force. Two sections of this Bill have been suspended. This is the first time in my experience, and the first time in that of my hon. friend, that clauses in a Bill have been suspended without any reason being given for that suspension. Again and again I have seen a clause suspended, but that was in order to get further information or to give further consideration to some particular point. But yesterday the Government asked for the suspension of this second clause without giving any reason whatever. Though they did not give any reason we know it very well. The same thing will be done to-day upon clause 4 and clause 5, and to-morrow the whole thing will be railroaded through. That is what will be done.


Robert Laird Borden: I tell my right hon.
friend again that more time has been spent in committee on this Bill than upon any Bill I remember in this Parliament. I stated to my right hon. friend many weeks ago that, so far as the gag as (he calls it is concerned, if he would name any reason-

able time in which the vote would be taken on the third reading, I would be very glad to accede. Therefore there ought to be no difficulty, unless hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are disposed to insist that the new rule shall be applied. My right hon. friend says it is very plain. So it is very plain. My right hon. friend wants to put himself in the position of martyrdom. He has entirely declined during the past eight or nine weeks to name any time within which the vote would be taken in committee or upon the third'reading, and now he desires to raise the cry of ' gag ' after this Bill has been debated in committee for nearly twenty solid days; and most of that time has been spent upon one clause which hon. gentlemen on the other side had adopted as part of their own policy.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I wanted
to pose, it would not be in the position of a martyr. I would rather pose as a hero, and, following my right hon. friend's own illustrious example, say I have obstructed and am proud of it, as he said two years ago.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be very glad indeed to havee my right hon. friend acknowledge that there has been a defiant policy of obstruction against this Bill.


Mr. OLIVER:: I would just like to call
to the remembrance of the right hon. the Prime Minister and of the House that arrangements were made between both sides of the House for the several votes up to the time when the right hon. the Prime Minister informed the House that it would have to sit until it passed section 2. It was not until my right hon. friend and his followers undertook to manage the business of this House by physical force-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: -by physical force, by establishing an endurance test in which they failed, that there was any unwillingness shown on the part of this side of the House to come to an arrangement as to taking the vote. Since that time my right hon. friend has seen fit to ignore the precedent of Canadian Parliaments, and on the strength of his majority to assume responsibility for the conduct of debate in. this House. Having assumed that responsibility, it is not for him to say what the Opposition insists bn. The Opposition only insists on the right of debate, the right of free speech, the right of a free Parliament and of a free people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.-


Mr. Deputy  Speaker@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but at present I think we have under consideration clause 4, of the Bill, and I do not see very well how we can go into 296
this discussion. I understand that some question may be put, but I do not understand that a debate can go on, according to the rules. We are now on clause 4, and I cannot allow any discussion except on that clause.


Frank Oliver: If you have rules, Mr. Chairman, by which I am not permitted to follow the arguments placed before this House by the right hon. the Prime Minister-


The CHAIRMAN:: I did not intend to
prevent the hon. member from giving his ideas. I simply wanted to give notice to the Committee that I would not like this discussion to go on.


Frank Oliver: I merely wished to follow
and to traverse, to some extent, the argument of the Prime Minister which arose on a question of order, and not on the section that is before the committee. I wish to criticise the attitude of the right hon. the Prime Minister in dealing with this question. I wish to show that in my humble judgment he scarcely appreciates the responsibilities of his position when he objects to twenty-four hours' delay in the consideration of an amendment to each of the four sections of this Bill, which involves an expenditure of $35,000,000 directly, which involves a change in the constitutional relationship of Canada within the Empire, and which involves the self-respect of the Dominion of Canada. I venture to think, to quote my right hon. friend's frequently used phrase, that the time of this House might well be employed for twenty-four hours, if necessary, or for the ordinary length of a sitting, in considering each ol those sections, and amendments that might very well be made to them.


Georges Henri Boivin: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of the right hon. the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. the Prime Minister consider that it is really reasonable to make this committee discuss clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill before we know what clauses 2 and 3 may finally be? It seems to me that is a fair question.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend
think it is unreasonable that we should some to a conclusion upon clause 2, for example, after we have debated it for eighteen or twenty days in committee?
, Mr. BOI VI1,: I quite admit that we have
debated clause 2, for eighteen or twenty days, buLin_de.bating clause 2, we have gone over pretty much the subject matter of the whole Bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the point.


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 3, has been debated for only about three hours. There has been

COMMONb
only one amendment to clause 3, and there are other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who would like to make other amendments to that clause. But we are precluded from doing so. The amendments which might be made might perhaps meet with the approval of the Prime Minister himself, and if they met with his approval I think he would accept them. But he cannot accept them if they are not made. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he wants to use the rule which was passed by this House in amendment to rule 17, or to abuse it. By using the rule he may pass clauses 2, and 3, if he likes, say to-morrow night, and then we could discuss the two" other clauses. It could be done in four days. With the new rules he could dispose of this navy Bill in four days, and we could do so in a reasonable manner by discussing it with common sense, knowing exactly what the clauses would be. In all fairness I would ask my right hon. friend if he would not give that suggestion some consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: There is just one point I would like to understand. I do not see that my hon. friends would be in a better position if I followed the suggestion. I am most anxious to give every opportunity for discussion on this Bill and, if we have to use the rules, to use them in a reasonable way. Suppose I adopted the suggestion of my hon. friend, what would happen? We would take a day specially for clause 3 and we would still be confronted by the amendment which the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has -moved. Unless we got that out of the way, we could not consider any further amendment that my hon. friend from Shefford would like to suggest, so, I do not think it would advance the situation at all. Would my hon. friend make clear to me what his ideas are in regard to it?


Georges Henri Boivin: My ideas in regard to it are these:	With regard to clause 3, we
have been given three hours to discuss it. If my suggestion were adopted by the Prime Minister, we would have about eight hours at least to discuss each clause of the Bill; that is to say, that in about thirty-two hours the Bill would go through. Then, if the Opposition took the whole of their eight hours in discussing the amendment which is before the committee, it would be their fault and it would not be the fault of the Prime Minister, if no other amendment is offered. But if he only gives us three hours and moves the adjournment of the discussion without any notice, it is absolutely impossible for the members on this side of the House to know when the discussion is going to be closed and it is therefore impossible to move any amendment.
Mr. BOIVIN.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the time between now and two o'clock of to-morrow's sitting is concerned, I would be perfectly willing to give hon. gentlemen the absolute disposition of it as far as these clauses are concerned. They may use the time in any way they see fit. They can use it in regard to one clause or another and I will be -content to abide by their views in that regard.


Georges Henri Boivin: It may not be possible for hon. members on this side of the House to agree amongst themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: Just allow me to explain.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the
hon. gentleman means that some hon. gentlemen may want to discuss one clause and some another.


Georges Henri Boivin: Some hon. gentlemen may attach more importance to one clause than to another.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate what my hon. friend says. In the meantime, perhaps he would be good enough to consult with hon. members on the other side of the House and see if they cannot come to some arrangement about it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from
Shefford (Mr. Boivin) is making the suggestion seriously and I am trying to give him a serious answer. I would be very glad if he would do that. Perhaps we could go on and discuss clause 4, and I would be able to consult with him at six o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Clauses 2, and 3, are before the committee now. When my right hon. friend the Prime Minister moved the postponement of the debate, he simply moved the postponement -of the debate during that particular sitting of the committee. When the committee resumed again the whole Bill came before the committee in the shape in which it stood and, as a matter of right and as a matter of fact, it was the duty of the Chairman to take up the clauses that were not passed in the order in which they were before him. The fact that the Premier, two days ago, moved the adjournment of the debate on clause 2,.does not mean that the adjournment is to take place indefinitely. This committee is seized of the whole Bill; clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5, are now before the committee. It is the duty of the Chairman to take up the consideration of clause 2, which is the first clause before the committee that has not been passed. Any motion the Premier made two days ago has no relevancy to this matter; the adjournment was simply an adjourn-

ment for the sitting and I submit that the whole of this Bill is before the committee and that clause 2, is the one to which the Chairman should ask the committee to address itself


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that
when the consideration of a clause has been postponed, there must be a motion to reconsider it, and therefore the right wav would be to make a motion to reconsider such clause. When the committee rose we were on clause 4.
Some hon. MEMBERS': No, no.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Clause 4 had been
called.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to submit
that, when a motion to postpone a debate upon any matter that is before a committee is made, the effect of it ceases with the termination of that particular sitting of the committee. I submit that the Chairman can find no authority for the proposition that a mere motion for the postponement of a debate is one which means that the debate is indefinitely postponed. The motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again means that, at a subsequent sitting, the Bill that was before the committee at the time the motion to report progress was made, is again taken up, the committee is seized of the Bill and the motion has no relevancy whatever to prevent the discussion in the ordinary way of the sections in the order in which they are unpassed. Had my right hon. friend, when he made the motion two days ago, moved that the debate on clause 2, of this Bill should be postponed until Thursday afternoon, or Friday, or some other day next week, then, it would have been impossible for the committee, that motion having carried, to enter upon the consideration of the clause in the meantime. But where there was simply a motion to postpone the debate on the clause, that motion had relation only to that particular sitting of the committee. I do not think that the Chairman has sufficiently considered this question. I submit to him that he can find no authority whatever for the proposition that at this sitting the consideration of clause 2, is not before the committee. Every word of the Bill is now before us and the motion of the Premier has no relevancy or application, the motion made two days ago cannot be regarded as in any way restricting our right, as it is our bounden duty to consider every section of this Bill in the shape m which it is before us unpassed.
Mr. MEIGHENr My hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Boivin), who is to be congratulated on his generally fair interpretation of the rules, raises the point that,
296 i
unless we are to consider and dispose of each clause separately, hon. members of the House will not be in a position to discuss subsequent clauses until they know the final form of the preceding clause. There appears at first sight to be something in the point, but the hon. gentleman must remember that, if the Opposition find themselves in that position, they have taken the responsibility upon themselves deliberately. Let us go back to clause 2, in the consideration of this point of order. It was before the _ committee for nineteen days, and the attitude of the Opposition was that they would not let it go to a vote. The ultimatum of the Opposition was that no vote could be reached, as my hop. friend from Shefford acknowledges this afternoon. Had the Opposition taken the opposite course, they might have voted on each and all of the amendments that they desired to offer to clause 2, and consequently they would have known the final form of clause 2. They have brought whatever awkardness there is in the position on their own heads by their attitude of obstinate obstruction, and it is out of the power of the Government to help them. The same applies to clause 3. Clause 3, he says, was only debated for three hours. Very good, but there might have been very many amendments moved in three hours, and all the amendments voted upon, and had the Opposition shown any desire to make progress and to bring any amendment to a vote, further time would have been granted. It was because they defiantly held to an obstinate and interminable obstruction that we had to move the motion. I know the hon. gentleman did not do it. The hon. gentleman will admit that the Opposition took the same attitude on clause 3, as on clause 2; they never at any time showed a spirit of conciliation in the matter. They refused to let their amendment on clause 3, go to the vote, and having refused to let it go to the vote they complain now they have to go to clause 4 before they know what will become of their amendment to clause 3. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boivin) says, you might help us to this extent; you might dispose of clause 2, havee a final day on that; then come to clause 3, and have a final day on that; and he says that would only take four days for the Bill in committee, but in my judgment I cannot see how the committee stage could be disposed of under that procedure in less than eight days. The Opposition might like that, but I am sure this country does not want Parliament to spend eight more days on this Naval Act in committee. Furthermore, the hon. gentleman, even though we go through all the clauses, admittedly is not going to have to finally declare himself on any

clause, until the preceding clauses are disposed of. Hon. gentlemen opposite can to-morrow afternoon at four o'clock permi the House to go to a vote on all the amendments on clause 2, and then they will know the final form of clause 2, and they will come to clause 3, free from embarrassment; they will know exactly where they are on Cause 3, and then they can vote its final form, and go on to clause 4. So, the very great embarrassment the hon. gentleman refers to, does not exist at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr MEIGHEN:: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) says-I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, I am afraid he could not be elected for Macdonald.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would not want to be.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The hon member for
Pictou says that notwithstanding that the consideration of clauses 2, and 3-or as he puts it the debate on clauses 2, and 3-has been adjourned, that only applies to the day on which the adjournment was moved, and has no application to the next day. He says the motion should have been a motion to adjourn to a fixed date. If the hon. oentleman will look at the authorities, he will find that there is really no such thing as adjourning a debate in committee; it is the consideration that must be postponed m committee, as he will find in May. Much less can the consideration be adjourned to a date fixed. But what the hon. gentleman says is that there is no order of consideration in committee. Well, the very basis of these new rules is that there shall hereafter be an order of consideration m committee, and that a Bill shall be considered after this, clause by clause. That is the underlying principle of the new rules. Whether there has been an order of consideration in committee or not, there must be hereafter, in order to make the new rules intelligible. That is clearly transparent from the rules themselves. When we came to clause 2, we disposed of it by moving the postponement of its consideration to a date to be fixed later on, and when we came to clause 3, we did the same thing. Until they are resumed again by motion, as provided by the new clause 3, to rule 17, they are out of the purview of this committee. We get to them on that final day and we dispose of them on that final day. That is the transparent meaning and principle of the new rules, and it must be clear to the hon. member for Pictou.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has entirely failed to answer the point I raised. The hon. gentleman's theory that there never was anything in the rules, by which the consideration of a debate should be postponed


Arthur Meighen: Adjourning a debate to a fixed day, I said. -


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I direct the hon. member's attention to rule 36, unamended:
36. When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a certain day; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment ot the House.
I apprehend that is the motion which the Prime Minister should have made when he was dealing with this question.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
will see at a glance that rule applies to a debate in the House, not in committee. Theoretically, there is no debate in committee; it is consideration in committee. The previous question is not moved when in committee:	the adjournment of the
House is not moved when in committee, and consequently he will see ^ at a glance that the rule has no application.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I apprehend that all the rules applicable to a debate in the House are applicable to a debate in the committee.


George Perry Graham: The rule says so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The rule says that
the rules of the House shall be observed in Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable, except the rules as to seconding motions and limiting the number of times a member may speak. My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen),-who hereafter may be known as the professor on rules, who undertakes to speak ex cathedra on this question as if he were the sole repository of knowledge with regard to it, -is good enough to indicate what he and hon. gentlemen opposite will be graciously pleased to concede to hon. gentlemen on tbis side; I want to remind him that the motion made by the Prime Minister was a motion to postpone this debate on clause 2, and the motion which he should have made to enable him to get away from that debate was to fix the date of the postponement. and that he failed to do.


Arthur Meighen: The word ' debate ' is
not in the Prime Minister's motion at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The technicalities of my hon. friend on this question are so unique and peculiar that it is impossible to follow him. I say that the abstract proposition of a motion to adjourn the consideration on a particular section, means adjournment for that day only, that immediately on the committee being again seized of that particular Bill, the discussion on the clause which had been ad-
Mr. MEIGHEN.

jouroed is resumed as a matter of course. My hon. friend has not answered my proposition in any way whatever; he has simply given an involved dissertation on matters entirely apart from the question. I have shown that rule 36 is the rule that obtains in proceedings in the House, and I submit that the right hon. the Prime Minister, not having fixed a date when he made this motion two days ago, for the adjournment of the consideration of sections 2 and 3, these clauses are before the committee at this moment for their full consideration. Furthermore, the attitude which hon. gentlemen opposite adopt towards these questions which have been submitted by my hon. friend from Shef-ford (Mr. Boivin), in saying that they are going to graciously permit this and that and the other thing, is a condition of affairs that should not be permitted. What we want on this side of the House and what we intend to insist upon, is our full rights under the rules of the House; our full rights even under the gag imposed by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Arthur Meighen: I have nothing to add to what I have said-I think it was clear to the hon. member for Pictou-except to quote my authority. At May, page 389, I read:
The Committee of the Whole House has no power even to adjourn its own sittings or to adjourn a debate to a future sitting.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nobody knows better than the hon. member that the citation which he read is no answer to my proposition, The authority he cites is that a committee cannot of itself adjourn a debate and a committee of itself cannot do this and that, but everyone knows that the inherent power of a Committee of the Whole is obtained from the House, and that the committee must report to the House and obtain leave, if they want to sit again. The general principle cited by my hon. friend has no application at all, and he knows it.


Georges Henri Boivin: A word in answer to the
able argument of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) to the proposition which I addressed to the Prime Minister. He says that if we are compelled to discuss these clauses for two or three hours each and then pass them all on the same day, it is the fault of the Opposition for having so long obstructed on clause 2 of this Bill. For the purpose of this argument I may grant my hon. friend that such is the case, but does he realize that by applying the rules in the manner in which he is applying them the Prime Minister is placing the gag on his own followers as well as on the Opposition? Does he realize there were seven of his own followers who voted against the Naval Bill?
These gentlemen certainly do not form part of the Opposition. They took part in this long-drawn out sitting on clause 2, but if they did it was to keep a Government quorum in the House and not to pass the Bill. They certainly did not vote .against the closure; they voted against the navy, but they ran away from the House and hid themselves in their rooms when the closure came up. They aTe not members of the Opposition; we do not pretend to call them members of the Opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We do not want them.


Georges Henri Boivin: They are followers of the Prime Minister who do not agree with him on this Bill, but they do agree with him on everything else, and there is no doubt but what some of these gentlemen have amendments to offer to some of these clauses. The right hon. the Prime Minister, with the rules as he is applying them at the present time, is placing the gag in the mouths of his own followers. That is why, I claim that they should not be made to suffer for the faults of the Opposition, if the Opposition have any faults.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I submit that the
Chairman should rule on that proposition.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member be kind enough to state his point of order? If I understood him right, he was asking on what authority I called clause 4.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not merely on what authority you called clause 4. The point I make is that it was the duty of the Chairman, when the consideration of this Bill was resumed to-day, to call the attention of the House to clause 2 of the Bill, which is the first clause not yet disposed of?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Last night the hon.
the Prime Minister moved that the consideration of section 3, of the said Bill be postponed. After that motion was agreed to, I reported progress. The rule that must guide the committee is rule.55, which says:
In proceedings in Committee of the Whole House upon Bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order.
When a clause has been postponed, I have to follow this rule, and to take the following clause. I do not see that we can come back to any clause unless the committee expresses its will by motion carried that this clause be reconsidered.
Mr. MACDONALD. The hon. the Chairman does not altogether grasp my point. So far as he has gone, he has ruled in my favour. The point I make is this: That, when a motion has been moved that the consideration of a clause be postponed, the effect of that motion is only to postpone its consideration during the particuluar sit-

ting at which the motion is moved. If the motion is intended to have a longer or greater effect and to postpone the consideration of a clause to a fixed date later on than the date when the consideration of the Bill is resumed, in order to prevent the committee, if it meets on that date, from being seized of the consideration of that clause, I submit that when the right hon. the Premier moved yesterday that the consideration of this clause be postponed, the effect of his motion ceased when the House rose and reported progress; that, as a new sitting of the House has taken place, as the House has gone into Committee of the Whole to-day to consider this Bill, and as no time was fixed in the motion carried at the request of the Premier yesterday, that motion has lost its effect, the postponement created by it is over, and I submit that clauses 2 and 3, stand to-day before this Committee for their full consideration.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot see any
authority or any ruling for that. The only rule I see is the rule which I have just quoted.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about rule 36?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that 1 have to call the clauses in their order unless some definite rule is given to me. I understand that the committee, when it resumes its work, takes the work up at exactly the point where it has been left off, without going back.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let me point out to the Chairman that in his ruling he has not considered the point which I have raised, nor has he considered the situation under rule 36, which says that the only motion which can be made when a question is under debate is to postpone the debate to a day certain. That is the only way in which the postponement of a debate or of the consideration of a question can be carried over to another day. The committee can during a particular sitting decide that it will let a certain clause stand over for the time being. That was the motion moved by the Premier.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Rule 6, applies to the House, and not to the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will look at page 8, rule 13, sub-section 4, he will see that it applies especially to the committee.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The rule which my hon. friend has quoted refers evidently to proceedings in the House alone. For instance, it refers to the adjournment of the House. There is no such rule in the committee.


George Perry Graham: Can there be debate in committee?


William Sora Middlebro: It refers also to the previous question. Bourinot states dis-Mr. MACDONALD.	'
tinctly that the previous question cannot be moved in committee. We discussed that, and we came to the conclusion that it could not be moved in committee. The Orders of the Day also do not refer to the committee. Therefore all these matters referred to in rule 36 cannot apply to this committee. My hon. friend's argument is based upon an improper foundation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
tried to argue his lawsuits in court on that basis, he would not get on very well. A motion to postpone a debate to a day certain can be moved in the committee. It is only the addition of the words ' a day certain ' to the motion moved by the right hon. the Premier. What my hon. friend has said is no answer to the provision contained in rule 13, sub-section 4, which says:
The rules of the House shall he observed in the Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable.
Therefore, even where you have a rule which on the face of it may refer to proceedings of the House, if it may be applicable to the committee, you must apply it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that the point of order taken by the hon. member is not well taken, under the rule which he quoted. Rule 13, says: * So far as may be applicable ' to the committee. If you look at rule 36, and refer to Bourinot and to the nature of the motions themselves, none of which may be made in committee, you will see that the rule does not apply to the Committee of the Whole.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Just one more point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If I am in order,
these ejaculations from the other side should be stopped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to this
question, I should like to know where the right hon. tne Prime Minister found his authority to move his motion to postpone the consideration of the question.


Robert Laird Borden: The practice in committee for a very long time has been to postpone the consideration of a clause or clauses upon motion. My hon. friend must have seen that done a great many times. Further than that, there is a distinct authority for it in the amendment to the rules.


George Perry Graham: In order to clear matters up, I move:
That the further consideration of clause 4 be now postponed, and the consideration of clause 2 be now resumed.
I wish to make a few remarks in support of this motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that any such motion is undebatable.


George Perry Graham: Under the interpretation of the rules by the only man who has given an interpretation, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), it takes two speeches at least to make a debate.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman has been speaking on anything, he has been speaking on a point of order. This motion is not debatable at all. Consequently there is no debate of one, two or ten speakers.


George Perry Graham: This is a point to be cleared up, Mr. Chairman, and we might as well do it now. Either that rule went through this House with every member being under a false impression, or else I am entitled to make a speech on this question. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked a question of the Prime Minister with reference to the interpretation of the rule, and he was told that the interpretation would be given in due course. Following him came the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), making, as he usually does, an elaborate speech interpreting the rule. He distinctly laid down for the Government the interpretation of the rule which says that there may be no debate, that interpretation being that one speech does not constitute ' debate,' that it takes at least two speeches to constitute a ' debate,' and at least one speech on one side and one on the other. According to that interpretation, I am not sure but that twenty men on this side could speak on a subject without it constituting a debate.' Let me read what the hon. member said. I quote from page 8529 of unrevxsed 'Hansard':
I would recommend the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), if he has no better opinion of the meaning of the word ' debate,' to go to a dictionary;

Listen to this. It is the Government interpretation, given by the member for Portage la Prairie on the promise of the Prime Minister:
-a debate necessarily implies a speech on one side and a speech on the other at the very least. I submit that within fair meaning of the word ' debate ' the Government of the country would

-and so on.
Now, I made a note of that at the time.
I did the hon. member that honour so as to be sure that it would not be questioned. Although the rule may say that this motion is not debatable, the interpretation of the word ' debate ' as laid down by the Government is that to constitute a ' debate ' there must not only be two speeches, but a speech on one side and a speech on the other side. So long as I alone speak on this question, it is not a debate according to the interpretation of the Government. I would go further and say that so long as there was no speech in opposition to mine, it would
not be a ' debate,' and hon. members behind me might all support me and it would not be a ' debate.' In another speech the hon. member used the word ' conflict.' I cannot turn to it at the moment. He was elaborating the idea that a ' debate ' must be a difference of opinion, it must mean a conflict of words, a discussion where one argument was put against another. He elaborated that. But the interpretation was laid down in the words I have given. I could elaborate that further, because he said there was not any such thing as debate in Committee of the Whole. I could talk as long as I like, and I am not ' debating.'


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. mem-


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt Mr. Chairman, you are prepared to rule on the point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: I did not give way to
my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie. I was not through with my speech. The Chairman wished to suggest something to me, and I am not nearly through.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order.


George Perry Graham: I was going right along.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I assume that the hon. member speaks to the point of order.


George Perry Graham: I do not know that I
was really speaking on the point of order, but I will deal on a point of order now. I was pointing out that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie was the mouthpiece of the Government-is so acknowledged. He spoke at the suggestion of the Prime Minister and gave the only expert explanation of the rules, and I followed him very closely. If any person understood the Tule when he made that speech- I do not say that any person did understand it-it was the hon. gentleman. In answer to the hon. member for South Wellington who took the point that it was a debate when one member spoke, the hon. gentleman from Portage la Prairie came right back and made the statement that it would not be a 'debate' unless two spoke, and not only that, but that there must be speeches on either side. Now, I want to discuss the advisability, the common, horse sense embodied in the remarks of my hon. friend from Shefford, that we should go back to clause 2 and clean up this Bill in its order under the rules quoted by you, Mr. Chairman, and not jump from one section to the other. Until we know what the first section is we are not in a position to intelligently discuss or decide on the following sections. I would urge you very strongly, Mr. Chairman, before you give

your decision on the point of order, to remember that this ruling will be a precedent. Of course, it can 'be appealed to the House with the Speaker in the Chair, but I would remind you of the rules as given by my hon. friend the member for Portage la Prairie which I have just read. If you rule that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie was wrong and that a speech of one member is a debate, then the Government owes to itself and to this House, and particularly it owes it to this side of the House to reconsider that rule and let the country know just what it means before it is put through. I do not wish to use unparliamentary language, but if a resolution of this kind were passed in some body outside of this House under a wrong interpretation, we would say it was passed under false pretences because those concerned did not understand the effect of it. If your ruling is that one speech means a debate, then we passed this rule under false or wrong impression given by this Government through the member for Portage la Prairie..


Arthur Meighen: I think, before coming directly to a point of order I should make clear in as simple language as I can, my position in regard to these rules. I do not know what is in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, much less what authority they have for their statement when they say that I spoke in any other sense than as a private member of this House. I endeavoured to speak with what intelligence I might on the rules. I had no authority in any official sense, or any other sense different from any other member of this House, to speak for the Government. Let that be understood once and for all. I gave my own interpretation, an interpretation for which I asked the sanction of my own intelligence. I neither gave nor pretended to give an interpretation for anyone else, much less an interpretation for the Government. In saying it, I do not wish in the slightest degree to change from the interpretation I gave. I believed that that interpretation was correct, and I believe now that it was correct, and that the Government will support me in it. Wherein is what I said in any way impeached? It will be remembered that the contention was vigorously brought forward by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that under the proposed rules the Government might shut off a discussion, even on the second reading of a Bill, without a word of debate. I endeavoured to meet that position and I said that within the reasonable meaning of that rule the Government would not be acting correctly or within the spirit of the rules if they did not oermit the opposite side to Mr. GRAHAM.
speak. The member who moved the second reading, of course, has addressed himself to that motion. That is his speech. He may add to it if he wishes but if he were then to move that the debate would be postponed he would not be acting within the reasonable meaning of the word 'debate' or the spirit of these rules; he would probably, if he wanted to fully interpret it, allow anyone on the opposite side to speak as well as himself. That is what I said, that is what was read and to that I adhere. The hon. member for South Renfrew has brought a very laboured argument, that it took me some time to apprehend, to show that because there must be debate before you can suspend debate, consequently a motion on which there is no debate may have an abortive or a half debate started. His difficulty is that he forgets that all sentences in law or anything else and all rules in the House of Commons as in law, must be interpreted, in the stern light of common sense. When the rule says that there must be a debate before the motion to postpone it is made, the word debate must be interpreted in a reasonable way in the light of the sentence. But when the rule says that on a certain motion there can be no debate, that means that there can be no attempt at debate even. Does not my hon. friend think that that is reasonable and common sense? A man might be denied the privilege of eating something. The hon. member for South Renfrew would interpret that to mean that if he got it half way down and then spat it out he would not eat it and so obeyed the rule. I would not need to impress such primitive principles except to show the absurdity which must be clear to the usually frank and common sense mind of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has got
in wrong on this.


Arthur Meighen: Who could conceive
him as Minister of Railways adducing such an attenuated and foolish argument?


George Perry Graham: Not half as attenuated
and foolish as the answer.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Hon. members have referred to the speech and to the definition of the word 'debate' given by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. But I think the point of order is whether the word ' undebatable ' means that there shall be no debate, that not a word, shall be spoken or if speech can be allowed. I fail to see that ' undebatable ' could mean anything else but no speech at all, not even a word.


George Perry Graham: We were deceived then.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot see it that
way, so I rule that the point of order is not well taken, and I put the motion to a vote.


George Perry Graham: On the point of order I wish to appeal to the House for the purpose of settling this question because we were told that debate meant more than one speech.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the Chair, the Chairman reported:
In the Committee of the Whole Mr. Graham having moved that the further consideration of clause 4 he now postponed, and that the consideration of clause 2 he now resumed, the Chairman ruled that this motion is not debatable, and that no speech can be made on it. Mr. Graiham appeals from the ruling of the Chair to the House.
House divided on the question; shall the ruling of the Chair be confirmed?
YEAS:
Messieurs
Alguire,	Lesperanee,
Ames,	Lewis,
Armstrong (Lambton),Maedonell, Armstrong (Aork, U.),McKay,
Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Beattie,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
McLean
(Queen's
Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Morrison,


P.E.I.), COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Blain,	Munson,
Blondin,	Nantel,
Borden,	Nicholson,
Bowman,	Nickle,
Boyce,	Osier (Sir Edmund),
Boys,	Paquet,
Brabazon,	Paul,
Bradbury,	Pelletier,
Burnham,	Porter,
Burrell,	Rainville,
Clare,	Reid (Grenville),
Clark (Bruce),	Robidoux,
Clarke (Wellington),	Rogers,
Clements,	Schaffner,
Cochrane,	Sevigny,
Crocket,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Edwards,	Shepherd,
Elliot,	Smith,
Fisher,	Smyth,
Foster (King's. N.S.),	Stanfield,
Fripp,	Steele,
Garland,	Stevens,
Gauthier (Gaspe), Girard,	IStewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg
Green,	Sutherland,
Hartt,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Thornton,
Hepburn,	Walker,
Hughes (Victoria, (J.),	Weichel,
Jameson,	White (Renfrew),
Kemp,	W ilcox,
Lalor,	Wilson (Laval),
Lancaster, Lavallde,	Wright,-94.
NAYS: Messieurs
Northrup,	Clark (Red Deer),
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Davidson,	Chisholm (Antigonish),
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Tremain,	Chi6holm (Inverness),
White,	Emmerson,
Fowler,	McLean (Qu eens-Sunbury),
Hazen,	Pugsley,
Rhodes,	Macdonald.
McCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Perley,	Murphy,
Thoburn,	Robb,
Chabot,	Beland,
Thompson (Yukon),	Buchanan,
Foster (Toronto),	Clarke (Essex),
Roche,	Cash,
Broder,	Brown,
Coderre,	Cardin,
Cromwell,	Champagne,
Currie,	Ethier,
Elson,	Demers,
Forget,	Gordon,
Webster,	Lovell,
Wallace,	Power,
Carrick, .	Martin (Montreal),
Ruling confirmed.	
House again in Committee on the Bill.	
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
George Perry Graham: That further consideration of clause 4 be	
now postponed and	that consideration of
clause 2 be now resumed.	
Motion negatived :	Yeas, 54; nays, 95.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Clause 4.
Boivin,	Loggie,
Bourassa,	MaeN utt,
Boyer,	McCraney,
Bureau,	MtoCoig,
Carroll,	McCrea,
Carvell,	McKenzie,
Cruise,	MoMi'llan,
Delisle,	Marcile (Bagot),
Devlin,	Michaud,
Douglas,	Nesbitt,
Fortier,	Neely,
Gauthier	Oliver,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Pacaud,
Gauvreau,	Papineau,
German,	Pardee,
Graham,	Proulx,
Guthrie,	Reid (Restigouche),
Hughes	Richards,
(King's, P.E.I.),	Ross,
Kay,	Seguin,
Knowles,	Sinclair,
Kyte,	Thomson (Qu'Appeile),
Lachance,	Tobin,
Lanctot,	Turgeon,
Lapointe	Verville,
(Kamouraska),	Warnock,
Lanrier (Sir Wilfrid),White	
Law, Lemieux,	(Victoria, Alta),-53. PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Aikins,	Turriff,
Barnard,	Martin (Regina),
Bristol, Mr. GRAHAM.	Bickerdike.


Mr. KNOWLES:: It is a matter of some considerable importance as to which clause we are on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Clause 4, is the one that was read.


William Erskine Knowles: I am going to try to
put a suggestion to the committee as to whther we are correctly on clause 4, or not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member is not in order. We are on clause 4.


William Erskine Knowles: Clause 4, I think, is
not the clause that the committee should direct its thoughts to at the present time, and I am going to give my reasons for making that statement. This is a point of order. My point of order is that the committee is not correctly considering clause 4. It may be possible that there are certain reasons why we should be on that clause; but I think, that if the committee will bear with, me, I will be able to show why we should not be on clause 4. I can see one reason why we might be on clause 2, because clause 1 has been passed, but I submit there is no reason whatever why we should be on clause 4. The only rule I see for our guidance, apart from the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) made a motion last evening that we should

adjourn the consideration of clause 3, is rule 55, which says that:
In proceedings in Committee of the Whole House upon Bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order, the preamble and title to be last considered.
Under that rule it might be possible to contend that we were on clause 1, if it had not been passed, and therefore we are *on clause 2; but I submit that there is no possible justification for our proceeding to consider clause 4. Let us look at the reason which you have given, Mr. Chairman. You commenced this afternoon to read the votes and proceedings of last night, and you got as far as saying that the motion *of the right hon. Prime Minister that we should pass from clause 3, and postpone its discussion had been offered to the House, but you failed to read that the motion had been passed I am sure that you will bear me out in saying that, weighty as are the motions of the right hon. the Prime Minister, we are not bound by them until these motions are passed. It is true that the Prime Minister last night moved that we postpone consideration of clause 3, but it is equally true that this committee did not pass such a motion.


Mr. BOYCE:: I would ask my hon.
friend if he has read page 9570 of ' Hansard,' upon which appears the following:
Mr. Borden: I move that the committee rise, Teport progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Erskine Knowles: I am afraid that my
hon. friend has fallen into a little mistake from the hasty glance which he has given to the matter and I think we will have to fall back on the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), who might get us out of the muddle. I do not think that the thing is so easily disposed of.


Jacques Bureau: He has been repudiated.


William Erskine Knowles: I suppose they will enthrone him again. He is the only one they have, and until some one else rise3 to lead them out of the muddle in which they have got they will have to fall back upon him. It is a puzzle to me how we ever got along in this House before he enlightened us with his assistance; we certainly must have made a great many mistakes. I suppose that where ignorance is bliss it i3 folly to be wise and we will n at ask him to look over our former rulings. Now that we have him here I call his attention to the fact that we are not correctly on clause 4. I do not think the member for Pontage la Prairie is sure what clause we are on. I think we are on clause 2, but that has been ruled against; at all
events, we are not on clause 4. At page 9570 of ' Hansard ' you will notice that an appeal was taken, and a vote was had, and the ruling of the Chair was confirmed. After the record of the vote I read from ' Hansard ';
House again in Committee on the Bill (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair).
Mr. Borden:	I move that the committee
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Using the appetizing and delicate metaphor of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie, it was perhaps half taken down and swallowed, but it did not stay down. The House in any event did not carry it in its stomach overnight, but disposed of it there and then by the committee rising and reporting what progress had been made. The motion was not then passed. I do not think it passed during the still watche3 of the night, and it has not yet passed.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was never put.


William Erskine Knowles: If it had been, there would have been a vote on it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what the ' Hansard' record is, but after the vote had been taken in the House, when the Chairman resumed the Chair, I asked him to put the question, and it was declared carried.


William Erskine Knowles: The record does not show it.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot help what the record shows. I have a distinct recollection of doing that before I made the motion that the committee rise and report progress.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was not in the House when that occurred; but as I understand it, my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made a motion, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made a motion to postpone clause 3, and the member for St. John moved the previous question, upon which a point of order was taken. The point of order was decided against the member for St. John on appeal. After the vote was taken the House came back into committee, and as I understand it, there was no question put.


Robert Laird Borden: The question was pending. I had made the motion; the hon. member for St. John moved the previous question; the Chairman ruled that the previous question could not be moved; an appeal was taken to the House; the House sustained the ruling of the Chairman; and when the Chairman resumed the Chair I asked him to put the question, and he did put the question and declared it carried.


William Erskine Knowles: I have no recollection whatever of it having been put, and if it

had been put I surely think we would have voted on it. I did not understand the question was put, and I am just as positive that if we had understood it was put there would have been a division on it. The ' Hansard ' is taken down by one official of the House, and we have the ' Votes and Proceedings ' which are taken down by another and entirely different official of the House. I do not think the Prime Minister will have such reliance on his recollection when I tell him that the official of the House whose duty it is to record the 'Votes and Proceedings' evidently thought the same as the ' Hansard ' man; that the motion was not put. It is remarkable that the official reporter recorded it in the ' Hansard ' in the same way as the clerk of the House recorded it in the ' Votes and Proceedings.' At page 1126 of the ' Votes and Proceedings,' immediately after the vote, I read:
The Committee of the Whole on the said Bill then resumed.
And progress having been made and reported, the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
The House then adjourned at 1.45 o'clock a.m.
Thomas Simpson Sproule, Speaker.
I think the evidence there, so close to the name of the hon. gentleman who presides over our deliberations, ought to attach additional importance and credibility to the record.
Mr. ME1GHEN: I have not the 'Votes and Proceedings ' before me, but I would ask the hon. gentleman if the ' Votes and Proceedings ' make any reference to the postponement of the consideration of clause 2 ?


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friends on this side of the House tell me that a standing vote was taken.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I feel that I ought to ask the hon. member (Mr. Knowles) to correct his statement. I remember very well how the thing happened, and the Clerk of the House remembers it in the same way as does the Prime Minister. After the ruling of the Chairman had been sustained, I called the main motion and I declared it carried. I have under my hand the minute of the Clerk, which says:
Ruling sustained; Mr. Borden's motion adopted.
I must call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is making a point of order that we are not regularly on clause 4, but if he refers to the motion which has just been ruled out of order, he will see that it reads:
Mr. KNOWLES
Moved by Mr. Graham, that the further consideration of clause 4, be now postponed, and that the consideration of clause 2, be resumed.
Mr, BELAND: You cannot rely on that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That motion has been lost and we are now on clause 4. I have ruled that we are on clause 4.


William Erskine Knowles: The fact that any hon. member of this House moves that we leave a clause we are not on and that we proceed to another clause, is no proof that we are on that clause. I can get up and move that we pass from clause 2, and that will be voted down, but that does not prove that we are really on clause 2.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I merely mention
that to show that the committee evidently understand that we are admittedly on clause 4. I have already ruled that we are actually on clause 4.


William Erskine Knowles: The fact that the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Graham) moved that we leave clause 4, is no proof that we were on clause 4; two wrongs do not make a right.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have ruled that we are now on clause 4, regularly and the recourse of the hon. member is to appeal from that ruling.


Frank Oliver: Are we to understand
that you have made a ruling while my hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) was on his reet?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already ruled
that we are on clause 4. I merely repeat it now.


William Erskine Knowles: Then I will appeal from your ruling, and I want to ask if I can elucidate my reasons for appealing.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the consent of
the committee, but I cannot take it upon myself to give that consent.


William Erskine Knowles: There is no consent of the committee coming to me; I am not going to ask any favours along that line.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will understand that I cannot give permission myself.


William Erskine Knowles: I have yet to learn that in a British House a Speaker can give a ruling when an hon. member is spe'aking.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that the
hon. member does not mean to reflect on the Chair, but he must understand that while a point of order may be discussed, the Chairman or the Speaker, when he feels that he is clearly informed on the matter, has the right to give his ruling.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: The Nationalist gag.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not going to discuss it. You misunderstood me, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) interrupted me in order to ask a question, and when he had finished I was going to answer it. You gave your ruling. He had no Tight to interrupt me, and, because he interrupted me, I have the gag in my mouth and am shut off from expressing my opinion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Choke it down.
(King's, N.S.),
Fripp,
Garland,
Gauthier (Gaspe), Girard,
Green,
Hartt,
Henderson,
Hepburn,
Hughes (Victoria, O.), Kemp,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thornton,
Walker,
Weichel,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox,
Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-94.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member appeal from my ruling?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes. I submit that we are not on clause 4.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: We have all summer
for it.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the Chair, the Chairman reported:
The House was in committee on clause 4. Mr. Knowles raised a point of order that the committee is not regularly on clause 4 but on clause 3. The Chairman ruled that the committee is on clause 4, clause 3, having been duly and regularly postponed by motion last night. Mr. Knowles appeals from the ruling of the Chair.
House divided on the question:	shall
the ruling of the Chair be confirmed?
-	YEAS:
Messieurs
Alguire,
Ames,
Armstrong (Lambton) Armstrong (York, O.), Arthurs,
Baker,
Ball,
Barker,
Beattie,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden,
Boulay,
Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Clare,
Clark (Bruce), * Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Crocket,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Fisher,
Foster
Lavallee,
Lesperance,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
AJ jolfl a
Osier (Sir Edmund), Paquet,
Paul,
Pelletier,
Porter,
Kainville,
Reid (Grenville), Robidoux,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Shepherd,
Smith,
Smyth,
Stanfield,
NAYS:
Messieurs
Boivin,	Loggia,
Bourassa,	M'acNult,
Boyer,	MeCraney,
Eureau,	McCoig,
Carroll,	McCrea,
Carvell,	McKenzie,
CTuise,	McMillan,
Delisle,	Marcile (Bagot),
Devlin,	Michaud,
Douglas,	Nesbitt,
Fortier,	Neely,
Gauthier	Oliver,
(St. Hyacinths).	Pacaud,
Gauvreau,	Papineau,
German,	Pardee,
Guthrie,	Proulx,
Hughes	Reid (Restigouche),
(King's, P.E.i.),	Richards,
Kay,	Ross,
Knowles,	Seguin,
Kyte,	Sinclair,
Lachance,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle;,
Lanctot,	Tobin,
Lapointe	Turgeon,
(Kamoura6ka),	Verville.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Warnock.	
La w.	White
Lemieux,	(Victoria, Alta.)-52. PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Aikine,	Turriff,
Barnard,	Martin,
Bristol,	Bickerdike,
Northrup,	Clark (Red Deer),
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Davidson,	Chisholm
Doherty,	(Antigonish),
	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Tremain,	Chisholm (Inverness.),
White,	Emmerson,
Fowler,	McLean (Queens-Shnburv).
Hazen,	Pugsley,
Rhodes,	Macdonald,
M'cCurdy,	Maclean (Halifax),
Perley,	Murphy,
Thoburn,	Robb,
Chabot,	Beland,
Thompson (Yukon)	, Buchananj
Foster (Toronto),	Clarke (Essex),
Roche,	Cash,
Broder,	Brown,
Coderre,	Cardin,
Currie,	Ethier,
Elson,	Demers,
Forget,	Gordon,

Webster,
Wallace,
Garrick,
Cochrane,
Jameson,
Lovell,
Power,
Martin (Montreal), Graham,
Holloy,
Ruling confirmed.
House again in committee on the Bill. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: Now that we have disposed of this point of order, and decided that this clause is before the committee, I desire to make a few observations on it. For the information of hon. members, I shall read the clause, because we have been discussing other matters so long that we have overlooked what was contained in it. It says:
Snch ships, when constructed and equipped, shall be placed by the Governor in Council at the disposal of His jMajesty for the common defence of the Empire.
I desire, first of all, to congratulate this Government on one thing in regard to this clause


Mr. CARVELL:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am pleased to know
that my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., seconds my congratulations to the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman has found his tongue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it would become the hon. member for Carleton, while an hon. member has the floor, to maintain silence; I do not think the House is very much edified by any remarks that might fall from his lips. I was remarking that I desired to congratulate the Government upon the fact that this is an improvement over the Naval Service Act which was placed on the statute book in 1910. It goes further, and is an evidence of the willingness of this country to take upon itself the responsibility of sharing in the defence cf the Empire. This is a measure which the people of Canada have been demanding for six years. The majority of the people of Canada, I believe, have been willing to contribute to assist in maintaining the supremacy of the Empire and to share in the expense which is incurred thereby. During the debate on the second reading of this Bill, and last year in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I took the position that Canada should assume its share of the cost of maintaining the naval supremacy of the Empire just in proportion as Canada's trade compares with the trade of the Empire. I have, however, some slight criticism to make to this clause that is before us, and I have no hesitancy in making it. I am confident that the people of my province will back me up in any criticism I make on Mr. GAUYREAU.
this matter. The sentiment of that province is well known to the House, and is well known to members on the other side of the House who have taken considerable delight from time to time in twitting members from British Columbia upon the lack of patriotism and the lack of loyalty to their own province, so I take this occasion of making one or two suggestions to the Government in regard to this matter. In the first place, I do not think this goes far enough. The clause clearly states that these ships may be placed at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire. I desire to say that so far as I am concerned: these ships should be given absolutely and unequivocally to the British authorities for the naval defence of the Empire. I do not say that such a policy should be perpetuated, but I do say that in so far as this, section of the Bill is concerned, and in so far as the present occasion is concerned, as we are giving an evidence to the country and to the world at large of our feelings in this matter, it should be an out-and-out gift. However, the Government has seen fit to put it in the form of the clause now before us.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government themselves do not know what it is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the hon. member for Carleton realizes that in spite of the thirty-odd speeches made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), the twelve made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the eleven made by himself and so on down through the rank and file of the Opposition, the Government does know its own mind and intends putting that mind into effect.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: With the gag.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member says
something about the ' gag.' Let me answer him in that regard. Up to the time of the second reading there were fifty-seven speeches on the Bill and a speech on the-Government side for every one on the Opposition side. I ask this House and this country, if speeches covering over fourteen hundred columns of ' Hansard ' is not a sufficient debate on such a measure as this.


Frank Oliver: May I ask what my hon. friend is talking about now? He did not give us his speech then.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that
the hon. member is answering a question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not only that, but in
spite of the fact that the term obstruction was protested against by hon. members opposite, yet, when it suited their tactics to say so the right hon. leader of the Opposition gets up and boldly says that the obstruction was justified. And only the other day in Toronto, as he said here on the floor of the House, he regards himself.

as a hero because he obstructed this measure.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said I was following the example of the hero of the other side, who boasted at the last election that he had engaged in obstruction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: When the Committee
rose at six o'clock, I was discussing the question of the construction of vessels and referring to clause 4 of this Bill. I had pointed out some weaknesses in the contentions of the members of the Opposition in connection with this very important phase of the question.
It has been contended by hon. gentlemen opposite that the construction of such vessels as those referred to in this Bill and in the amendment offered by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition is a comparatively simple matter. In my opinion one must be brought to one of two conclusions, either that the hon. gentlemen opposite have not given any -serious attention- to the matter or that they are not sincere in the contentions which are advanced in support of the position taken by them. They persistently state that the members of the Government and members on this side of the House are opposed to the promotion of shipbuilding in this country. They are seeking to make political capital by creating in the minds of the public the idea that we are opposed to the encouragement of shipbuilding. It was distinctly stated by the Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill that arrangements had been made with the Imperial authorities whereby definite and distinct encouragement would be given to shipbuilding in Canada. I contend that the attitude of the Government in that regard was a wise one. Our friends suggest that it is a comparatively simple thing to establish shipyard^ such as those referred to. They also contend that these shipyards should be established at once, as if a great shipyard were something that could be put in operation in the course of a few months or weeks. I had recently the privilege of inspecting the plant of the New York Shipbuilding Company of Camden, New Jersey. They have an excellent plant, but it has been only in recent years that they have been able to successfully handle large vessels. That plant has been established for something over fifteen years. It has taken fifteen years practically to build up the plant to its present dimensions and to

a position where it is able to compete successfully with the large shipbuilding concerns of the world. While there I had the privilege of going aboard the Argentine vessel, the Morel, which was under contract by the Fore River Company, which company failed utterly under the burden of the construction of those two vessels for the Argentine. That vessel is now in the yard of the New York Shipbuilding Company about half finished, although it was supposed to be delivered something over six months ago. The hull is completed but in a very rough condition, none of the finer equipment is aboard and it will take probably another year to complete the construction of that vessel. I do not say this with the intention of conveying the idea that it is impossible for us to establish shipyards, but I simply quote it to show the difficulty which faces this or any community when they undertake to establish yards capable of handling vessels of this character. It would probably take, in Canada, in the neighbourhood of fifteen years to build up an organization and a plant capable of undertaking the construction of vessels such as those under consideration.
Let us examine very briefly and in a general way some of the conditions necessarily precedent to the establishment of a great ship-building plant. In the first place you require large quantities of iron and steel convenient to your yards. We on the Pacific coast are looking forward to the time when large ship-building concerns shall be established there. We have now a number of smaller ship-building plants doing good work and getting on nicely and we are in hopes that in a few years large ship-building plants will be established there. But I would point out to the committee and to the House that it will be necessary for the Government of the Dominion of Canada or the Government of British Columbia to do something to encourage the opening of the large ore mines of British Columbia in order that we may have an adequate supply of iron and steel conveniently situated and at as reasonable a cost as possible for the construction of vessels of this kind. These great natural resources are there totally undeveloped, and requiring a great deal of attention and capital to open them up and bring them into operation. The next point to consider is the question of armaments. It must be recognized that in assembling a plant such as those we have referred to great and successful organization is essential. Every hon. gentleman will recognize that at the head of every large concern, whether a ship-building plant or a manufactory of agricultural implements or a sugar refinery or any large institution where there is a great deal of skilled labour and where it is necessary to have a fine organization, you must have most skilful and Mr. STEVENS.
well equipped and efficient managers. Then of course, the answer to that is, are not Canadians just as good as others? Undoubtedly they are, but you cannot produce a man capable of managing a large plant of that kind from a concern which has been building small and comparatively insignificant vessels compared with the vessels under discussion. It will be necessary to have a man who not only possesses organizing ability, but who has had experience in the business. It is well known in connection with all large businesses that the manager who is going to make a success is the man who has a working acquaintance with the details of the business. That is one of the first principles. Another principle is that it is necessary to have a large supply of efficient skilled labour. Supposing you were establishing a plant we will say on the Pacific coast, because that is where I am more particularly interested, and brought in there just sufficient men, because no plant engages more men than is necessary, we would at once be faced with this difficulty, that as certain portions of the work were completed you would be laying off men and would be faced instantly with the danger of losing that particular class of skilled labour unless there was some other plant in the community to which they could go and get work in which they were trained. So that in the Old Country, and in the large populous centres of the eastern states, they have those skilled labourers, who could leave one plant and go to another where there is more or less a demand for that class of labour. It may well seem a simple thing to spend $20,000,000 to establish one of those plants, but we have to look to the future to see what the chances are of keeping such an organization together, what opportunities we have of keeping the plant busy, and what chances we have in competing with the rest of the world.
One of the events of this session has been the complete change of heart on the part of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who I see has come over to this side of the House. I did not know that he had a position on the treasury benches before.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He will have soon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have observed this that in spite of all the anxiety and the efforts of the hon. member for Carleton to get a seat on the treasury benches, he has never succeeded in getting there.


Jacques Bureau: Do not worry about the member for Carleton.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One of the events of this session, I say has been the complete change of heart of the hon. member for Red Deer. I have' never yet heard him make a speech in which lie did not introduce the subject

of free trade as it was viewed in the Old Country twenty-five years ago, but in relation to this particular question he has taken a different stand. We are not contending that we should not encourage the development of industry in Canada. We say that under the conditions which obtain at the present time, we are justified in taking the course followed in this Bill. I repeat that assurances have been given to the House that the Government andi the Admiralty will encourage in the near future, the establishment of shipyards in this country.


Jacques Bureau: And build oil tanks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now I want to say a
word on the question of equipment, Which is also referred to in this clause. In the early part of this debate hon. gentlemen opposite contended in the most emphatic terms that we were able, not only to construct war vessels, but to equip them, to the last possible item, with the finest class of guns and everything else. Now their position is entirely changed. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) who, perhaps, has given more study to this question than any other member of the Opposition, stated very distinctly the other day that it was not necessary for us to construct or to build all the equipment in Canada, and that we should start by building the hulls and import the equipment from other parts of the world, if necessary. That is a very reasonable view to take, and it is exactly the view that we take. We say let us do what we can, let us encourage this development, but we do not intend to wait until we are fully equipped before we enter into the responsibilities of national or Imperial defence.
The last point I wish to touch upon is the subject of the common defence of the Empire, upon which we are divided, and which is also referred to in this clause, so that I am keeping strictly to the subject under discussion. Hon. gentlemen opposite take a clear-cut stand against any action on the part of the Dominion for the common defence of the Empire. They state most definitely and emphatically that it is Canada's business to build up a system of defence for Canada, and that in case of strife between the Empire and other countries, it is a question for Parliament to debate and to decide whether or not Canada shall enter into that war. I shall quote the words of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition which clearly sets that forth, and I may say in this connection that when the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) quoted this statement the other night, he quoted it as having been made by the leader of the Government. I would remind him that it was made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. The right hon. gentleman said:
When England is at war, we are at war.


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
That sounds very nice, but he goes on to say:
It does not follow that because we are at war we are actually in the conflict.
How any person could entertain two such contradictory views as these is beyond my comprehension, and, I think, beyond the comprehension or explanation of any hon. gentleman opposite or on this side of the House. We contend without reservation that it is the duty of Canada to participate in the common defence of the Empire, and by the common defence of the Empire we mean this, that whenever there is any necessity for the expenditure of money in the defence of the Empire, Canada shall contribute either by the methods set forth in this Bill or by any other method which may hereafter be introduced by the Government in the form of a permanent policy. The point I wish to make clear is, that, so far as the two parties are concerned at the present time, the line of cleavage is distinct and clear. Our hon. friends opposite repudiate the responsibility for a common Imperial defence; we claim that responsibility rests upon our shoulders.
When I rose to speak on this question, I suggested that there was one point which called for consideration, and that is in regard to the time when action will be taken under this Bill. No doubt, later on, the Prime Minister will have something to say on this matter, and I would ask him at this stage if, when the time comes for taking the matter into consideration, he would give an assurance to the people of this country, and especially to those whom I represent, and whom my colleagues from British Columbia represent-because this matter is of vital importance to us-that it is the intention of the Government to take speedy action to give effect to the terms of this Bill. I trust that later on in the debate the right hon. the leader of the Government will see his way to express his views on that matter, and I feel satisfied that he will give us that assurance. With that assurance, I can say to the Government, and have no hesitation in saying to the country at large, that we from British Columbia are a unit behind the Prime Minister and the Government in .support of this Bill.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the hon. gentleman any fears that this policy of the Government which he supports is along the lines announced by the Deputy Speaker in his journal and by other Nationalists in Quebec, that no speedy efforts are to be made to carry out the terms of the Bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not quite catch what my hon. friend said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I asked whether my hon. friend had heard and approved of


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
the statement read last night, that the Nationalist supporters of the Government were giving the assurance to their friends in Quebec that there was to be no speedy , action under this Bill, and whether he finds it necessary to reassure his friends in British Columbia on that account ?
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no man in this House who knows better than my hon. friend the utter folly of any hon. member making himself responsible for statements made in newspapers from one end of the country to the other. So far as the statements to which he referred are concerned, I may say I never read them, being unable to read French, and I was not present when they were read or interpreted to the House, so that I am unable to say anything in regard to them. But I have every confidence that the action of the Government will be speedy.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: To elucidate a point which my hon. friend has elaborated to his own satisfaction apparently, so much so that he said that no one on this sidei could fail to agree with him, I would like to put a question. In my own lifetime the Old Country has had two pretty serious wars with Afghanistan on the northwest frontier of India. I presume he knows where that is. What does he say would be the duty of Canada in regard to a third Afghan war in my lifetime, if such should arise; would he send troops to take part in that war ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can give the quotation.


Mr. PARDEE:: Let us have it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will my hon. friend give the quotation from the speech of the hon, Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) who said that no troops would have been sent to South Africa had Sir John Macdonald been alive.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will give my hon.
friends all they want. The right hon. leader of the Opposition in 1899, made a statement in an interview published in the Globe newspaper in response to the request from all parts of Canada, and especially from Sir Charles Tupper, then leader of the Opposition, that he should send troops to South Africa. In July, 1899, he gave the following as his reason for refusing to send troops:
Canadian troops are to be used to fight for Canadian defence only.
That was the attitude of the leader of the Opposition and that is his attitude to-day. I will go further. The hon. member for Red Deer saj-s:	Supposing there was
another war in Afghanistan-	[DOT]


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to ask the
hon. member a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who did my hon.
friend quote from?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The effort of the hon.
member for Red Deer is to draw a red herring across the trail.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: I absolutely disavow that. I asked for information. I do not deal in red herrings.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is getting needlessly aroused and excited over this matter.


Michael Clark: What about the Afghan
war?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer this question with the words of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid I.aurier).


Michael Clark: He cannot tell your views.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know he cannot. As a matter of fact, the point I was making was the difference between the policies of the two parties. The leader of the Opposition stated clearly and in a practical way, when he was Prime Minister in 1899, that he would refuse to send troops to South Africa in the common defence of the Empire.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is not so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr MACDONALD:: My hon. friend has given the impression that he was quoting from the leader of the Opposition, when ar>
a matter of fact he did not do so.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order, the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has the floor.


Mr STEVENS:: As soon as I can, I will answer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald). In connection with the possibility of another war in Afghanistan; in the first place, that was only an expedition and was not a war, but should there be any demaSpd that troops should go to Afghanistan I should say that undoubtedly Canada should take part in any war that might occur there. I say further that I care not where the conflict might be, if Great Britain -was at war with any country on the face of the earth and, _ if it were necessary for Canada to participate in it, undoubtedly she should do so. The hon. member for Pictou wanted to ask me a question.


Michael Clark: Just a moment. I want merely to know clearly where my hon. friend stands. In case it were neces-
Mr. MACDONALD.

sary, I should like to know from him who would he the judge of the need of Canadian troops going and whether the Parliament of Canada would have any say in the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that by the Militia Act it would be necessary for Parliament to take action, but I am prepared to support a measure to-day that the matter should be left in the hands of the Governor in Council or the Minister of Militia and that the Canadian troops should be permitted to go at any time.


Michael Clark: I understand that my hon. friend's position in regard to the military forces is exactly the position of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in regard to the naval forces.


William Manley German: Mr. Chairman, as we are now on clause 4 of the Bill, I desire to make a few remarks before we glide naturally, gradually and gaggedly into the next clause. We had a very excellent entertainment this afternoon. What has happened and what is happening is exactly what I knew, and what we knew, would happen in regard to these new rules, called the closure rules. It exemplifies entirely the wisdom of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in moving his amendment which suggested that these resolutions should be submitted to a select committee of the House, together with the Speaker, to revise and amend the rules. The rules would have been revised and amended and submitted to this House in a form that would have been intelligent, intelligible and understandable. At the present time there are very few, if any, in this House who really understand what these new rules mean. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) gave an interpretation of the rules this afternoon which the Government and his political friends surrounding him repudiated. 1 doubt if the right hon. leader of the Government is clear in his own mind as to the meaning of these rules. As a matter of fact, he stated that he would be pleased, at another session of Parliament, to have all the rules submitted to a committee, revised and put in intelligible shape. What we saw this afternoon fully exemplifies the wisdom of the leader of the Opposition, who tor forty years has stamped his genius on the legislation of this country, in moving an amendment that these rules should be submitted to a committee where they could have been threshed out and, coming out of that furnace of intelligence, be put before this House in a form that would be understandable. The leader of the Government said that everything would be fair and comfortable and that they 297*
would take no advantage of these rules. When the rules were under discussion 1 submitted to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie that the interpretation was exactly as it turned out to be because he had to admit it to be so and it is: that a minister of the Crown can .move that the consideration of a clause of a Bill be suspended and that the committee proceed with another clause; that he could move that the consideration of the second clause be suspended and proceed to another clause, and so on until you had reached the last clause in the Bill, and then a minister of the Crown could stand up in his place and give notice that when the committee met again there should be no further postponement. Then the House need not go into Committee of the Whole until two o'clock on the following morning and automatically that Bill would be carried through committee. The closure was there ahead of you, the door was locked, no further talk or further amendments. The hon. member (Mr. Meighen) said: of course that is the true interpretation of the rule, but no government but an insane government would attempt to enforce it. Well, Mr. Chairman, this Government is not only attempting to enforce it, but it is enforcing it and I leave hon. gentlemen opposite to their legitimate conclusions as to the sanity of the Government. I always knew this Government had not far to go to reach the portals of political insanity, but. 1 did not think they would reach there quite so quickly as they have. However, we now know what they can do; we know what they will do when they want to do it, and we will simply have to govern ourselves accordingly, as I purpose doing. And, if it fits the complexion of hon. gentlemen opposite I do not believe we on this side of the House will complain very much. We can stand it if they can.
We are now considering clause 4, after some considerable difficulty in reaching it, and clause 4 of this Bill is:
The said ships when constructed and equipped shall 'be placed by the Governor in Council at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire.
I propose, Mr. Chairman, to move in amendment:
That all the words after the word ' be ' in the second line shall be struck out and the following substituted therefor: subject to the provisions of the Naval Service Act.
The clause will then read:
The said ships when constructed and equipped shall be subject to the provisions of the Naval Service Act.
Let us see what the Naval Service Act says with regard to that matter:

Section 22. The Governor in Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof on active service at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency.
Section 23. In case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His 'Majesty for general service in the Royal navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
Up to that point the Naval Service Act provides exactly what the Naval Aid Act provides for: that the Governor in Council may place these ships at the disposal of His Majesty, but section 24 of the Naval Service Act says further:
24. Whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any_ part thereof on active service as provided in the two preceding sections, if Parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within fifteen days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation and shall continue to sit in like manner as if it stood adjourned or prorogued to the 6ame day.
I have already said that there is more in this question than the mere voting of money in aid of the naval service of the Empire. My right hon. friend the leader of the Government gave us last night a fairly good reason, so far as he is concerned, as to why he has introduced this Bill. I have stated on different occasions, and I defy contradiction, that everything that can be done under the Naval Aid Act can be done under the Naval Service Act, with the approval of Parliament, and you can do nothing under the Naval Aid Act until you have the approval of Parliament to the passing of the Act. If it were passed to-morrow you could do no more under the Naval Aid Act than yon can do under the Naval Service Act, and1 I have inquired from the Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite why it is, in view of the fact that you can do everything under the Naval Service Act that you can do under the Naval Aid Act, they are not proceeding under the Naval Service Act. If the Government did proceed under the Naval Service Act we would not have had this four months'jliscussion; we would have been together. The Prime Minister said last night (' Hansard ' page 9550):
So, on the present occasion, in view of circumstances which have been disclosed to this House, and -which I shall not weary the House by repeating, the Government thought that two things were desirable; in the first place, that there should be an assurance given to the people of this Empire, and to all the nations of the world that, under conditions as they exist at present, Canada proposed to give such aid to the naval defence of the
Mr. GERMAN.
Empire as would assure the safety of that Empire for some years to come

Does the right hon. gentleman think that by giving $35,000,000 to Great Britain he would more securely safeguard the interests of the Empire than by anything the British could do themselves? It was rather a cheap proposition to make-if I might use that expression.
-and as would convince the nations of the world that the dominions were one with the Mother Country for the purpose of securing her safety.
I will give my right hon. friend full credit for desiring to safeguard the interests of the British Empire, as we on this side of the House are also desirous of doing. Knowing full well as he does that he could have asked Parliament under the Naval Service Act for an appropriation to build battleships to safeguard the interests of the British Empire, would he not have accomplished his purpose with equal effectiveness, with much more satisfaction to the British Empire and with much more credit to the Canadian people, if he had asked Parliament under this Act for an appropriation of ten or fifteen million dollars towards the building of battleships? If he had said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the exigencies of the situation, in view of the fact that the British Admiralty have said that in the interest of the Naval Service of Great Britain it is better foT Canada at the present moment to build dreadnoughts than to build cruisers, we propose under the Naval Service Act to do so, he could have asked for his appropriation and gentlemen on both sides of the House would have stood up as one man and waved the flag and said:	Take the money and
build the ships. I for one would have supported the appropriation irrespective of what any other hon. member might say, and I believe that every member on this side of the House would have supported it. What did the right hon. gentleman do? He went over to England. I appreciate what happened over there. I have been in the Old Country and any Canadian who goes over there-why, you are carried off your feet with all the entertainments they give you. The right hon. gentleman was over there and I can imagine what they were doing with him. If my suggestion of a few weeks ago could have been carried out by the giving of this $35,000,000, he would have been made Duke of Halifax. I do not know but that I would have felt like giving it, because I would like to see a duke in Canada. They filled him u,p with the idea that it would be a magnificent spectacular performance for Canada to vote $35,000,000, to hand it over to the Government and to let them do with it what they liked, in aid of the naval defence of the Empire. He came back to Canada

and made his pronouncement in Montreal: I will submit this proposition to Parliament and, if Parliament does not agree to it, I will appeal from Parliament to the people of Canada. I would like to know if the right hon. gentleman proposes to do that in the event of Parliament not approving of this proposal. Whether he does it or not, let us get down to the question of what is the best thing to do for the Empire and for Canada. I have no hesitation in stating that to vote and expend money under the Naval Service Act is far better for Canada and the Empire than to vote and expend $35,000,000 under the Naval Aid Act put through this Parliament by force of closure. The sentiment, so far as the expenditure of the money is concerned, is absolutely dead and gone. Surely my right hon. friend and every gentleman on the opposite side of the House knows that, so far as any enthusiastic sentiment behind this proposition is concerned, it is dead, finished, buried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take care.


William Manley German: It cannot further exist. Parliament should proceed under the Act which is at present on the statute _ book, ask for an appropriation and advertise for tenders for building the ships. If we can build them in Canada, we want them built here. I am quite sure my right hon. friend would be glad to see a large ship-building industry built up in Canada, whether in Halifax, Montreal, St. John or on the Welland canal, it would make no difference. I am sure every loyal Canadian citizen would like to see such an industry built up here. Then why not begin now to do it? The first ships, the ships that you require immediately,	if they
are required	immediately,	need not
necessarily be built in Canada. It is proposed to build three dreadnoughts. I do not think three are at all necessary; I think it would be equally effective, so far as the object lesson to the world is concerned, if two were provided, and it would fit in with the naval proposition of Canada of two fleet units. As I said yesterday, it is not a question of money, it is not a question of the building of the ships, whether one, two, three or four; it is a question of the sentiment behind the gift, it is a question of the sentiment behind the proposition. In 1910 we passed an Act which is on the statute book to which my right hon. friend the leader of the Government agreed, except one clause, and I am free to admit that he did criticize that, and to that point I will come in a minute. He and every hon. member opposite then in the House agreed to that Bill. Then, why not proceed under that Bill at present? My right hon. friend voted for referring it to the people, at the instance of his
former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), who moved that this should, be done. Having voted for that proposition at that time, I do not see how the right hon. gentleman can get away from sub' mitting his proposal to the people. He is not proposing to do it at present, until it is thrown out by Parliament; and he has said that if and when it is thrown out by Parliament, he will submit it to the people. We shall see whether he will do so or not. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) suggests that I should ask the right hon. gentleman whether he will or not. I will not ask him that question, because I am sure he would not answer; he has not arranged his permanent policy on that problem any more than he has on the naval problem. Now he is in this position: everything that could be done under the Naval Aid Bill as it is before us can be done under the Naval Service Act. I ask my right hon. friend again why he is desirous of forcing through Parliament the Naval Aid Act. We oppose the Naval Aid Act because on the face of it it places the expenditure of public money in the hands of the Governor in Council as against the control of Parliament, which is subversive, as I have said, of every principle of responsible government. My right hon. friend last night dealt with that subject to some extent. I do not intend to go into it now, .because I hope to have another opportunity to discuss that feature of the matter when this Bill comes up for third reading. A motion on the third reading will be in order notwithstanding the closure rules; we will take a chance on it anyway. The right hon. gentleman does not tell why he wants this Bill passed when everything that can be done under it can be done under the Naval Service Act. Perhaps some other hon. member would tell me; perhaps the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) would tell me. I know the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) could not, because they were not in the game at that time. It is the right hon. the leader of the Government, the Postmaster General, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. JNantei) and the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk). They were the gentlemen who fixed it up. They can tell us why we are not proceeding under the Naval Service Act. They know. But, though I was not present at the meetings, I can easily appreciate what took place. The Nationalists were opposed to a naval service of any kind, they refused to vote money, or build ships, or do anything else in aid of the-naval service of the British Empire. The right hon. the leader of the Government thought that he could secure a certain

number of votes in the province of Quebec and*he said to these gentlemen: Now, gentlemen, I will repeal the Naval Service Act; I will take no action under that; and before I do anything, I will submit my proposition to the people of Canada. If he had not said that Mr. Monk never would have gone into his Government. Mr. Monk left his Government because he would not submit his proposition to the people of Canada. So the ex-Minister of Public Works must have had an assurance before he went into the Government that before any policy, temporary or permanent, was submitted to Parliament that proposition or policy would be submitted to the people. When the right hon. leader of the Government said, I will bring in this emergency Bill, Mr. Monk left the Government. The other gentlemen retained their portfolios. The right hon. gentleman says this is a case of emergency. Well, when an emergency lasts from the 20th of November until the 8th of May and nothing serious happens, At is not a very dangerous emergency. If it continues in the same line we might as well not vote anything. The right hon. gentleman came back from England and said: I have some secret information, there is a great emergency and I must ask Parliament to vote $35,000,000 at once, and if Parliament does not vote it immediately I will appeal to the great electorate and get their mandate to vote $35,000,000. That was the way he talked in November last. We have gone on till now and nothing serious has happened. I say there never was an emergency; the right hon. gentleman knew there was not an emergency, because every minister of the Crown in Great Britain, including his particular friend the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, always said there was no emergency. Mr. Churchill was the strongest one of the whole British Cabinet to deny that there was an emergency. Still the right hon. gentleman asks us to vote $35,000,000 and to carry through this measure although the Act now standing on the statute book will enable him to do everything he proposes to do under this Act. Why,.then, is he doing it? I say with all sincerity, with the right hon. gentleman sitting in his place, that in my opinion he is doing it because he promised the Nationalists of Quebec that he would repeal the Naval Service Act, and when he introduced his permanent policy he would submit it to the people. What permanent policy can we have? There can be only one of two permanent policies, either a contribution to Great Britain in the way of building ships there and handing them over to Great Britain, or building ships of our own and having a Canadian navy. There is no middle course. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to suggest Mr. GERMAN.
any other course. If it was necessary to make a contribution to Great Britain, which may be well enough in its way, we would do it but it is not necessary and it is not advisable. But it is either that or building ships ourselves. The Prime Minister has chosen the course of a contribution to Great Britain. That course we oppose, we oppose it for the reason we will not allow the Nationalists of the province of Quebec to dominate the Government of Canada and that is what they are doing at this moment. If this Naval Aid Act passes Parliament it will be a domination of this Government by the Nationalists of the province of Quebec. We on this side of the House, so far as we are able, will not allow that. That is one reason we are opposing it. The next reason we are opposing it is that the Government proposes to take from Parliament the control of the money which is expended in the building of these ships and the control of the ships after they are built. For these reasons I [DOT]beg to move:
That clause i be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' the ' in the second line thereof and adding the words ' subject to the provisions of the Naval Service Act.'
Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon) :	After a number of months of debate it is illuminating to refer to the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister, delivered on the 5th day of December, in which he used this language, which was serious in its import and which, if it was correct, imposed very onerous duties upon the people of Canada:
Today, while the clouds are heavy and we hear the booming of the distant thunder and see the lightning flashes above the horizon, we cannot and we will not wait and deliberate.
Whatever deliberating the Government have done in the meantime it is certain that they have not been talking much. Comparing that with the situation as it is to-day brings to our mind the fact that those conditions which so filled the imagination of the Premier on the 5th of December last do not exist now. The change had come even before the Minister of Trade and Commerce left for Australia because he felt it necessary to suggest to this House that there was some important secret information in the possession of the Prime Minister which he was not at liberty to disclose, but which, if it were in the possession of hon. members on this side would alter the situation completely and induce us to support the Bill. To-day we find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, after he made his speech with this suggestion, went to Australia. He is there now, enjoying the banquets of', the Australian people. He is, no doubt, admiring the splendid naval service that they are

giving to the Empire. I am sure that in his speeches of congratulation, which will be most, eloquent, he will be extolling their ships and their naval college and their sailors, and I mistake the Minister of Trade and Commerce very much if he does to the people of Australia what members on the other side of the House have done in this Parliament, and suggests that because they go in for a fleet unit, for an Australian navy, they are separatists in sentiment and disloyal. I would not suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce went to Australia to get away from a fight. I have no doubt that he was glad to have the mission with which he waq entrusted by the Premier. We know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a fearless fighter, but I think we will all believe that he wanted to fight where there is good fighting-and he did not see it here. I have no doubt that the Minister of Trade and Commerce congratulates himself that he is not a participant in the judgments which are governing the Conservative party here to-day. There is another change in the situation. On the 5th of December there were troubles in the Balkans, but to-day those troubles are over and the result of the settlement of that Eastern question has been to allay the feeling of anxiety, uncertainty and danger which existed in Europe with regard to complications which might arise between Great Britain and the other nations, especially Germany. The practical expulsion of Turkey from Europe has built up a new force in that part of Europe and has turned the attention of Germany in another direction so that they have something else to think about than any troubles with Great Britain. About the time we find the Balkan war settled we also have an exposure which is very timely of the way in which war scares are created. It is in Germany, which has been held up by the Government as the arch enemy of Great Britain, the one to be feared, that we find that the Krupps, the great armour makers and those interested in the furnishing of war materials, have been fomenting in their own country and in France, their near neighbour, and apparently in the other nations of Europe, that war spirit which pays dividends into their own pockets. It is rather surprising to find that even the armour men and the ship-builders are getting their policy, if possible, into this naval discussion in Canada. I think it was on Saturday last-or Monday, that the Toronto News in scarehead type, printed in red ink, published a despatch from their correspondent who signs the name ' Windermere/ pointing out that there are two battleships now building for Turkey in British shipyards which might be acquired for Canada and,
which might recover to the people of this country the great time which has been lost by the discussion which the Opposition have carried on here. What is the situation? The situation is that as the result of the war, of which I have spoken, Turkey has no need for the two battleships which are now being built in British shipyards. Her treasury is depleted, she has no money to pay for them. Somebody must buy them. Any person who looks up the Navy League Annual for 1911-12 will see the history of these two battleships. A detailed account of their strength is given in that Annual. I shall not go into it because I do not anticipate that this Government is going to buy these ships. I am only pointing out the efforts which are being made by this very group of scaremongers to get their hands on $35,000,000. The name of one of the vessels which is being built in Great Britain is the Reshad-i-Hamiss which was laid down at Vickers' yard at Barrow on December 6, 1911. The other ship is the Reshad V., which was laid down more recently at the yard at Elswick. These armour-plate makers and shipbuilders, who do not know where they are going to get their money when Turkey cannot pay, are using the Conservative press of this country, the Montreal Star, the Toronto News, and the Winnipeg Telegram, to advertise the fact that because of the discussion which we on this side of the House have carried on, these two warships must be purchased to avoid impending evil to the British Empire, and, incidentally, to those to whom money is owed. There is no correspondent who writes to this branch of the Conservative press who is so hitter in his denunciation of the Liberal party in this country, and who so strongly upholds the Conservative policy, as this man 'Windermere/ and yet this is the kind of advice which is being sent at the instance of the shipbuilders and the armour-plate makers of Europe through the Conservative press to the public of this country. The scaremongers are getting pretty close to home when we have incidents of this sort.
Another change has taken place. If I remember rightly, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was going to have the Canadian ships stationed in the North sea, pointing their noses to Germany, ready in defence, if not instigating to war with Germany. Now they are to be transferred to Gibraltar. I do not suppose that the Right Hon. Winston Churchill asked the Prime Minister of this country whether he should change the base of that fleet to Gibraltar. I imagine that it came as a surprise to the Prime Minister of Canada, You never know from one day to another

what the Eight Hon. Winston Churchill is going to do; when you place yourself in h:s hands, you may find yourself in any part of the world. There is a change of purpose also. When the ships were first proposed on 5th December, they were to defend the Empire. Mr. Churchill shows that those ships, which are to be contributed, will cruise the five seas, visiting the different colonies-a very pacific mission indeed, and very unlike the emergency which was described to us in the latter days of last year.
I also think there is a change in the point of view in respect to the question which was discussed by the right hon. the Prime Minister as to Canada's representation in some sort of federal council governing the defensive forces of the Empire. We hear nothing of that now. The Eight Hon. Lewis Harcourt settled that, and, with the other things I have mentioned, it will disappear into the limbo of things forgotten. Since this discussion opened there have been other incidents which confirm us in our point of view. Australia has been perfecting her fleet, she has established her naval college, and declarations have been made by her ministers that they do not propose to emhark upon any other policy than that of an Australian navy. If the view is of any importance to us, Admiral Henderson has expressed himself as filled with regret that Canada should take the retrograde step she is now taking, and that she is not carrying out the arrangement originally entered into in 1909.
Another thing that has been made clear by this discussion is the purpose of the Government in asking us to vote the $35,000,000. The right hon. the Prime Minister made a speech which we commended at the time as being moderate in tone, and fair in words. He proposed, as his own scheme, the building of three dreadnoughts which he described, as a debt to the Mother Country, but upon which he proposed to still hold his grasp, so that those ships might become the nucleus of a Canadian navy. He must surely have expected the Liberal party to come into power very soon when he made the latter proposition. 1 do not think that those ships will last very long, five or six years at the outside, and if he thought they were to come back as the nucleus of a Canadian navy he must have thought that the Liberal party would be in power pretty soon, because, from all that has taken place up to the present, 1 am satisfied that the Conservative party has no intention of forming a Canadian navy. His own argument was distinctly against a local naval system. He cited to us the extent of the liability of Canada to the Mother Country in the matter of defence, I think he said it was between three Mr. McCKANEY.
and four hundred million dollars. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) followed up his argument and quoted figures to show the impossibility of building ships in this country; the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) showed how expensive it would be to man ships with Canadians, and how cheap it would be to get seamen in the Old Country at twenty-six cents a day; my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) made an argument so distinctly against any proposed autonomy that his speech led in only one direction, that of a central fleet; my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) suggested that the tendency of our policy of a Canadian navy was separatist; and my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) was very clear on the one navy idea. When it came to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White), he said that he was not in for a contribution, that if he believed that there would be other contributions he would not support the policy. Yet the strongest argument he adduced in his speech was one that makes it necessary that there shall be other contributions. He pointed out, in opposition to what the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the right hon. Prime Minister had said, that these ships, which we are to give now, are essential to the naval programme of Great Britain for 1916, in the words of the Eight Hon. Winston Churchill. However much my hon. friend the Minister of Finance may declare that he is against contribution, he is convinced by the one argument which makes it necessary that we should keep those ships in the battle line because they are to be incorporated in the British fleet. I can understand one who holds the view that these ships shall be independent of the British programme saying that we may at some time take them back, but I cannot understand any one who believes that they must become part of the building programme of the British naval authorities thinking that anything else must happen than that we must repeat, and repeat, and repeat that contribution. At last the silence on the Government side of the House has been broken by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). That hon. gentleman expresses regret that these ships are not given outright, I would like to say to him that he need not feel so badly about it. They are given outright.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will go all right,


Mr. McCEANEY:: They will go all right.
I agree with him that the language is rather ungracious and that when you are going to give a thing you might as well say so. It was rather impolite to put it in that way. If it is a matter of showing how much we think 'of the British people, it

would be better not to say that we would take them back again. The reason my hon. friend gives for wanting these ships to at once become the property of the Mother Country is that we owe so much. How much do we owe?-possibly $350,000,000, and we are to give them ships worth $35,000,000 to pay the debt-ten cents on the dollar. My hon. friend will have nine more opportunities of voting for a contribution of this kind before the debt is paid You cannot pay debts and keep your respectability with ten cents on the dollar.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will you do it any better by paying nothing?


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend asks if we are prepared to give nothing. He has sat not only silent but asleep. Does he not understand that we on this side of the House, and we have been challenged for it, are willing to spend many million dollars more than this programme which he and his friends have put forward calls for, and we are not only willing to expend the money but we are willing to maintain the ships and to man them with our own men. We are willing to take that part in the defence of the Empire which necessity may require.
What is the reason of this demand for $35,000,000? It is this union with the Nationalists. There may be co-operation between the old political parties in this House who may differ in their methods, but who, I hope hold the same true ideals of nationhood.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I would like to ask my hon. friend if he insists that the Nationalists wish to destroy Canadian autonomy?


George Ewan McCraney: I did not hear the question of the hon. gentleman.


John Hampden Burnham: My hon. friend insists that this policy of our3 is due to the Nationalists and since, as he says, this policy is so destructive of Canadian autonomy, does he say that the desire of the Nationalists is to destroy Canadian autonomy.


George Ewan McCraney: I think myself that that is the conclusion to which it will lead if it goes through and that is why we are fighting here to prevent it. I believe that not only can the historic parties co-operate in policy but there can be continuity in policy. We can, though differing in detail, uphold the same ideals and stand by the same principles. But I say that no self-respecting party can make a union with the Nationalists of this country, in view of the declarations which were made by them and the attitude they took towards Imperial matters before the last election, and preserve their respectability. The thing that stands out to his credit is the
fidelity of the Prime Minister who feels that he is bound by his pledges and who endeavours to carry them out. As far as this present scheme is concerned, it is the result of that unfortunate union. We are now asked to pay the price, we are asked to deliver the goods, and hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are sur. prised that we should make use of any constitutional means that come to our hand to prevent this measure going through. I think that hon. members on the other side would lose their respect for us, as they must have lost some for themselves in their union with the Nationalists, if they thought that we would do anything else than fight it to the bitter end.


Mr. J. E. MARCILE (Bagot):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that I am happy to address you a few remarks on Bill No. 21, now before this committee, providing a contribution of thirty-five millions of dollars for the British Admiralty, with the hope that this time my remarks and those before submitted to you will have the effect to convince the Government of its error and bring the abandonment of the Bill.
It has been alleged, when this Bill was first submitted, that there was urgency. A little later, the urgency was changed to a need, and now there is nothing at all, no more urgency, no more need;"there only remains the determination not to retrace one's steps, although it is admitted that the measure is useless.
I had been led to believe, Mr. Speaker, seeing the suspension of the Bill at the 'beginning of April, that the Government would not persist in its obstinacy to have that measure adopted, knowing quite well as we do that it is contrary to the interests of the Canadian people and also to the general wishes of the citizens of this country.
Let me hope, Mr. Speaker, that after the remarks I have to submit and those already submitted by the hon. members of the Opposition, that the Government will take them into serious consideration, and that it will lay all pride aside and adjourn Bill No. 21 for further consideration, with the hope that it will never again make its appearance.
The first consideration I have to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this committee, is that in adopting the principle of this alleged Naval Aid Bill, and specially clause 4 under consideration, we are entering a path which will lead us where no one knows, a path which takes us more and more afar from the right one which the fathers of Confederation had traced for us. In fact, Mr. Speaker, do you believe that the provinces of Quebec, of New Brunswick, of Nova Scotia, and of Prince Edward Island would have consented to enter into Confederation if promises had not been given them
[DOT]9403


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot say that the
discussion upon this clause has been very relevant to anything contained in it, with the exception of the remarks of my hon. friend from Welland, who did direct his attention to the subject matter of the clause and' proposed an amendment. The observations of my hon. friend (Mr. German) require some reply which I shall make very briefly. He expressed to-night the same idea he expressed last evening, namely that the proper course would be to have this made an appropriation under the Naval Service Act of 1910. My hon. friend gave rein to his imagination, very loose rein to his imagination, by suggesting that there was some alliance between myself, or between the Government and a gentleman who formerly occupied a seat in this House, Mr. Bourassa. The hon. gentleman also drew on his imagination to an even greater extent when he suggested there had been some pledge given to that gentleman. I want to assure my hon. friend that no pledges have been given except those publicly expressed. Coming to the immediate matter to which my hon. friend chiefly directed his attention, namely, the consideration of an appropriation under the Naval Service Act of 1910, I would like to present to him the position which he has laid before the House. He has stated that anything that can be done under this Bill can be done under the Naval Service Act of 1910, together with an appropriation. I think I am not mis-stating my hon. friend's argument. He also set forth an opinion that the Naval Service Act of 1910 was a very proper Act and one which he supported. If it be true that whatever can be done under this Bill can be done under the Naval Service Act of 1910 plug an appropriation, I am quite unable to follow the reasoning of my hon. friend when he so	strongly objects to this
Bill. If what we propose here can be done under the Naval Service Act of 1910 plus an appropriation, why is it that my hon. friend who so strongly supported that Act and who is willing to give an appropriation under it, is so much opposed to this Bill. I am unable to observe any true logic in that argument which my hon. friend has
placed before the House, and I would suggest to him, as he has urged upon me that we should abandon this Bill and seek refuge in the Naval Service Act of 1910, the very natural retort which is obvious to a gentleman of his legal training and keen intellect; that the proper course to secure that unanimity the necessity for which he so strongly emphasizes, would be for him to abandon his opposition to this Bill on the ground that everything that could be done under the Naval Aid Act can be done under the Naval Service Act of 1910. I am strongly of opinion that if my hon. friend takes to heart that suggestion-which I put forward very sincerely-he will commend it to the judgment of hon. members on his side of the House, and that he will reconsider the unfortunate attitude of hostility which he has exhibited towards this proposal in aid of what he himself admits to be very proper and a very desirable object. However, as it seems that the speeches on the other side of the House can be made equally well on one clause of the Bill as upon another, because they do not seem to vary very much no matter what clause is under consideration. I would venture to suggest that the time has now come, when in the words of my hon. friend from Welland we should glide from this clause to the next. I am indebted to him for the suggestion in that regard and for the very happy phraseology in which he put it. I therefore beg to move, Mr. Chairman:
That the further consideration of clause 4 be postponed.
The Chairman having put the question: That the further consideration of clause 4 be postponed; a vote was taken.
Yeas, 82; Nays, 46.
Motion declared agreed to.
On section 5:
The said sum shall be paid, used and applied and the said ships shall be constructed and placed at the disposal of His Majesty subject to such terms, conditions and arrangements as may be agreed upon between the Governor in Council and His Majesty's Government.


William Manley German: Having glided to this section of the Bill in such happy frame of mind, we will endeavour to discuss it in as pleasant a manner as we have hitherto discussed the other parts of the Bill. My right hon. friend does not appear to appreciate, at least judging from his remarks, the position we take and the point we are striving to make on this side of the House. He knows, and hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do, that the contention we are making or at least one of the contentions we are making, and perhaps the most prominent one, is against the proposition of the Government that this money should be placed in the hands of the Governor in Council to be expended by the Governor in

Council, and that the ships when built be under the control of the Governor in Council, without any control by Parliament whatever. We on this side of the House say that that money should be expended with the approval, with the sanction, and under the control of Parliament, and that the ships when built shall be under the control of Parliament. There is to my miind a very clear cut and distinct issue between the two parties. The Government, I might say with malice aforethought, at any rate with positive intention, have introduced this Bill so that the money shall be expended and the ships controlled by the Governor in Council, because, as I have stated, and as the right hon. the Prime Minister has not denied, he can do under the Naval Service Act with the approval of Parliament what he can do under the Naval Aid Act without the approval of Parliament. I for one, coming from the province of Ontario and being the descendant of a man who fought for responsible government in this country, am willing to abide by the result of that issue at the polls in the province of Ontario, and I am also willing to submit to the people of the Dominion of Canada the issue as to whether public money shall be expended simply by the Governor in Council or whether it shall be expended with the approval and under the supervision of the people's representative in His Majesty's House of Commons in Canada. My right hon. friend says:	If everything
that can be done under the Naval Service Act can be done under the Naval Aid Act and vice versa, then why not vote the money under the Naval Aid Act? I say:	We refuse to vote the money under the Naval Aid Act, because under that Act the money when voted and the ships when built will be under the control solely and only of the Governor in Council. We say:	Under the Naval Service Act the money when voted and the ships when built will be under the control of the representatives of the people. That is one reason why we are opposing this Bill. We are opposing it on this further ground that we believe and the people of Canada believe, irrespective of the very modified contradiction which my right hon. friend made a moment ago, that the Nationalists of Quebec are dominating this Government on this proposition.
What is clause 5, the last clause of the Bill to which by grace of the closure we have now glided? Clause 5 says:
The said sum shall be paid, used and applied and the said ships shall be constructed and placed at the disposal of His Majesty subject to such terms, conditions and arrangements as may he agreed upon between the Governor in Council and His Majesty's Government.
Mr. GERMAN.
What is the agreement? Why has the right hon. gentleman or his Minister of Naval Service not told ns what agreement they intended to enter into? When in the history of legislation in this country has a government ever come down to parliament with a proposition of this character, wherein an agreement was to be made between the government and some other corporate body, without informing parliament what the agreement was? What is to be done with these ships? The right hon. gentleman does not know himself, because he has stated different propositions on different occasions, and hon. gentlemen supporting the Government have followed his lead.


Mr. LALOR:: Put them on rollers.


William Manley German: Any ship which the hon. gentleman gets he can put on rollers and take over to his planing mill. It appears to me that, before a clause of this kind is approved of by this committee, we should know what agreement the Government. is likely to enter into. Is the Government to bring this agreement down to Parliament and ask Parliament's approval of it? Not at all. When this clause is passed, the Governor in Council can enter into any agreement with His Majesty's Government for the disposal of these ships in any way they see fit, and Parliament will have no control over the ships or the money. The money will have gone out of our hands and we shall have to trust this Government, which the hon. member for Portage . la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) says is an insane Government. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie says it is an insane Government, because he says that no government but an insane government would do exactly what this Government has done to-night. Therefore, if no government but an insane government would, do what this Government has done, then this Government must be an insane Government. I know that hon. members opposite repudiated the hon. member for Portage la Prairie once, and they will probably endeavour to repudiate him now on this question. His opinion, however, is so strongly reinforced by the facts surrounding the situation that I might say that it stands approved unanimously.
I have in my mind a situation in regard to this Bill and its clauses which I desire to place on ' Hansard.' I desire to place on ' Hansard ' the amendment which I have proposed and the one which I intend to propose now, which emphasizes the fact which is and which alwftys has been Liberal doctrine in this country, and which I hope to Heaven will always remain Liberal doctrine in the country, because it is the only sound doctrine under which the Government of Canada can be carried on. It is

a principle for which our forefathers fought and struggled for years. It is a principle which has been dominant in this country for fifty years and which will remain dominant for all time to come, irrespective of the attempt which is now being made by this Government to over-ride and upToot that principle, that is the sound, solid principle of parliamentary control over public expenditure. In view of the situation, I desire to move:
That clause 5 be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'Majesty' in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof the words as provided in the Naval Service Act.
So the clause would read:
The said sum shall be used and applied, and the said ships shall ibe constructed and placed at the disposal of His Majesty as provided in the Naval Service Act.
And that Naval Service Act, as I have already stated, provides that these ships can be placed at the disposal of His Majesty by the Governor in Council in the event of an emergency or a supposed emergency, and that having been done, if Parliament is not in session, Parliament is to be called in session and asked to approve of what the Governor in Council has done. What can hon. members opposite want more than that ? What more could they do under this Act ? There is the distinction-a distinction with a positive difference-that whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any part thereof on active service as provided in the preceding sections, if Parliament is then separated by an adjournment or prorogation that will not expire within ten days, then a proclamation shall issue for a meeting of Parliament within fifteen days, and Parliament shall have an opportunity to approve what the Governor in Council has done. Is not that a sufficient safeguard for the people ? Is not that a safeguard of the naval service of the British Empire F This Government insists that without any consideration of Parliament whatever they shall have the power to hand over $35,000,000 worth of battleships to the British Government, on such terms as shall be agreed upon between the Governor in Council and His Majesty's Government-and Parliament know nothing what that agreement shall be. I say the very basic principle of this Naval Aid Act is wrong, because it takes out of the hands of the people's representatives the power to control the money or what is bought with that money. The basic principle of the Naval Service Act is right, because it leaves in the hands of the people's representatives-the people who own and pay the money-the right to control that money and the outspring of that money when spent.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: When the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Marcile) closed his eloquent address, I was on the point of rising to address you, Mr. Chairman, on clause 4 before the committee, but my right hon. friend the Prime Minister closed the door against me. I would not like to apply to the Prime Minister the epithets used by the hon. member for Welland, because of the statements made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. But I must say I felt the wind in my face when the door closed. However, allow me to say, that I shall address you upon another topic relating to the same question, no doubt, the control by Parliament of the public expenditure of the people's money, so eloquently advocated by my hon. friend from Welland county. That hon. gentleman's forefathers, like mine, fought for this principle, a principle to which the great Joseph Howe of Nova Scotia devoted his life. Allow me to say, that were I from Nova Scotia and advocating the principle advocated by the Government of the day, I should expect the shade of Joseph Howe to rise in ire and chastise me and everyone who supported me. Very little do I intend to add to the debate this evening. When I attempted to rise before it was in part for the purpose of citing an article relating to this subject, from one_ of the leading newspapers of Great Britain, for the consideration of the members of this House and the members of the press of Canada. It has been said in this House and by some members of the Conservative party that we have been here for the last four or five months doing nothing but talking. If there has ever been an occasion since Confederation or before Confederation under the great union of Canada when an Opposition were justified in exercising every possible means at their command in parliamentary debate in order not only to place before Parliament their views but to prolong a debate in order to gain time-to see what public opinion would declare in Canada as well as in Great Britain, this is the occasion. I say that to-day we owe the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. and his jioble, intelligent lieutenants who have kept up this debate from day to day and week to week until the present time, a debt of gratitude, and the views which they have expressed have been supported by the best elements of public opinion in Great Britain as well as in Canada. The attitude taken by the Liberal party that there should be an appeal to the people on this great question has been approved by public opinion in Canada and also in Great Britain. When we on this side of the House have asked for an appeal to the people we have been met with the reply from hon. gentlemen opposite that we were not sin-

cere in our expression of a desire for an election. There is an easy way for the Government to test our sincerity, let them dissolve at once. We will abide by the consequences, knowing that the principles involved in the Bill affect our constitutional rights. As the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) said to the members of the Government before he resigned his portfolio, the Bill is beyond the scope of the constitution and no government, however fresh it may come from the country, has the power to interfere with the constitution of Canada. Some hon. members opposite seem to think that because they have come recently from the country with a large majority they can do anything they like. There are Conservative newspapers which are clamouring to-day in Canada that because the Highways Act was referred back to this House from the Senate last year with an amendment which made it constitutional, the Senate this year should accept the Bill in the same form. I do not know what the Senate will do, but I say that the same duty devolves upon the Senate to-day as last session. No majority was ever sent to this House to interfere with the fundamental principles of the constitution. Whether it is a great majority or a small majority, whether it is one year or two years or five years after an election, the constitution will remain there and the views of the people alone cannot change the constitution. An amendment to the constitution can only be made by the unanimous consent and the joint action of all the legislatures of Canada.
I shall now read to the House an article which appeared in one of the greatest journals of the British Empire, the Manchester Guardian, the day before the closure was introduced in this House by the right hon. the Prime Minister. That article is as follows:
Party feeling is running higher in Canada than it has ever done since the dominion was formed, and all Englishmen must be pained to think that the cause of all this heat is the proposed contribution' of dreadnoughts to the British navy. It is *worth far more1 than three dreadnoughts to England that 6he should be beyond the dust of party strife in Canada, for the whole secret of Imperial unity is that attachment to England should be the common property of all parties and the exclusive possession of none. As it happens, there is no quarrel between the parties as to whether any contribution should be made, but only as to the form it should take, but it is a grave misfortune that one alternative form-that of Mr. Borden's Bill-should have been put to the country as that preferred 'by the British Admiralty. Canadian opinion is extremely sensitive of any appearance of dictation or advice from the British Government on matters which are within the competence of Canada, and the British Admiralty, which stands in either case to benefit by what Mr. TUBGEON.
Canada does-whether it was to take the form of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Bill introduced under the last Government or of Mr. Borden's Bill, -could not have (been too careful to avoid saying anything which would indicate a preference of either plan. We agree that the situation for a First Lord of the Admiralty is a very difficult one. He naturally has his own preferences, and if he is appealed to by the official head of the Government which is bringing in a Bill which he thinks better than the Bill that the other side would bring in, is difficult for him to disguise his own views. The difficulty is increased by the double position of a Canadian Prime Minister. Mr. Borden is not only leader of the Conservative party, but as premier he is the only channel through which the Admiralty can convey information. Information that is asked for cannot be withheld.
I hope that every member of this House understands how this came about.
But how is it to be conveyed without seeming to take sides with one party against the other, with the Government against the Opposition? But difficulties exist only to be overcome, and Mr. Borden and Mr. Churchill between them, so far from overcoming them, have brought about that worst of misfortunes the introduction of England into the strife of Dominion party politics.
We say between them, for Mr. Churchill, to judge by his published utterances, has seen the danger and has been trying to avoid it4 Mr. Borden, we fear, ihae not 'been equally careful. In the Admiralty memorandum, which rased such a storm in March, Mr. Churchill said nothing which it may not have been his duty to say, holding the views he does, in reply to a request for information. The sting of the matter, we think, was in the form that Mr. Borden's request for information took ' I should be glad,' he wrote, ' of any information along that line, so that it will be available if necessary,' and, as we observed at the time, the phrase ' along that line ' could only mean 'of a character that will enable me to meet the arguments of the Canadian Liberal party.' Mr. Borden's visit to England last year made things worse. Does it not look as though Mr. Borden and Mr. Churchill had then arranged a policy, reversing the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and that the present Canadian Bill was really that of the British Admiralty, which Mr. Borden had consented to father? Mr. Churchill's published words may be discretion itself, but if these are the facts the fat i6 in the fire, however careful one cook may have been. He is under a pledge to submit any permanent naval policy to the people before it is adopted, and 'the Liberal (party is clamouring that he should submit this present Bill. ' No ' replies Mr. Borden, ' because it is not a permanent but an emergency measure.' But how does he know that an emergency exists except through the British Admiralty? In effect, what he is doing by this excuse is to put the whole responsibility for the measure on the Admiralty. Mr. Churchill may have told him that there was an ' emergency ' last year when he was in England, but we are at a loss to think why, seeing that these three Canadian dreadnoughts are left out of account in our calculations of relative naval

strength. But whether Mr. Churchill 6aid so or not, the ehort of such an excuse is to deepen the impression that the Bill is a outtand-dried .arrangement between Mr. Borden and Mr. Churchill.
Hard things are often said in English party controversy which leave no trace behind. TJn-fortunately, this controversy is going to leave its mark on Canadian parliamentary procedure, for the closure is to be introduced for the first time. We cannot but recall Mr. Churchill's own description in the biography of his father of the effects of Irish obstruction on the British Parliament. ' Ever since then obstruction and closure have struggled against each other in a warfare which has respected no neutral^ boundaries and recognized no public law. Scarcely any parliamentary custom or privilege has escaped their joint depredations. Every device or formality designed in the careful wisdom of former ages to safeguard the rights of a minority has been recklessly squandered by the one faction and ruthlessly demolished by the other.' It is not pleasant to think that a contribution of ships to the British navy should be about to leave permanent marks on Canadian parliamentary liberties like those left on the English Parliament by the long struggle for Irish liberties. The best thing to hope for if the Bill is persisted in is that the Opposition should carry its point and force the Government.
I wish to call the attention of the committee especially to those words:
The best thing to hope for if the Bill is persisted in is that the Opposition should carry its point and force the Government to appeal to the electors, and if our Government has any influence with the Canadian Government it should exert it to this end. In any case, the lesson is clear. We have seen how difficult Mr. Churchill's position must have been in advising on a Canadian party question without taking sides with the one party against the other. But this is precisely the difficulty which the proposed plan of giving Canada representation on the Cabinet Committee of Defence, against which we have so often protested, would make a permanent and regular feature of the constitution. It will remove one of the keystones of Imperial unity, and it must at all costs he abandoned. Better far have no ships at all from Canada than have them with this dangerous condition attached.
There are many considerations in this article from the Manchester Guardian which deserve the attention of hon. members of this House and of the people of Canada. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) this afternoon, and after six months' discussion, he was not sure what the proposed contribution meant. He did not know whether it *vas to be a gift of ships to Great Britain or merely a loan, and he pleaded that it should be a gift. If I were to have my choice between a loan and a gift I would join my hon. friend from Vancouver and make it a gift. It was as a gift that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister proposed to provide those ships
when he introduced this Bill on 5th December, 1912. They were to be the best battleships that human ingenuity could devise and money could buy. They were to be placed in the North sea with their noses turned towards Germany, and they were to Be in the fighting line. That idea appealed to the British spirit of many Canadians. My hon. friend from Sunbury and Queens (Mr. Mel.ean) for instance, wanted to see the best ships which Canada could provide in the fighting line in the North sea. But since my hon. friend delivered his speech in this House, the First Lord of the Admiralty has informed us that the North sea has no need for those -ships and that they are to be placed at the foot of the Rock of Gibraltar to form, not a Canadian navy, but a flying squadron which will be able to reach within twenty-three -days the shores of the province of my hon. friend from Vancouver. They are not to be in the fighting line, they are simply to be a visiting squadron. On March 29, 1909, the i:ght hon. the leader of the Government eloquently advocated a Canadian navy for the protection of our coast and trade, a navy which would take part of the burden of the maintenance of the Empire from the shoulders of Great Britain. If he is going to compare the position which he has left with the position in which he is to-day, advantageously to the latter, he certainly must acknowledge that his present attitude is contrary to the principle enunciated by the Manchester Guardian, because the Manchester Guardian objects to the principle of contribution. No (contribution without representation! A contribution would necessitate representation later on and representation would mean a further contribution. In the position which I have occupied in the province of New Brunswick, and in the appeals which I have made to my fellow countrymen, I have always stood for the British Empire and the British flag and at the same time I have always stood for Canadian autonomy. That is the only principle that _ will secure the continuance of the Empire for centuries to come. Now, when the Conservative Government propose to enter into a policy which involves a sacrifice by Canada of her autonomy they propose a policy which is beset with danger. When we view it from all quarters we see that it is a dangerous policy, that it is a policy that will not last and, therefore, I say that any British subject, whether in Canada, or in Australia, or in any other of the British dominions, who has at heart-the maintenance and integrity of the Empire must, above all things, insist upon the maintenance of the autonomy of these dominions. The great dominion of Australia has won the admiration and respect of all


Mr. TOBIN:: 
Francis Ramsey Lalor: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me to ask a question? Does he admit that the issue in the last election campaign was the navy?


Edmund William Tobin: In Quebec?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Speaking generally.


Edmund William Tobin: I understand that the party of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) had a different policy for each province-in no two provinces was their policy the same. In the province of Quebec, as elsewhere, the policy of the Liberal party was the Canadian navy. We defended that policy and we carried the majority of the members from Quebec in support of it. Many of those who sit on your right, Mr. Chairman, who come from the province of Quebec, were elected as opposed to any navy or any contribution. I have been in this House for a number of years, and I know personally from speaking with different members before the election of 1911 that they were against all contribution and all expenditure for the navy. I refer now to Conservatives from the province of Quebec. Their speeches in this House will bear me out. They were anti-British. The hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet), the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny), the present Minister of Inland Eevenue (Mr. Nantel), and the present Deputy Speaker (Mr. Blondin) held meetings in many parts of the province of Quebec. They went into one county where a gentleman was running who was afterward elected, not as a Conservative, but as a Nationalist; he was against a Canadian navy, but not against doing something for England if it was necessary. Some of the gentlemen I have named went down to his county and held a meeting there, and that member, who sits on your right, Mr. Chairman, said that these speeches were so anti-British that he would not speak at that meeting in his own county because some of his electors would hold him responsible for the words uttered by these men. I call the attention of the hon. member for Haldimand to the fact that this is what the Liberal party had to contend with in the province of Quebec. Every Conservative in the French counties in the province of Quebec, when told that Mr. Borden was his leader felt insulted. And I may tell you, Mr. Chairman-and I speak in the presence of the leader of the Government-that I myself have defended him publicly. I have known the right hon. gentleman for a number of years, and I knew he was a respectable gentleman.
An hon. MEMBEE:	Somebody had to
defend him.


Edmund William Tobin: Why, certainly, we had to. All you have to do is to go back to the speech of the hon. member for Yamaska delivered in this House on the 13th of February last:
Such -was the position of both political parties, when, all of a sudden, the general election was announced for September 21, 1911. That election resulted in the downfall of the Government which had passed the Naval Service Act, the Conservative party winning by a very large majority. . . . However. I may say that the main issue in the province of Quebec was the ' Naval Service Act '-and that province withdrew the great confidence shown in the late Government for fifteen years, returning no less than twenty-seven members of the Opposition.
And what was this Naval Act? One section reads:
The Governor in Council may

That word ' may ' played a great part


The CHAIEMAN:: I would ask the hon. member if he does not think he is going a little far from clause 5. I shall not try to prevent him going, but I did call the matter to his attention.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is showing why he is against clause 5 and why hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be against clause 5.


Edmund William Tobin: -in case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Eoyal navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels in the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships and vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
These gentlemen would take this up and they would say to the people of Quebec: That means that you are going to have conscription, that your children are to be taken away; that means blood and flesh. My hon. friends from Quebec will remember those words very well. In Ontario, if I understand aright, they said: Laurier wants nothing for Great Britain, he is anti-British. (My hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick, says that they quoted the same sections and explained them differently. That was the policy. I have here a handbook which was used by the Conservatives in that campaign. I believe that the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) was very careful, while acting as organizer of the Eastern Townships, that this handbook did not go into any section where there were French speaking people. This handbook was given to English speaking candidates, but they were told not to show it to their Conservative French friends, the Nationalists must not see it because they might see what it says on page 14 re-

garding the Naval Policy. They were blaming the Laurier government for doing nothing. The handbook says:
Mr. Foster's Resolution.
In November, 11908, Hon. Geo. E. Foster, M.P., for North Torontp, gave notice of the following resolution:-	_	,
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments and of that spirit of self help and self respect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay _ in assuming her proper slhare of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved an amendment to Mr Foster's resolution as follows:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House reaffirms the opinion, repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the. present constitutional relations between the Mother Country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of any stated contribution to the Imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House has observed with much satisfaction the relief afforded in recent years of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of considerable military expenditure formerly charged upon the Imperial treasury.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the Imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last Imperial^ conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Great. Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the Empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will he found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the Imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and the honour of the Empire.
Mr. R. L. Borden moved some changes in the amendment, including an important change in the second paragraph. The following was unanimously agreed upon and passed:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the Mother Country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the Imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would Mr. TOBIN.
not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the Imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last Imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the Empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make
hearty co-operation in every _ movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the Empire.
This is the Conservative handbook of 1911. On page 16 it says:
The proposed navy is to be under the control of the Minister of Marine, assisted by a Department of Naval Affairs. It does not pass automatically under the control of the Admiralty in time of war but in case of eiri ergeney

	(
That is what was said in the province of Quebec. Every Conservative Nationalist candidate would say: Why, who is the Governor in Council? That is the King. Do we owe anything to the King?
An hon. MEMBER-You bet your life.


Edmund William Tobin: A gentleman supporting Dr. Hayes, the Conservative candidate in the County of Richmond and Wolfe, a Conservative, partly Nationalist when necessary, was addressing a meeting there. When pushed to the wall, he said: Well, Mr. Borden did say something about giving a few million dollars to England who was always pulling at his coat-tails and saying, you owe us something, pay up. He stated that Mr. Borden declared that his policy would be to turn around and say: John Bull you say I owe you something. Well, I do not want to be bothered any more with you, here is $10,000,000, do not bother me any more as I won't have anything more to do with you. An old gentleman sitting in the front of the place from which we were speaking said: Well that is a big amount, the speaker replied we do not know what is Sir Wilfrid Laurier's policy. The answer was Laurier's policy is going to be $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 or $40,000,000, and it is not only a question of money, but of your children; conscription will come with Laurier's policy, and it is going to be blood and the flesh of your children will be used to grease cannons.


Mr. BELAND:: Who said that?


Edmund William Tobin: A supporter of the Conservative party, young Mr. Cabana. Then

there was Mr. Gregoire, a bright young man from Disraeli, and I could name a dozen others. If the hon. member for St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) were here he could tell you about young Mr. Loranger from Montreal, who was out in that district. He did not talk in favour of the present leader of the Government, he was against him; his leader was Mr. Monk, he had nothing to do with Mr. Borden and nothing to do with Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The handbook goes on:
-it may he placed by the Government at the disposal of the Admiralty for general service in the Royal navy. If this is done when Parliament is not in session, then Parliament is to be summoned within fifteen days to approve of the Government's action.
In other words, if the Government does not choose to have the Canadian navy take part in an Imperial war, Parliament will not be summoned, and will not be in a position to force the Government.
That appeared in the Conservative handbook, which was circulated in the Englishspeaking provinces, and which was intended for the English-speaking Conservatives who could carry it around in their satchels. I had a good friend in the Conservative party who passed it to me, because he said he was ashamed of it. He said:	Mr. Tobin, I do not want to belong
to a party that has one policy for one part of the country and another policy for another part. Then it goes on:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved the second reading of this Bill on February 3. He declared that the policy of the Government was in perfect accord with the terms of the resolution adopted in March, 1909, and ought therefore to command Conservative support. He defended his attitude at the conference on the ground that Canadian autonomy must not be impaired. That the Canadian navy would not 'be lent by the Government to take part in all British wars, he made clear when he said: ' If England is at war, we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say we shall always be attacked, neither do I say that we shall take part in all the wars of England.
Here is the Conservative party's position:
What was and is the position of the Conservative party on this question of naval defence? It was clearly and unequivocally defined by Mr. R. L. Borden, the Conservative leader, speaking on the third reading of the Laurier Bill, April, 20, 1910. Mr. Borden said.:-What I contend for is the principle that in time of war there shall be one united naval force for the whole Empire, and that naval force shall be available to meet any enemy that may assault the integrity of the Empire.
How can the right hon. leader of the Government claim he has a mandate from the people, he never discussed or mentioned the subject to the people. In Sherbrooke, he did not explain that his policy was a contribution of $35,000,000. Further on Mr. Borden said:
It may he fairly asked what we would do if we were in power to-day with regard to a great question of this kind. It seems to me that our plain course and duty would he this: The Government of this country are able to understand and to know, if they take the proper action for that purpose, whether the conditions which face the Empire at this time in respect to naval defence are grave. If we were in power, we would endeavour to find that out, to get a plain, unvarnished answer to that question, and if the answer to the question, based upon the report of the Government of the Mother Country and of the naval experts of the Admiralty were such -and I think it would be such- as to demand instant and effective action by this country, then I would appeal to Parliament for immediate and efieetive aid, if Parliament did not give immediate and effective aid I would appeal to the people of this country.
He did not 'say that if he could not get his Bill through he would put the gag on the representatives of the people of this country in order to get it through. He said he would appeal to the country. I ask him, why does he not appeal to the country? That is what he promised, according to the Liberal-Conservative handbook of 1911. I have always taken the right hon. gentleman at his word, and I think the people of the province of Quebec and of the Dominion generally expected that he would carry out his promise. He did not follow the example of the Liberal party in 1911. When the question of reciprocity was under consideration, the leader of the Government at that time did not apply the gag; he dissolved the House, and accepted the verdict of the people. These $35,000,000 mean a good deal to Canada. In 1911 we were spending about $7,000,000 on the militia; this year we are spending $11,000,000 and in addition we are to spend $35,000,000 on three dreadnoughts. If I understood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries rightly when he spoke a few days ago, he was satisfied that we would not be able to build the ships less than $40,000,000 or $45,000,000. If the Government are going to spend this money why not spend it in this country? The labourers, the mechanics, the farmers, the merchants, and the manufacturers, want this money to be spent in Canada. I would be very sorry to see such a large amount of money go to England or to any other country. I am a British subject, but first of all I am a Canadian, and I stand by Canadian policies. We are spending $2,500,000 on agriculture, and a Bill was put through the House the other night providing tor an expenditure of $10,000,000 during the next ten years, or $1,000,000 every year, so that we will be spending $50,000,000 including the amounts for the militia and the dreadnoughts. That means a tax of seven dollars


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad indeed
that the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobin) has been restored to his usual good health, and I am very grateful for any certificate of character that he may have given to me on any occasion. His observations did not seem to have any particular relevancy to the amendment which the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) had moved, and the same is true of the very eloquent speech which was addressed to the committee by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). So I think my hon. friend from Welland must be duly grateful to me for being the only one in the House who is willing to pay any attention to his amendment. The hon. member for Welland has not got over his horror at the powers which are conferred upon the Governor in Council by this Bill. I am afraid that my hon. friend has not the acquaintance with all the provisions of the Naval Service Act of 1910 which he has manifested with regard to certain of those provisions. I have alluded to some of these already, and I shall only make a passing reference to them again. He will iind that, by section 7 of the Act, the minister has power to deal with the
-purchase, maintenance and repair of the ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war intended for the use of the naval service.
That must be a dreadful . shock to my hon. friend, because the representatives of the people are not to be consulted at all. It is all to be done by the minister. My hon. friend may speak of the days of 1837, but is there anything in 1837 that is quite equal to this outrage which we find in section 7 ? Further on it is provided that:
The minister shall have the control and management, including the construction, purchase, maintenance and repair, of naval establishments and of ships and other vessels for the naval service.
According to the view of my hon. friend, that also is an outrage. But let me direct attention to another departure from the well understood principles of constitutional government as evidenced by that Bill which he admires so warmly. Section 11:
The Governor In Council may organize and maintain a permanent naval force.
Not Parliament, but the Governor in Council, may do that. Section 12:
The Governor in Council may authorize the engagement of officers and seamen in the naval service upon such terms and conditions as may he prescribed.
That would seem to me, according to the view which my hon. friend from Welland has supported, to be a very marked departure from the ordinary, well-understood principles of constitutional government. Then section 26 provides that:
The Governor in Council may organize and maintain a force' to he called the Naval Volunteer Force.
Section 28 says that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations for the government of the Naval Volunteer Force.
Think of all the tyrannical dispositions that could be made by the Governor in Council under the very wide powers that are set out by section 28. The liberties of the people might be taken away, according to the views of my hon. friend from Welland, by the regulations which may be made for the government of the force. I will pass over several others. There are all these and many other powers conferred on the Governor in Council by this Act, and, being impressed for the moment by the views of the hon. member for Welland, I am positively shocked when I come to read them one after the other. I would especially draw the attention of my hon. friend to section 43:
The Governor in Council may from time to time transfer to or from the _ naval service any vessel belonging to His Majesty.
That would permit the Governor in Council to hcquire the whole British navy and thus impose upon the people of this country the duty of maintaining it for all years to come; and that without any consultation whatever with Parliament. I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. German) when he comes to realize the tremendous powers that are conferred, not only by this but by many other-sections of the Act, upon the Governor in Council, will either revise his ideas as to the excellence of that Bill or revise his idea as to what is embodied in ordinary well-understood principles of constitutional government.
My hon. friend was apparently not reassured by my statement as to promises with regard to the naval policy of this country. If it were necessary for me to impress him, that I should shake my fist and speak in a very loud voice I would be glad to do so, but I trust my hon. friend will be good enough to accept that assurance conveyed to him in an ordinary tone of voice and without any theatrical demon* stration. My hon. friends on the other side

of the House do not seem very much inclined to discuss this section. We have had two very interesting speeches from the hon. member for Gloucester and from my 'hon. friend for Richmond and Wolfe, but they might have been properly made upon the second reading of the Bill, or at all events at an earlier stage of this debate, and these gentlemen will pardon me if I do not make any extended reference to the observations they have placed before the committee. I would like to make a passing allusion to one matter. The hon. member for Richmond1 and Wolfe has made it pretty plain I think that the proposal which I made in this Parliament in 1910: that a sufficient sum be provided for two battleships or battle cruisers of the latest type, was placed before the people of the province of Quebec on almost every platform during the last election campaign. I have some evidence of that under my hand which perhaps I may bring to the attention of the House at a later date, but which I will not weary the House with at this moment. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we may very well postpone the further consideration of this-


George Perry Graham: 
Robert Laird Borden: I was about to bring my remarks to a conclusion and I shall be very glad indeed to give the floor to my hon. friend in order that we may hear what observations he has to make.


George Perry Graham: I wanted to point out
to my right hon. friend that in all the clauses he has cited of the Canadian Naval Service Act as giving power to the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council could not act where a dollar of money was concerned until it has consulted Parliament. And although these powers had to be given to a particular department to take certain proceedings, as is done in connection with all administrative business of the Government, the minister and the Governor in Council had to come to Parliament for every dollar and had to lay before Parliament the particulars of how they intended to spend that dollar, and then the Governor in Council, as in the case of all other public expenditure, went on with the expenditure. I want further to call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact that one of the chief arguments used by the then Opposition against the Naval Service Act of 1910 was that it provided for a reference of these matters to Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate the importance of what the hon. gentleman has said, but I would like to point out to him that Mr. BORDEN.
the hon. member for Welland, who has been the spokesman of hon. gentlemen on the other side in regard to this matter, declares that he is willing to make an appropriation under the Naval Service Act at once, and if that appropriation were made all these dreadful powers would be vested in the Governor in Council immediately, and therefore you would have the precise condition which is presented to the committee by this Bill now under consideration. The purpose of this Bill is twofold, namely, to provide an appropriation and also to fix the purpose for which that money is to be expended. My hon. friend from Welland, with the great ability which distinguishes his utterances, has urged that there was a certain control by Parliament under the Naval Service Act of 1910, but I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that we are not only asking" for an appropriation but we are also consulting Parliament as to the purpose for which that appropriation shall be applied. Therefore, Parliament is being consulted as effectually now and as freely as it could be under the provisions of the Naval Service Act of 1910. We have armed ourselves with and given to this committee every reasonable information that could be imagined as to the application of this money. That matter has been gone into with wearisome detail day after day, week after week, month after month. Every possible variety of information has been asked for, and in so far as that information was in the possession of the Government, it has been given freely and without stint. And, as a matter of fact, we know very well (hon. gentlemen opposite do not deny it) that a great deal of information has been asked for merely for the purpose of a party demonstration; I am tempted to say a party game. We understand that perfectly on this side of the House, and it is equally well understood on the other side of the House. There is no departure from constitutional principles in this Bill. We are asking for a sum of money, which according to the contention of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House might be reasonably granted and ought properly be granted by the representatives of the Canadian people in Parliament, for the purpose of rendering two great services to this Empire: in the first place by giving an effective and immediate aid under conditions which have already been dwelt upon over and over again; and in the second place for the purpose of demonstrating to all the nations of the world that if there is to be any assault upon the naval power of Great Britain, upon which depends the existence of this Empire, this Dominion of Canada will stand by the Mother Country in all that makes for the absolute security of this Dominion and the rest

of the Empire. I for one am not disposed to minimize the importance of having this measure being accompanied by a certain sentiment on the part of this Parliament. I am not insensible of the value of that, and I do not think that men in the Mother Country and in the other dominions of the Empire are insensible of the value of that sentiment. But I would like to point out to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that this measure was not introduced in the spirit in which the Naval Service Act of 1910 was introduced. That Act was introduced in a fiercely controversial speech, and in introducing this measure I went to the utmost possible extent to avoid the suspicion of any word that might raise controversial feeling amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. That was acknowledged by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, who spoke immediately after me, and therefore it seems to me that when the hon. member for Welland dwelt upon the importance of that sentiment-and I do not minimize it for one moment-he ought to lay the blame for any loss of value in that regard at the right door. At this moment I will not enter into a consideration of the question as to whose door that loss of sentiment must be laid at. At this hour of the night I will not proceed further with any discussion, but I will move that further consideration


Mr. DEVLIN:: May I ask a question? Will the terms, conditions and arrangements, as may be agreed upon between the Governor in Council and His Majesty's Government, be submitted to Parliament before they are concluded?


Robert Laird Borden: If Parliament should be in session when those arrangements are concluded, they would of course be brought down immediately. If they are concluded in the meantime, they would be laid before Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
I therefore move:
That the further consideration of clause 5 be now postponed.
Committee divided on Mr. Borden's motion: yeas, 84; nays, 41.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I mentioned to my hon. friends yesterday in the course of some discussion that took place that I proposed to move to add a clause to this Bill, the purport of which I stated at that time. I move that the following clause be added after clause 5:
6. A detailed statement of the sums expended under the authority of this Act for the then last preceding fiscal year shall be laid before the House of Copimons during the first fifteen days of each session of Parliament.
It is the ordinary form of clause which is embodied in the Appropriation Act and which I think it is only fair and reasonable to embody in this Bill. My hon. friend the member for Welland (Mr. German) directed 3ome observations which brought this matter to my attention.


Jacques Bureau: Does this mean that the details of the expenditure incurred under this Act shall not be placed in the report of the Auditor General, as is done in the case of ojther expenditures?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it means that they shall be. It is the provision contained in the ordinary Appropriation Act under which the Auditor General makes his report to Parliament.


Jacques Bureau: This will be a special report laid before Parliament within the first fifteen days of each session. Will all that detailed expenditure be repearted in the report of the Auditor General?


Robert Laird Borden: This clause imposes upon the Auditor General the duty of reporting upon this expenditure jusft as upon all other expenditures.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The proposal contained in the new clause of my right hon. friend is probably all right so far as it goes. The difficulty is that it does not go far enough. It is like locking the sdable after the horse has been stolen. I think my right hon. friend would be compelled to submit this information to Parliament even if this clause were not in the Bill. We do not expect that there is going to be so much Star Chamber about this; my hon. friends are surely not going to spend $15,000,000 annually and not ftell Parliament what they have done with it. Before the money is expended, there should be some protection to the country by which we shall know that fthe money is being fairly expended, or in other words that the country is getting value received for the money.
At this late hour I am not going to enlarge upon the ideas which I have in mind, but I want to propose an amendment. Perhaps it would be better to put it in as another clause, but I think I can work it in as an amendment. It is along these lines:
Provided, however, that all works executed under this Act shall be by contract awarded upon public tender.
That is the idea which I wish to convey. If it is not worded exactly as it should be, that will be an easy matter to arrange later on. The most important point that we have to consider about this Bill at this stage is that the expenditure of this money shall be guarded by the ordinary means of protection thrown around the expenditure of all moneys. Under the general law of Canada, no contracts over $5,000 can be let by a minister except upon public tender. My

friends are taking the power under this Bill as it now stands to expend $35,000,000 or $40,000,000, entirely by private arrangement between the right hon. the _ Prime Minister or some other member of his Government and private firms not in Canada, but in England. Even if these private firms were in Canada, it would be bad enough, but not nearly so bad because Parliament could bring these people before it and get some information from them. The first principles of responsible government would demand that this money must be expended upon public tender. When these tenders come into the hands of this Government, this Parliament would have the right to look at them and we would know exactly what the different firms in the British Empire agreed to do the work for. Perhaps it might not give us very much relief, because the money will be gone; but at least we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that hon. gentlemen opposite tried to get the best tenders _ they could, and that the firm which was willing to do the work for the least amount of money, Was given the contract. If it was given to any other firm, then Parliament would have the right to deal with the matter, and the public would have the right to have the information. Suppose this clause goes through as it is, and suppose my right hon. friend goes over to^ the Old Country and makes a contract with John Brown and Company, Cammell, Laird and Company, Vickers, Sons and Maxim or any other big concern. We do not know whether they have gone to all of the firms or only to one of them, we do not know what efforts they have made, what specifications they have submitted to this company or that company, we do not know anything about it at all. All we know is that the Government has spent $40,000,000 and we do not know whether they have made a good trade or not. It is not necessary to elaborate this matter, I think it is a clause so reasonable that my right hon. friend will be the first person to accept it.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to overlook the fact that these ships might be built in one of His Majesty's dockyards. As far as the construction of ships is concerned, we would be guided by the advice of the Admiralty and build the ships in accordance with the practice over there. I do not know whether it is their practice in all cases to call for public tenders. I know that they build some ships in their own dockyards. My hon. friend may have no apprehension about the practice to be followed because we shall be guided by the advice of the Admiralty as to the best method to adopt.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not like these pious professions of my right hon. friend. There has been nothing but pious professions ever Mr. CARVELL
since this Naval Bill was introduced. If my right hon. friend were dealing with this himself I will do him the credit to say that I would have considerable faith in what he might do but I have not that faith in all the gentlemen by whom he is surrounded and my right hon. friend might not be here when these contracts are let. My friend says we might go to His Majesty's dockyards. Even if they should go to the Government dockyards they ought to have tenders in order to know if they could get the ships cheaper somewhere else.
I am not an advocate of public ownership and if the public dockyards in Great Britain are no greater success than public ownership in Canada, I think we ought to have tenders. That is one of the strongest reasons why we should have public tenders so that we would know what we were doing. My hon. friend says there might be some difficulty because the ships may be built under the direction of the Admiralty. The former Government had not any difficulty in calling for tenders for the vessels they proposed to construct under the Naval Service Act and they were working in cooperation with the Admiralty. They got the specifications and all details of the ships from the Admiralty, they called for tenders, they took those tenders to England and the Admiralty figured it out and told them which were the lowest tenders. They did not have any difficulty in working under the Admiralty and calling for tenders. Therefore my right hon. friend will have no difficulty. I do not think he has given a reason which will satisfy his followers and I have grave doubts whether it satisfies himself.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not at all
intended to express the idea that we shall not call for tenders but I would point out that when a very considerable sum was voted some three years ago, if I remember correctly, for the Canadian Naval Service there was no provision attached to the grant that the ships should be built by tender. The Government of the day took that course.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That money was not
voted, it was put in the estimates like any other expenditure.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difference?


George Perry Graham: The difference is this
that as I recollect it, and I think I am correct, no contract for over $5,000 can be awarded by any minister except by public" tender and then the amount goes in the estimates in the usual way. That is the practice that has been followed, and I think it is followed by the present Government. ' In this case the amounts are not

in the estimates and not subject to that restriction.


Robert Laird Borden: The terms of the statute would not have included these ships, they relate only, I think, to public works, and I am not sure whether it is a statute or an Order in Council.


George Perry Graham: I think it is an Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it relates to public works and would not include ships. But the late Government took the reasonable course of calling for tenders. It is exceedingly probable that that course would be adopted by this Government. We would [DOT]have no disposition to depart from the usual practice. I am simply pointing out that there might be conditions which would make it undesirable to have the grant tied up in this way and also that when the grant was made on a previous occasion by the late Government no such condition was attached to it. Parliament placed the money in the hands of the Government in the expectation that they would deal with the subject in a reasonable way and the Government called for tenders. It is quite possible that these ships would be built in one of the (Government dockyards in Great Britain. As to all these matters we must be governed by the experts of the Admiralty who know more about the construction of ships than any person in this country or any of the experts in the employ of this Government, and under these circumstances it would not seem to me to be a reasonable thing that it should be tied up in that way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government
been approached by some firms for the construction of ships?


Robert Laird Borden: No, there has been no
approach at all except that in Great Britain, of course, my attention was directed to the fact that there are many firms over there capable of building the vessels, but there were no negotiations of any kind that took place. The Government are absolutely free to deal with the matter in such way as they may deem best in the public interest.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The reason I ask is that I saw in the morning paper the other day a statement that the Armstrong firm had approached the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: There have been no
negotiations on the subject whatever.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The motion of my
hon. friend from Carleton simply asks that the principle of tender and contract for the expenditure of public money be recognized as a principle in this measure. I do not
understand that my right hon. friend the Premier undertakes to say that that principle should not be recognized. I venture to say that no responsible minister or Premier in this country would undertake to assume that position and if the Premier does not take that antagonistic attitude there is no reason why such a provision should not be put in the Bill, subject to such reservations, ,if there are any, as would enable the Government to deal with the particular cases. There is no reason why this committee or this House should accept any assurance from any government of any political party in regard to such a large expenditure and decline to put in the resolution authorizing an expenditure those wise restrictions which have long been settled under the parliamentary system. My right hon. friend tells us now, after six months of discussion on this measure, after prolonged interviews with the Admiralty, that he does not know whether the ships he proposes to build are to be built by tender and contract or not. His inquiries into the method of dealing with the building of ships have not gone so far that he is able to tell the House and the country how the ships are built by the Admiralty. It seems to me, that, since this measure has reached a stage where probably no further opportunity will be given to hon. gentlemen in this House to suggest any amendment that will be accepted, the Prime Minister is assuming a very great responsibility if he undertakes to say that he will not put in this measure these natural and proper safeguards in regard to tender and contract that ought to be found in regard to the expenditure of public money in every statute. If there are any exceptions that the hon. gentleman thinks can exist, let him put them in the clause but let the principle of expenditure by tender and contract be included in the Bill. My right hon. friend can draw a clause perfectly apt in every way to provide for any contingency which he might think could possibly arise in connection with Admiralty expenditure but I think he can hardly undertake at this stage, having regard to all the circumstances, to refuse to recognize in regard to this measure the principle of tender and contract with reference to expenditures.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish to enter upon an extended discussion of this as it is nearly one o'clock. There are many reasons which might be advanced why this should be adopted. Let me tell my right hon. friend one reason. He seems to be under the misapprehension that if this amendment were adopted he might not be allowed to make a contract with the Admiralty dockyards because possibly their tender might prevent it. There is nothing in
x

this amendment which says he must take the lowest tender. Suppose he received two tenders and the one from the Admiralty dockyard was a little higher than the other and yet he would rather deal with them, this would not prevent him doing so. All I ask is the recognition of the principle of public tender. We know that in many cases governments call for tenders but they are not compelled to take the lowest. Tenders are called for and a vast amount of information is gained in that way. I do not wish to go into this discussion. He might ' glide ' over it as he has the other, and we shall have another opportunity to discuss the matter as we shall to discuss the remainder of the Bill.


Mr. BOBDEN:: Does the hon. gentleman wish the consideration of it postponed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought perhaps the right hon. gentleman might. I do not wish to move it myself, but thought perhaps he would do that.


Frederick William Borden: We do not want to stay here any longer than we can help. I move that the further consideration of the proposed section 6 be postponed.
Committee divided on Mr. Borden's motion: Yeas, 85; nays, 45.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend from
South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) had some observations with regard to the title of the Act. We have considered everything but the title, and I suppose we might as well consider that now. The title is ' An Act to authorize measures for increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.' I do not know whether the hon. member has any observations to offer with regard to it.


George Perry Graham: In discussing the question, I think I said I had been absent, but that had I been present I should have made some observations. But as the Bill has got to its present stage, I think my observations would not be as appropriate as they would have been at that time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the preamble be adopted?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no preamble.
And if there were, I do not see how you could adopt it now. Only one clause of the Bill has been adopted-clause 1. All the rest is under consideration. I do not see how we can adopt anything else until these clauses have been considered.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no preamble, but only the title.


William Manley German: As we have got through all the rest of the clauses I think we had better let the Bill ' glide.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I understand it the title cannot be passed upon until all these Mr. CARVELL.
sections of the Bill have been adopted. Section 1 which was adopted is the short title of the Bill, but that is not the title. I think we cannot consider the title until the Bill has gone through committee.


Robert Laird Borden: The title, I understand, is dealt with on the third reading:
I beg to give notice that at the next sitting of the Committee of the Whole House upon this Bill I shall move that the further consideration of the second, third, fourth and fifth se tions and of the proposed sixth section of this Bill, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed.
Progress reported.


Robert Laird Borden: With the indulgence of
the House, I would move seconded by Mr Cochrane:
That Messrs. Chabot and Devlin be added to the Select Special Committee to consider Bills Nos. 2 and 116, respecting the pollution of navigable waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: We will take the same
Bill to-morrow. I move that the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 9, 1913.