[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 193, to incorporate the Canadian Central and Labrador Railway Company.- Mr. Devlin.

Mr. MACDONALD:: Before the Orders
of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he has received any communication from the Imperial Government or from any of the other dominions within the Empire with reference to the holding of a conference in regard to naval defence during this year?


Mr. BORDEN:: No such communication
has been received.



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 8. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. CARROLL:: Mr. Chairman, I desire


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move that further consideration of the second, third, fourth-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Who has the
floor, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: I had no time to call any clause of the Bill, and I think it is out of order for a member to rise before that is done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Then, we are all out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Bill No. 21, section
2.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move:
That further consideration of the second, third, fourth and fifth sections and the proposed sixth section of this Bill shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.


Mr. ETHIER:: I ask that the motion
be read in French.
The motion was then read in French.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Has clause 6 been
printed?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As this is a public
Bill, I do not think it requires to be printed.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Chairman, I
desire


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall I declare the
motion carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: ' No.
Committee divided on motion of Mr. Borden: Yeas, 71; nays, 44.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I just
wish to enter my protest against your putting the question while the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) had the floor and was addressing you. It was entirely inexcusable to do so.
On section 2:
From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Before we
proceed, as we are coming for the first time to the application of the new rules of the House


Mr. BUREAU:: Call it the gag.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to calling it the gag; it is the same thing. I take it that the light we have
had on the discussion has not been very illuminating, and I would like to ask my right hon. friend what the rule means. The notice he gave last night was to the effect that clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the new clause 6, would be the first consideration. There are, therefore, four clauses of the Bill to be examined as it stands now. I understand that, as we are limited, one member may speak only once, and each speech must be limited to twenty minutes. Do I understand that no one can speak more than once in the debate, or do I understand that a member can speak upon each clause and that upon eacn clause he is limited to twenty minutes? May he speak five times in this debate, or only once?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that each
member can speak once only on each clause as it comes up, up to two o'clock, the time mentioned in the rule, and that no member may exceed twenty minutes. For example, if we should take a vote upon clause 2 at five o'clock, then we proceed to clause 3, and so on through the evening, and upon each clause a member has the right to speak twentv minutes if he has the floor.


Wilfrid Laurier: And at two
o'clock, if we have not finished our work, what then?


Robert Laird Borden: We take the vote.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh-the kangaroo.


William F. Carroll: I wish to say a few words on this clause and on the Bill before the very final stages are reached. I am rather sorry, Mr. Chairman, that, having had the floor first this afternoon, you did not give me an opportunity to say what I had to say at that time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member is reflecting on the Chair. I gave the reasons at the time; I had not called any order, and nothing had been put before the committee.


William F. Carroll: I am expressing merely my sorrow that you did not permit me to speak when I had the floor. Notwithstanding that fact, there are a few observations which I wish to make. And it is a good thing that there are occasions in this Parliament when an ordinary, humble member of the House is entitled, notwithstanding the present rule, to say a few words, not only on behalf of the particular constituency he represents, but also on behalf of the public at large. There is no doubt that this question has had a lot of consideration; it has been very widely and rather freely discussed. But there are some phases of the question that, to my mind, have not been brought to the atten-

tion of this House in the way in which they should have been brought.
There is not very much difference between the policies of the two parties, the Government and the Opposition. Both parties, as I understand it, are willing that we should contribute something toward the naval defence of the Empire. The Government wishes to make that contribution in the shape of $35,000,000, to be sent over to the Old Country and worked up into three dreadnought battleships which shall be under the control of the British Admiralty. We on this side prefer the policy which was made unanimous in 1909, that is that we should assist Great Britain and the Empire not by money contributions, but in the way of building ships in this country, have them in this country to defend our coasts, and have them available to the Empire in times of stress, but to be manned and maintained by this country. I take the ground representing a large section of the labour people of this country, that the policy of the Liberal party is the policy that should be carried out. I secondly take the ground that that policy is the best policy for Canada, for it would give a great stimulus to the iron and steel and other great industries of this country.
Now, the steel industry of Canada, as a matter of fact, is only about ten or eleven years old. Ten or eleven years ago there were no great steel plants in Canada. The Dominion Steel Company's plant, situated at the city of Sydney, in the constituency I have the honour to represent, is a magnificent industry. There are three districts in this country in which the steel industry could naturally be developed. The first is the province of Nova Scotia, from which the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country comes. In that province, I believe, steel may be manufactured more cheaply than in any other part of this country. It is true that in that province we have not very much of the ore, ibut the ore is almost at our door in the province of Newfoundland, and transportation by water from Newfoundland to the shores of Cape Breton is very cheap and easily accomplished. We have in the province of Nova Scotia probably the greatest coal areas in Canada. For these reasons the steel industry there should be fostered and developed more readily and more cheaply than in any other part of the country. Then we have another district in the central part of Canada, in Ontario, where the steel industry is an accomplished fact. However, I do not believe that they are in a position there to manufacture steel as cheaply as we in the province of Nova Scotia. They have the ore, it is true; but their difficulty is the coal. Coal may be obtained from the lower provinces and also from the United States, and when the canal system of this country is completed Mr. CARROLL.
the coal will be more cheaply brought into the province of Ontario than it is at the present time. We have another district in which the steel industry may be developed some day; that is, on the Pacific coast. They have there, I believe, the raw materials. Why the industry has not flourished there is a matter of which I do not know very much. I hold it as axiomatic that the steel and coal industries of Nova Scotia are the backbone of that province, and, as a matter of fact, of the Maritime provinces. I believe that if the steel industry were a failure in Nova Scotia we should be in a worse position than we were in before. Previous to Confederation, the province of Nova Scotia flourished. We had our wholesale houses at Halifax. Our merchants controlled the entire business of Nova Scotia. But after we came into Confederation the wholesale business was transferred from Halifax to cities in the upper provinces or across the sea. Up to twelve years ago, business in the province of Nova Scotia was absolutely stagnant. In those days it was almost impossible for an ordinary man in Nova Scotia to make a decent living. Thousands upon thousands of our young men and young women were obliged to go aoross to the United States, not only to earn a living for themselves, but to send occasionally a few dollars to their parents who were in straitened circumstances on the old homesteads. But a new era dawned. The Dominion Coal Company was incorporated, and began to develop the magnificent coal resources of the province of Nova Scotia. In its wake followed the Dominion Steel Company, which was the natural concomitant of the coal corporation, and from that time on this steel company has been using thousands upon thousands of tons of the coal which has been mined by the Dominion Coal Company, in the operation of its work. In this way great industrial centres have sprung up and are flourishing in Nova Scotia to-day, and a magnificent market has been established for the products of the agricultural sections of the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and for the eastern sections of the province of New Brunswick. That being the case, it is most important to the industrial life of the Maritime provinces not only that the steel industry should flourish, but that it should be fostered at every opportunity and in every possible way. There is one great way of fostering this industry; instead of sending this $35,000,000 across to the Old Country to make the rich men in England richer, we should use it for the construction of battleships to be placed along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In that case not only would there be flourishing in this country a great ship-building industry, but there would be afforded to the steel organizations of this country that

stimulous which they so badly need at the present time, and there would be afforded to them a market for thousands upon thousands of tons of steel which they are in a position to manufacture to-day, but for which they have no market. It is a notorious fact that the great drawback experienced by the steel industry in this country is the cheapness with which steel is manufactured across the border. It is true that we have a tariff wall, but what appeals to me as a Canadian; what appeals to me as one who is desirous that the steel industry of this country should flourish and that the workingmen in Canada should get all the advantages which this or any future Parliament is able to give them, is that we should do everything we can to help out the industries which we already have instead of taking a course which I consider to be absolutely detrimental to them. I could go on and show to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this committee, the great good to be derived from the spending of this money in Canada.
I might go on from now until two o'clock in the morning, but unfortunately, under the present rules of this House, that course is not open to me. But, having made myself clear on this point, I want to say that I cannot understand why any Government should take such a course as that which has been pursued by the present Administration. If there were an emergency, if there were a crying need that we should send our millions of money across the Atlantic, I do not think there is a man on this side of the House, I do not think there are a dozen men in Canada, who w;ould not rise, put their hands in their pockets and send over to Great Britain a sufficient amount of money to offset the dangers of that emergency. But there was no emergency last fall when this Bill was introduced; there is no emergency to-day, and, if we are to judge from the reports of the newspapers and the recent utterances of statesmen in England, there is not much fear of an emergency in tha near future. Why, then, in the name of common sense, should this Government, in view of the fact that there is no pressing need, send $35,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada across the Atlantic to make the ship-building industry of Great Britain greater, when that money could be spent in this country not only to the advantage of our great industries, but to the lasting benefit of our workingmen?
We are told that ship-building cannot become an accomplished fact in this country for twenty-five or fifty years. I strongly resent this statement; it should be resented and repudiated from one end of this country to the other. I hold in my hands a few sentences clipped from the London
Times. The London Times is the friend of the great industries in the British Isles; if it sees in the present or foresees in the future anything tending to harm or disturb these industries, that paper fights it to the bitter end. Here is what a late edition of the Times says:
If the Canadian people set themselves to build battleships, they would achieve their purpose as rapidly as any people in the world who are undertaking the business for the first time.
That is the commencement of the editorial, but, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, mark the reason why the London Times would rather see $35,000,000 coming over to the Old Country to help the ship-building industries in England, rather than that it should be used as the foundation of a ship-building industry in Canada. Mark the following lines:
But there is the serious objection that the more rapidly they succeed the more certainly would their success be gained at the cost of our ship-building interests here.
This needs no further comment, Mr. Chairman. They admit the ability of the people of Canada to establish a ship-building industry in this country, but they do uot wish to see ns do it, because it would injure their own ship-building industry. Is that the reason why Canada and Canadian interests are being ignored in the present Bill, to the advantage of the shipbuilding industry in the Old Land?
The steel and the coal industries are not the only enterprises in this country. Everything required for the construction of a battleship \can be obtained in Canada. If armour plate is not manufactured in this country at the present time, is there a man sitting on the Government benches' who would say it is impossible to manufacture it in the future? We have more nickle in Canada than there is in any other country of the world. Nickle is used in the construction of battleships; would it not be a wise act on the part of this Government, would it not be highly to their credit, if they should undertake to construct these ships in this country, or some of them at least, and thus foster and develop the nickle industry in Canada? And then the lumber industry is to be considered; considerable lumber is used in the construction of battleships. What will the friends of the right hon. gentleman in the province of New Brunswick, which has a great lumber industry, say to him and to his party when he goes before them on this question? Will they not say that the Government has practically told the lumber interests in the province of New Brunswick : So far as we are concerned, we do not care if the lumber industry dies out; we are going to send $35,009,000 across the



Atlantic to help out the great ship-building industry of the Old Land; to the dogs with the lumber industry of Canada, to the dogs with the steel industry of Canada, to the wolves with the nickel industry of this country, so long as we can keep the friendship of the great ship-building industries across the Atlantic. So long as we can be looked upon as the party of loyalty and the only competent party to wave the flag, we will let all those industries go, we will hold on to power, and we will not go to the Canadian people and ask them which of the two oolicies they prefer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's time is now up.


Robert Laird Borden: As my} hon. friend is making an interesting speech, from his point of view, I would suggest that if he desires to continue his remarks, with the consent of the House he may do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will you do
the same at two o'clock in the morning?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand it is
with the unanimous consent of the committee that the hon. gentleman should proceed.


Jacques Bureau: I think we should have a time-keeper here if we are to be limited in that way. I do not think it is fair to trust the Chair.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: I desire to know whether the extension of time to the hon. member means that other members who may desire to speak later will be shut off from discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, if any hon.
member objects to my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) proceeding, the rule must be observed. I suggested as a matter of courtesy that the hon. gentleman might continue his remarks with the consent of the House.


Mr. BELAND:: Will you extend the same courtesy at 2 o'clock in the morning?


William Pugsley: There is no rule. The
hon. member can continue his remarks as a matter of right.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that there is a definite rule of the House on this subject, and I do not think that my hon. friend's mode of treating what I intended to be a courteous suggestion is very commendable.


William Pugsley: My reason for stating so is that I sincerely believe there is no binding rule. There was a resolution carried by the majority, in which the minority had no voice, and no opportunity to make amendments or suggestions. I say it is not a rule of this House, but simply a Mr. CARROLL .
tyrannical resolution of a majority of this House.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: If there is a
point of order, I would like to say a word.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not see that there is any point of order.


Michael Clark: Then I want to raise one. I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, is, as usual, extremely courteous, but I question if his course is one which, in the end, will lead to the orderly conduct of debate in this House. I totally disagree with my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) when he says there is no rule. The rules have been passed, and they are now the legal rules by which debate is conducted in this House. I totally disagree with my hon. friend, but I also disagree with the action of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, because when we have rules, debate in this House should be conducted accordingly to the rules, and not by the favour of any man, even if he be a man whom I regard so highly as my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid my hon.
friend from Red Deer misunderstood me. When a man has lost his privilege by already speaking, we sometimes permit him to speak again for some particular reason. That can only be done by the unanimous consent of the House. My suggestion was subject to the unaimous. consent of the House, therefore every member in the House had the right to safeguard himself in respect to it. I agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer that we ought to observe the rules. My suggestion was made entirely in good faith, and, as I have said, was subject to the unanimous consent of the House) under which condition every member of the House would have the right to protect himself.


Michael Clark: I do not want to prolong this debate. I hope my right hon. friend understands that no one appreciates hik courtesy more than I do, but I do not appreciate his point as to any one of us not having had opportunities of talking upon this subject.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Chairman, whether or not there is a rule of this House limiting debate to twenty minutes


Mr. CARVELL:: That rule is gone now.


William F. Carroll: I appreciate the action
of the right hon. gentleman in allowing me to finish my remarks. In view of the fact that, in my humble judgment, the sending out of this money to Great Britain will be detrimental to the fostering of the steel and coal industry in this country, in view of the fact that it is going to be detrimental to the nickel industry of this country, in

view of the fact that it is and will be detrimental to the lumbering industries of this country, I had prepared a motion which I intended to move when you first took the Chair. That motion I shall read in a few moments. I have set forth as briefly as I can the reasons which prompted me to give vent to this motion, that is, in so far as the great industries of this country are concerned. I further take the ground that the money which this Government is going to expend comes out of the pockets of the poor working men as much as out of the pockets of the rich men of this country. In fact I contend that in the way of tariff duties they will pay more than the rich men. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, representing a constituency which in my humble judgment, is the greatest industrial constituency in Canada, I protest most strongly against the sending of the money out of the country. These are the reasons I have in view in making this motion:
That the following he added to the Bill as section 7:
Whenever practicable, in the construction of the ships provided under this Act, the contractors or builders shall be bound to accept steel and other materials produced in Canada at the current prices for the time being in Canada.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think it would be
more advisable if the hon. member would defer his motion until we have disposed of clause 6. There is an amendment and a sub-amendment to clause 3.


William F. Carroll: If the Chairman would allow me to make this motion at the end of the consideration of the present clause,
I would be only too happy to postpone it.


William Pugsley: I think that is understood.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not see any rule which would allow me to do so.


William F. Carroll: I do not want to be
understood as trying to get the Chairman to make a breach of the rules. But I might not have .another opportunity to move this motion unless with permission.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: As a matter of order, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that there would be no difficulty about his making a motion immediately after the disposition of the two sub-amendments to clause 2, by way of an amendment, and he can do the same with respect to other clauses.


William F. Carroll: That being well understood, I shall not encroach any further upon the time of the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I might say to my hon.
friend that he could move his amendment to clause 2 before two o'clock, but I do not think he could do so afterwards. However, he could do it on the third reading if he desired.
299J


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the
puzzle. He cannot do it after two o'clock, but he cannot do it before the clause is disposed of, and if it is not disposed of before two o'clock, he is shut off altogether. You can do anything you please up to two o'clock, but after two o'clock the axe falls.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend
would surely be disposed to admit that in nineteen or twenty days we ought to be able to make sufficient progress to enable every amendment to be considered.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not admit anything of the kind. I can show precedents of Bills of less importance that have taken the House more than thirty days in Committee of the Whole, and, moreover, we had the example of my right hon. friend only last evening, after twenty days in committee, moving an amendment.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a few observations. I am pleased that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll)-


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I would like to know what time it is now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Look at the clock.


John Wesley Edwards: If the hon. member for Laval is asking me a question, I did not hear it.


Charles Avila Wilson: I was addressing the
Chairman.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: He wants to put a nigger in the fence.


John Wesley Edwards: I want, in the first
place, to congratulate the hon. member for Cape Breton South that he, at all events, kept within the rules, was willing to'submit to the rules and has no ambition apparently to have his name enrolled upon the scroll of martyrs. That distinction, I suppose, is reserved for some person else later on-possibly the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I was also pleased to notice that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) took occasion to say, and to say very properly, that we were under new rules now, that these new rules should guide us and that as we were a set of gentlemen in this House we should submit to them. I was not at all surprised to see the hon. member for St. John taking a different position. I fancy that no set of rules could be framed, even by this or any other legislative body, that would exactly suit that hon. gentleman, even if he had the framing of those rules himself. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has referred to the importance of the steel industry of this country and, coming as he does from a part of the country where the steel industry has attained to great dimensions, he speaks very properly of that. It is quite

true, as lie says, that there are great opportunities in front of Canada for the development of the steel and iron industries and of ship building. As far as I have been able to learn, during this debate, there has never been an expression of opinion from a member on this side of the House against the establishment of steel industries or of ship-building in this country. There has never been an expression of opinion from any hon. member on this side of the House to the effect that the Canadian people were incapable of building ships. These words have been put into the mouths of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and that impression has been sought to be conveyed by hon. gentlemen opposite. We have never maintained anything of the kind. We maintain that this $35,000,000, which is being granted for the specific purpose of building three dreadnoughts, could be expended better and more to the advantage of Canada and the Empire by having these ships built in the Old Country. Many hon. members on the other side of the House have expressed themselves as being in agreement with that view. While the debate was in progress I put the question to several hon. gentlemen: Suppose you went on with the building of two fleet units, one for the Atlantic and one for the Pacific-these fleet units would have to be headed each by a dreadnought- where will you have these dreadnoughts built? All the hon. members to whom that question was addressed expressed themselves as to being favourable to having these dreadnoughts built in England. Would it not be an unreasonable thing for the Dominion of Canada to undertake to establish shipyards here for the building of dreadnoughts? I am only speaking of dreadnoughts and not of the smaller class of war vessels. It would seem to me to be an unbusinesslike proposition for the people of Canada to invest a large sum of money in a plant for the building of dreadnoughts unless they intend to continue in the dreadnought building business. I do not think there are many hon. gentlemen on either side of the House who would take the position that Canada would be prepared to go into the dreadnought building business. Would it be wise or businesslike for us to establish an expensive plant to build two or three dreadnoughts? It would be a very foolish thing to do.
As regards the building of smaller vessels, that is an entirely different proposition. While hon. gentlemen speak with regard to ship-building and our shipping interests in this country, what have they done, what did they do during the time they were in power, to develop the shipbuilding industry? Is it not a fact that many of the Government vessels engaged in dredging and other Government work Mr. EDWARDS.
were purchased by the Laurier Government outside of Canada? Why were these vessels not built in Canada? Why did the former Government, if they were so full of the idea of encouraging ship-building in this country, not make a start and build two vessels instead of going to the Old Country and buying the Rainbow and the Niobe?
The hon. member for Cape Breton South speaks in regard to out lumber, iron and all that sort of thing and he says that we are throwing them to the dogs, or to the wolves. Mr. Chairman, I could understand that statement if hon. gentlemen were in power. I dare say that when the hon. member for Cape Breton South made use of those words, there flashed through the mind of the hon. member sitting in front of him (Mr. Pugsley) some idea of sawdust wharves and all that sort of thing when the money was thrown-I do not know whether you call it to the dogs or to the wolves. But at all events a great deal of it.went in that way.


William Pugsley: That is a very important matter to introduce into a discussion of the naval question.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would invite the
hon. gentleman to keep as close as possible to the question.


John Wesley Edwards: What is that, Mr. Chairman?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman is out of order.


John Wesley Edwards: Am I out of order in
my remarks, or. has my time expired?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that it
makes a considerable difference when an hon. member has only twenty minutes to speak, but the rule is still there that his remarks must be strictly relevant to the clause under discussion.


John Wesley Edwards: I would like to ask
you, Mr. Chairman, if my time is up, and if it is I do not want to exceed it by half a minute. I would be obliged to you if you would tell me when the twenty minutes is up. I believe that rule is a proper one and one that should have been applied in this country long before the present time.
I was about to give a reason for the opposition to this Bill. It is not because of the amount, for the Opposition has told us time and again they are not opposing this because it is $35,000,000 and that in their generosity they would give hundreds of millions of dollars-the hon. member for Welland was going to give something like a hundred million dollars himself-it is not the question of the amount that is involved, it is simply that the position taken by the Conservative party in this country and the position taken under this Bill to which

the Conservative party is committed, means a closer alliance between Canada and Great Britain, and the position taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House means just the opposite. That is the germ of the whole situation, and I maintain that the opposition of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition to this Bill is in line with his whole conduct as a public man in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: He has announced himself-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stick to clause 2.


John Wesley Edwards: I maintain, Sir, that
is the reason why this Bill is being opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite.. In conclusion, I wish to say that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has opposed this Bill because he wants to lessen the moral effect which this grant of $35,000,000 will have upon the countries of the world. That is the position taken by the Opposition. It is a position of separation, of getting away, of dividing. It is all very well for the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, when speaking in Toronto, to throw out one or two sentences in order to catch the people of Ontario, hut he is on record in ' Hansard ' time and again, and also across the line, as having announced himself in favour of separation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Take it back. Time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time of the hon. member has expired.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) asked if it would be wise to establish a shipyard in Canada for the purpose of building dreadnoughts, as only two or three were to be built. The object in establishing shipyards in this country is to encourage the building of commercial ships. The large commercial ships plying to-day between here and England, and in fact some of those that ply on the great lakes, are practically as large as dreadnoughts. That is a good reason for establishing shipyards capable of building dreadnoughts. In connection with that I would like to read a little memorandum that came under my eyes last night, that during the last twelve years there were built for the great lakes two hundred and ten ships costing $25,000,000, of which amount $18,000,000 has been spent in other countries for ships used in our carrying trade. That is one reason why we wanted to encourage shipbuilding and the laying down of shipyards in this country by commencing with the building of a Canadian navy. We did not expect that the shipyards would continue to build battleships. Many people who Mr. EDWARDS.
have discussed this question have told us that there is no reason why we should not build up a great ship-building industry, at least in the Maritime provinces.
My hon. friend from Frontenac says: Why did you not encourage ship-building? the observations which I have just made will be an answer to him-that we were endeavouring to encourage ship-building when we brought in our Naval Bill. He asks: Why did you buy the Rainbow and the Niobe? We bought them for use as training ships? It was absolutely necessary, according to our programme, that we should train men to man our ships when built, and it was also absolutely necessary that we should commence at once.
Speaking of the Opposition in this House, my hon. friend said" that if all governments were carried on in the face of such opposition as we are putting up against this Bill, it would have to be a matter of compromise. All government by the people must be a matter of compromise. Is there any other possible way of democratic government? He says quite truly that we on this side of the House have a voice in the affairs of the country and have a right to have it.


George Perry Graham: On everything, of course, except the rules.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: mg a Canadian navy, is that he wanted a voice in the foreign affairs policy of Great Britain. I understand that Mr. Lewis Har-court and Mr. Asquith have since then told him that it is absolutely impossible to grant him a voice in Britain's foreign policy, and so far as I am concerned-and I have very strong convictions on that point -I do not want a voice in the management of Britain's foreign affairs, and I hope we shall never be asked to have such a voice. The hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) said that my right hon. leader's policy tended towards separation. We might as well face this question fairly and honestly. In my opinion, there is nothing in the world that would tend so much to the separation of England from Canada as to give us a voice in the management of England's foreign affairs. The reason for that is obvious. If we had a part in the direction of England's foreign affairs, it would* necessarily he a small part in com' parison with that of England herself. And, as we are not faced, as England is, with European and Asiatic questions, it would be impossible for a minister in this country to be educated to understand these questions as they should be understood. There is no doubt in my mind but that, if Canada were represented in an Imperial council, our representative would at times disagree with the other members of that body. Would we not, as a nation, be bound to support his opinion; would we not be bound to be guided by his views ? So far as I am personally concerned-and I think I speak for the people I have the honour to represent-I do not want a voice in the management of England's foreign policy. For the last one hundred years England has been capable of managing her own affairs of foreign policy. I hope that in the future we shall continue to be tied to England by the bonds of sentiment and patriotism; these ties are greater than any other that can bind us to the Mother Country. If we want to show our loyalty to Great Britain, we should allow Great Britain to send her merchandise into this country cheaper than she does at the present time; we would soon make $36,000,000 for Great Britain if we lowered the tariff against her goods coming into this country. Great Britain does not need this contribution of $35,000,000. Everybody who follows commercial transactions throughout the world knows that Great Britain last year had commercially one of the greatest years in her history. Despite the competition of Germany, despite the competition of the United States, England's foreign trade has been one and a half times greater than that of either of those countries. Then hon. gentlemen talk about the moral effect upon Europe of this $35,000,000 contribution. Do you suppose that Germany, France, or any other country in Europ* Mr. NESBITT.
will not know how to size up the moral effect of $35,000,000 ? What do they care for $35,000,000 ?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind the
hon. member


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is my time up?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I was going to say
that, unless the hon. gentleman has leave from the committee to proceed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have nothing further
to say; I have no desire to infringe upon the rules.


Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT (Muskoka):: Mr. Chairman, I desire-


George Perry Graham: The 'gag is off.


William Wright: I desire to occupy the
time of the House for a few moments with regard to this matter. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) says the gag is off; I wish it to be distinctly understood that there has been no gag applied to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House except the gag of common sense. I wish to consider for a moment the objections that have been raised by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to the proposition that is before the Chair. We are told, in the first place, that there is no emergency. Anyone who has taken note of what is happening in the great countries of Europe; anyone who is familiar with the amount of money that is being spent in strengthening the armies and navies of European countries, must be blind indeed if he does not see a very great danger to the British Empire in these conditions. Considering the _ geographical position of the British isles; realizing that for the safety and supremacy of Great Britain she is dependent entirely upon her navy, it is the duty of every Canadian to do. what he can to see ' that the safety and protection of Great Britain and her colonies is put beyond the shadow of a doubt. What is the next objection^ taken? Hon. gentlemen say we are sending out of this country $35,000,000. What is their proposition? To build two fleet units and place one upon the Atlantic and one upon the Pacific. I had understood until lately that that was the intention, hut I heard the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) say that that was not the intention of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I would like to know what their intention is? He says they are not going to have first-class battleships at all; how can they have fleet units without first-class battleships.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I do not want him to put into my mouth any words that

I did not say. I said nothing of the kind, and no human being could have so construed anything I said.


William Wright: I have a little knowledge of the English language, and I will leave it to those hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House who read ' Hansard ' tomorrow to say whether or not I am right. If hon. gentlemen were to commence to build these two fleet units in Canada, I venture the assertion-and I defy contradiction-that they would send to Great Britain a great deal more than $35,000,000 for the articles they would have to obtain outside of Canada for the construction of those ships. We are not objecting to the building of ships in Canada, but we do realize that the building of these fleet units as proposed by the Opposition would entail the expenditure of a very large sum of money, and, even if we were to send abroad for only one-half the material required, it would entail an expenditure much larger than $35,000,000. A statement, based upon reliable information, emanated from this side of the House that we could have built three first-class battleships in England for $35,000,000. The hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition immediately jumped at a conclusion, he said: We will meet you; we will spend $35,000,000 under our proposition, and we will build two fleet units and place one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific. But he has not given one figure to this House to show that this can be done for $35,000,000, nor has there been produced any estimate to show that it can be done for twice that amount. I say it would cost three times $35,000,000 before these fleet units were completed.
Mr. MACDONALD. If the hon. gentleman will refer to ' Hansard ' he will find that information in that regard has been given many times.


William Wright: I want to refer to
another phase of this question. We are told that these fleet units would protect the shipping of Canada. Imagine, Mr. Chairman, if you will, the protection by one fleet unit. Boats leave Vancouver for Honolulu, the Hawaiian Islands. New Zealand, Australia, Tokio, Hong Kong, South American ports, California and Straits of Georgia, San Francisco and Alaska. Are hon. gentlemen opposite serious in regard to that? I venture to say when we consider the fact that boats will continually be leaving for every quarter of the globe, we will come to the conclusion that .fleet units c-n the Atlantic and the Pacific will be of very little use in the protection of our commerce. If we are to have protection of our commerce, we should get it from the British navy. Even if we look at this
matter from the narrow and selfish standpoint of protecting Canadian interests alone, we can do lhat more effectively through the British navy than by building a little navy of our own.
It is held by some hon. gentlemen opposite that in the event of an enemy approaching Canada we should have vessels to protect our coasts. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) gave voice to this opinion the other day. He said that if we should be attacked on the Pacific by an enemy our fleet unit there would be able to protect us until the arrival of the British fleet. But under their policy Parliament would have to be called together before we could help Great Britain, and hon. members from the various constituencies would have to pronounce upon it, and say whether they were willing that Canada should go to the help of Great Britain. I think I hear the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) asking that all the correspondence between England and the country from which an attack was feared, be laid on the table to consider whether the war would be a just one. Then we would have the hon. member for CarRton (Mr. Carvell) backing him up, with several hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. It would take months before they were really satisfied that we ought to go to the help of Great Britain in an emergency. Suppose, however, that we were attacked, what would be sauce for the goose would be sauce for the gander, and Great Britain would certainly be justified in calling the British Parliament together before deciding whether she would come to the assistance of Canada. Cannot hon. gentlemen opposite see the folly of the whole situation? We must keep the British navy strong enough to protect every part of this great Empire. No foe can successfully attack Canada until she has defeated that navy. That is the fundamental principle of the whole situation, and as a humble representative of this House I feel that we are perfectly justified in expending the amount of money proposed in strengthening the naval defence of this great Empire of ours. It is not particularly for England alone, not for Canada alone, but for Australia, New Zealand, and every other section of the great British Empire.
Under the policy that has been outlined by hon. gentlemen opposite, the greatest amount of publicity would be involved. The question of war would have to be discussed in Parliament and everything would become known. Every enemy of Great Britain would be cognizant of every' move that was made. Do hon. gentlemen not realize that under the secret service of Great Britain there are channels through which they learn what is going on in every country in the world, and they are able to move the fleet to Vancouver if necessary, to

New Zealand, to the shores of Australia, or to any part of the world without the enemy being aware of what they are doing. It is absolutely necessary if the navy is to be made effective that that secret information should be available to the British Admiralty in the direction of the British fleet. If you take away that advantage you interfere to a large extent with the effectiveness of the British navy. If we tried to operate a little navy of our own entirely independent of the British navy, what would happen? Have we any well thought Out plan as to what we would do in regard to that? Suppose that Parliament was called together, in the event of war being declared, and suppose that we succeeded in getting the hon. member for St. John to consent to Canada's participation in the war, and that we sent our navy across the Atlantic. Would it be entirely under the control of the officer in charge, would it start out, entirely upon his initiative, to conduct a little fight independent of the British fleet, or would that navy come under one central authority, one head, who would guide and direct the whole affair. Must we keep up this separatist idea that we must absolutely manage our own navy or else lose our independence? I cannot see, Mr. Chairman, that there has ever been very much in the claim that is made that in some way we will lose our autonomy if we make a grant such as we have under contemplation, if we construct three battleships and loan them to the-British navy for the time being. How that could effect our autonomy I am unable to see. I am willing that hon. gentlemen opposite shall have their opinion but I wish to have mine. It has been said that they are following the example of the Conservative party when the reciprocity question was under consideration two years ago. I wish to flatly deny that proposition. We acted entirely inside the rules of. the House when we discussed the question of reciprocity. We know that on the second reading of a Bill, the whole debate must take place, or ought to take place, and we debated the reciprocity proposition entirely on the second reading of the Bill when every man had an opportunity to speak once, and once only. During that debate not a single rule of this House was violated. No member spoke more than once on the question, and many of them did not speak at all. I do not deny the right of every member of this House to speak once upon a great question of that kind, but what have hon. gentlemen opposite done? When the naval proposition was brought down they engaged in a little discussion, and there was a reasonable amount of discussion upon the second reading, but when we reached the clauses in committee, contrary to the rules of the House and to every principle of parliament-Mr. WEIGHT
ary procedure, they wanted to make a general debate. They discussed the matter from Dan to Beersheha. From the moment we commenced the discussion of the clauses of the Bill there was not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who stayed within the rules, and when the slightest attempt was made to bring them inside the rules they raised a row. They were not amenable to any rules of debate, but I think the great public of the Dominion of Canada will have a proper conception o'f the attitude adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite. If they have it in their minds that the public are in sympathy with them in the actions they have taken in this matter there will be a rude awakening some of these days for them. The action they have taken has been such as to bring the greatest amount of comfort and consolation to every enemy not only of Great Britain but of every part of the British Empire. There is not a pro-Boer or a Fenian sympathiser who is not delighted at the action of hon. gentlemen opposite. They' have taken such action as is calculated to give the greatest possible satisfaction to every enemy of Canada and Great Britain.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: I
wish to call the attention of the right hon. First Minister to the speech made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) on the 8th of April, last, in which he quoted from a speech delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Right Honourable Winston Churchill, to the effect that the ships that the Government of Canada propose to build and to give, or transfer, to the Admiralty would not be an addition to the Imperial fleet, tout would fill the gap in that fleet which, if not filled toy Canada, would have to be filled by ships built by the Admiralty themselves. The Minister of Finance, on the 6th day of this month, quoted at greater length from the speech delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, on the 31st of March, in the British House of Commons, along the same lines. It appears to me that the Minister of Finance thoroughly approved of the position taken by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government, if and when these ships are built, to transfer them to the Admiralty under the conditions outlined by the First Lord as quoted by the Minister of Finance.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the Bill itself
contains the answer to my hon. friend's inquiry. The Bill states that the ships are to be placed at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire.


James Joseph Hughes: Of course, the Prime
Minister has a greater knowledge of this Bill than I have. I think he sees my point

very clearly and that he should give an answer that would be easily understood. The Prime Minister, on the 6th day of this month, told me that the ships he proposed to build and transfer to the Admiralty would in no way cut down the building programme of the Admiralty. The statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty himself is in direct conradiction of that. I am entitled to the information 'because I want to vote intelligently upon this Bill. I know of nobody to whom I can go to get the information authoritatively except the First Minister. Under these conditions, is it the intention of the Government to transfer the ships to the Admiralty? The First Lord of the Admiralty says that they will fill a gap which the Admiralty would have to fill themselves if the ships were not forthcoming. It appears to me that there is a great difference of opinion. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has seen the speech that the First Lord of the Admiralty delivered on that occasion and I am not misquoting or misrepresenting him in any way whatever. I submit that the Prime Minister has not given me the information; I do not know why, because I believe he could give it if he desired to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman
will look at tlie observations of the First Lord of the Admiralty some months ago, he will note that he then said that the British programme would not be cut down by reason of the ships which Canada proposed to build.


James Joseph Hughes: Let me read what the
First Lord of the Admiralty said on the 31st of March, and I presume his latest deliverance would be the one which should guide us. This is the declaration of Mr. Churchill as quoted by the Minister of Finance:
The three ships were absolutely required for the whole world defence of the British Empire apart from England. They would play a real part in Imperial defence and if they are not forthcoming steps will have to be taken to fill the gap and the strain of the burden would have to be placed upon others.
With these facts in view. I ask the House seriously:	Is it not unwise for some people
on one side of the House to say that the Canadian ships are redundant, superfluous and an unnecessary burden-(Hon. Members:	No)-
and is it not equally unwise for other people on the other side to say that they ought to be redundant, superfluous, and an unnecessary burden. Both these views seem to me to be equally wrong and equally harmful to our interests, and I must repeat that the Canadian ships are absolutely necessary for the whole world defence of the British Empire from the end of 1915, or from the beginning of 1916 onwards.
Surely, if we supply these ships, and the First Lord of the Admiralty says that if
we do not supply them they will have to build them, the 'programme of the British Admiralty will be cut down to that extent. There should be no question about that. Will we supply the ships under the conditions pointed out by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech of the 31st of March last?
I find that the Prime Minister, some time ago in this House, said in effect that it would be intolerable to contribute to the defence of the Empire without having a voice touching the issues of peace and war throughout the Empire. I understand that the Prime Minister, when he made that statement in November, 1910, believed that Canada could obtain a voice in the foreign policy of the Empire. I also understand that, when he went to Great Britain last year, he desired to make an arrangement by which we could have that voice. But the Government of Great Britain, in a despatch sent to His Excellency the Governor General, plainly told us that they could not share with the dominions beyond the seas _ any part of their responsibility or give the dominions a voice in determining the foreign policy of the Empire. The First Minister said that under these conditions it would be intolerable to contribute to the defence of the Empire. Then why go on and accept these intolerable conditions? I would be justified in asking why and in getting an answer. The only justification that could be given by the Prime Minister for changing his attitude with regard to this important point would be the existence of a sudden emergency. An emergency must be sudden in order to be an emergency. It must be a temporary condition of affairs. It must rise up quickly, and in all probability it passes away quickly. Them is no such thing as that now. If there were an emergency, to build ships that would take at least two or three years to construct would be no way to meet it. An emergency must necessarily have passed away in that time or have been determined in one way or the other.
For what reason is the Government following a course that the Prime Minister himself said would be intolerable and could not be entertained by this country. I do not know of any good reason. My view is that the Prime Minister made a mistake when he promised the Nationalists of Quebec that if returned to power he would repeal the Naval Service Act. When he found himself in power he was confronted with this promise. At that time he probably believed that he could bring about such close relations between his Government and the British Government as would enable him to carry out the ideas he had when leader of the Opposition, but when he found that he could not do this, and

that he could not get a voice in the foreign policy of the Empire, he was bound by the pledges he had given to the Nationalists of Quebec not to proceed under the Naval Service Act. He was then forced to do something, and so he conjured up an emergency. If it woultl be wrong to give a series of contributions when there is no emergency, it would be wrong to give even one contribution, for the principle is the same? In my judgment there is only one honourable way out of the difficulty into which the Government has got in consequence of its alliance with the Quebec Nationalists, and in consequence of the pledges that were given before the last election, and that is to implement the promise given by the Prime Minister in the city of Montreal last summer and iu this House on the 5th of December last, and allow the people to decide this matter.
Under the conditions I have myself pointed out, I do not think the Government can expect the Senate to pass this Bill. If it were for no other reason than the statement of the Prime Minister that to give a contribution to the Imperial Admiralty, before we would have a voice in the management of the foreign policy of the Empire would be intolerable, the Senate would be justified in rejecting this Bill. I repeat that statement of the Prime Minister would alone be sufficient to justify the Senate of Canada refusing to pass this Bill. Added to that, there is the condition of things admirably pointed out by the hon. member for Welland; that this legislation and practically all the legislation introduced this session fojr the Government is introduced with the object of taking away from the Parliament of Canada and consequently from the people of Canada, in some measure at least, the control over public expenditure, and giving that control to the Giovernor in iCoutneil. That principle is contained in the Highways Bill; it is to some extent in the Agricultural Bill, and it is to a very great extent in this Bill, although it has been modified to some extent by the clause proposed by the Prime Minister last night.
The Prime Minister and some of his followers have said that the memorandum obtained from the First Lord of the Admiralty, stating how much better the ships could be built in Great Britain than in Canada, and how much better we could be defended by the Imperial navy than by anything we could do ourselves, is a justification for the policy of the Government. Mr. Chairman, there are two schools of thought in Great Britain; there always has been two schools of thought there, and not confined to any one political party. Some Liberals and many Conservatives appear to be under the impression that they could protect and defend the overseas dominions to a much greater extent than these dominions could Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).
protect and defend, and even govern themselves. The enforcement of the principles of that school of thought, caused the loss of the original Thirteen Colonies and was responsible for bringing about a civil war in Canada in 1837. No doubt it would have brought about many other difficulties and troubles, were it not that the British people, by their experience in the Revolutionary war in the United States, had learned a lesson. In the Empire of Rome, and in Spain, there was the same school of thought


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman is not speaking to the point.


James Joseph Hughes: That may appear so, but I am saying that the school of thought which finds disciples in Winston Churchill and other Englishmen, leads these gentlemen to believe that they could attend to the first duties of citizenship much better than we can ourselves, and that they could better govern this country than we can, leaving to us the more menial occupations of manual labour. The Prime Minister and many of his supporters seem to have cast in their lot with that school. But, Sir, I contend that no public man can go before the people of Canada and tell them plainly that he believes in that principle.- I do not believe the people of Canada would stand for it for a minute. I want to tell the minister now, as it probably will be the last opportunity I shall have of saying anything on this measure, that the path of honour and the path of duty for him, and the best way to get out of his awkward position, is to follow the promise he gave on the 5th of December in this House, when he said that if he did not get for this Bill the support from Parliament which he expected, he would dissolve the House and go to the country. The right lion, gentleman also made that statement in Montreal on the 21st of September, and next day there appeared in the Montreal Star the following article strongly supporting him in that declaration:
Mr. Borden recurred on Saturday night to his pledge to appeal to the people if Parliament refused to endorse what he regarded as a patriotic and creditable policy.
This is a pledge which may well be applied to other hindrances than a positive refusal to adopt a sufficient policy.
Wanton obstruction should be met in the same fashion. We cannot allow unnecessary delay; for, in a case of this sort, time is of the essence of the contract.
Pair and free discussion there must be. If the addition to the fleet of Canadian 6hips be decided upon, it will be a big thing which Parliament will propose; and Parliament ought to be allowed to debate it fully, and the country should be given adequate time for consideration. But no interest will suffer if Mr. Borden keeps the fact constantly before Parliament that, after all, the people are the final arbiters in this case, and that any refusal by Parliament to act-whether by

voting a negative or talking obstructively- will be promptly followed by sending the politicians to their masters-the people of Canada.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time of the hon. member has expired.


James Joseph Hughes: I had a few more remarks to make


Robert Laird Borden: Go on.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not wish to transgress. I simply desire to state again that the Government would be well advised to follow the course that the Montreal Star so ably advocates, and that the right hon. gentleman himself promised to follow.


Mr. H. B. AMES:: I had not intended to participate in this debate, but certain remarks have been made by the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), which make it necessary for me to put on ' Hansard ' in its entirety just what the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty said on the 31st of March, 1913, when he introduced the naval estimates for 1913-14. This is the last official utterance of the recognized head of the British navy. Naval situations change from time to time. The kaleidoscope does not always show the same view. The last official utterance should be given very weighty consideration by this House. Mr. Winston Churchill, in his remarks on the 31st of March in the British House of Commons when presenting his supply for naval estimates, distinctly showed that in his own mind the British fleet could be divided into two parts and would naturally fall into two parts, namely: the North sea fleet, which was expressly intended to protect the British Isles; and, secondly, what he spoke of as his world-wide-service fleet that might be located at Gibraltar or elsewhere, but whose particular duty it should be to preserve the channels of ocean commerce and to look after the various British possessions not immediately adjoining the North sea. His remarks have been referred to by the hon. Minister of Finance and several other members, but have never before been placed; on ' Hansard ' in thedr entirety. Mr. Winston Churchill said that up to the year 1914 the 60 per cent standard had been provided for. Then he goes on to say:
That is quite sufficient for the year 1915, with which we are at present dealing, but, having regard to the responsibilities of the British Empire both in the Pacific and in the Mediterranean, and having regard in particular to the new development of forces in the Mediterranean, it is clear that the margin of strength available for the whole world service of the British Empire will not be sufficient after the first quarter of 1910 unless further steps are taken either by the dominions or by ourselves. From the point of view, the reality of the need of the three
Canadian vessels can be well appreciated. They w-ould raise the margin of the strensflh available for the general defence of the Empire, after the main need in home waters has been met, as follows: 1915, in the fourth quarter, 10; 1916, in the first quarter, 19; in the second quarter, 8; in the third quarter, 8; in the fourth quarter, 10; 1917, in the first quarter, 12, and so on, an average of 9 or 10 vessels available for the whole world service of the British Empire. That, in the absence of further developments in the Mediterranean or in the Pacific beyond what is now in prospect, would be sufficient. If, however, new developments took place of such a kind as to afiect Admiralty problems, or if the Canadian ships were to miscarry for any reason, the situation would have to be reviewed. It is unnecessary at the present moment, and it would be premature for me to say any more on the subject. I have given the fullest information in my power to the House, and I hope I shall not be pressed to add to it. I could not accede to such a request. It is necessary, however, to make it clear that the three ships now under discussion in Canada are absolutely required from 1916 onwards for the whole world defence of the British Empire, apart altogether from the needs of Great Britain in Home waters; that they will play a real part in the defence of the Empire; and that, if they fail, a gap will be opened to fill which further sacrifices will have to be made without undue delay by others.
With these facts in view, I ask the House seriously: Is it not unwise for some people on one side of the House to say that the Canadian ships are redundant, superfluous, and an unnecessary burden-^(Hon. members:
' No' -and it is equally unwise for other people on the other side to say that they ought to be redundant, superfluous, and a,n unnecessary burden? Both these views seem to me to be equally wrong and equally harmful to our interests, and I must repeat that the Canadian ships are absolutely necessary for the whole world defence of the British Empire from the end of 1915, or from the beginning of 1916 onwards. The fact that they are necessary i3 no measure of their value. Their value far exceeds the value of three ships. We can build three ships ourselves if necessary. Parliament has never refused to supply the money for that which responsible ministers have considered necessary for the proper discharge of the responsibilities of the Crown. It is the fact of this great new nation coming forward, with all its measureless strength and possibility, to testify to the enduring life of the British Empire tha't has already produced an impression throughout the world of more value than many dreadnought ships, an impression which throughout the world conduces both to the safety of this country and to the peace of the nations.
There is the frank admission on the one part of Mr. Winston Churchill that it will be a great disappointment to Great Britain if these three ships that we advocate are not added to that worldwide service. If they are not added, some other part of the British Empire will have to step into the

breach and will have to make a similar addition.
There is just one other point that I wish to put on ' Hansard,' which is quite different from this, but which may be required for reference. A great deal has been said about Australia constructing her ships. We have been frequently told that Canada should imitate Australia in the construction of ships. Australia has made but very small progress so far in that direction. She has built only a very few ships of the smallest kind, and some which she has constructed were brought almost wholly from Great Britain and merely put together in Australia. The last ship to join the Australian navy is the Melbourne. I have here the souvenir that commemorates the arrival of H.M.A.S. Melbourne at Port Phillip, on Wednesday, March 26, 1913. The souvenir says:
H. M. A. S. Melbourne was designed by Sir Phillip Watts, chief constructor of the navy, and built by Cammell, Laird & Co., at Birkenhead. With her speed and power the Melbourne may be regarded as the prototype of a new class of light cruisers. From the city which sponsored her, the Melbourne takes the motto, 'Vires Acquirit Eundo it gains strength as it goes.'
Then follows the description of the Melbourne; not an enormous battleship, not a dreadnought at all. Even this small boat had to be built in Great Britain. This is the description:
Details :-Displacement, 5,600 tons; engines, Parsons turbine, developing 22,000 shaft H.P.; speed, 26 knots; length over all, 456 feet; beam 49 feet 10 inches; draught, 15 feet; armament, eight six inch guns, two torpedo tubescomplement, 390 officers and men. Commissioned at Brikenhead on January 18, 1913; left England on January 26; arrived Fremantle on March 10; Port Philip on March 26.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are not the Australian Government building a cruiser at the New South Wales dock now ?


Herbert Brown Ames: The Australians are attempting to build certain of their ships.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Attempting ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Attempting to do so. They have had long and serious delays, and the ships launched, if I am rightly informed, are only of small class.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the sacrifice of freedom of speech is consummated in this House, before the arbitrary rule of closure is applied in all its monstrous mechanism, I desire to make a few observations to complete those I have already made on the same subject on the 9th of March last, by reason of the events which have occurred since that time.
Mr. AMES.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, before coming to the merit of the question, to draw your attention to the fact that since closure has been applied, it would seem as if the hon. members opposite had emerged from the silence which they have seen fit to observe since the 5th of December last. Have they found there another way to impose closure on the Opposition by taking away from us the few hours remaining for the discussion of that question? At the rate of 20 minutes for each member, 29 members of the Opposition would have the advantage to discuss this question during the present sitting; now, by breaking their silence, as the members opposite are now doing, a good many members of the Opposition are deprived of the privilege to speak. It would thus seem as if a new kind of closure was being imposed upon us.
However, those new tactics will perhaps procure us the advantage and the good luck to hear at last the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), who has been so conspicuous by his silence since the beginning of the session, and he will perhaps now see fit to explain his conduct. No better occasion could he find to follow the example set to him by several of his political friends before closure' is applied.
After having struck out from the rules of the House the clause ensuring to the representatives of the people the right and liberty to discuss questions of public interest with all the necessary latitude, the Government now takes away from the Parliament of Canada, by this law under discussion, the power and the liberty to dispose of the public funds, according to the principles set forth in the Constitution. The Government also takes away from us the liberty to criticize the use of the public funds, to discuss the manner In which they are being employed in making to England that gift of thirty-five millions. Thirty-five millions! why, that is only a trifle for those hon. gentlemen who ' think nothing of sacrificing lands valued at $374,000 for $10, for the benefit of political friends; that is only a trifle for those hon. gentlemen who think nothing of buying clocks costing $920 each. While I am at it, let me say they should have put one of those clocks in this House, where it would have been so useful in measuring the time during which each member is allowed to speak.
Thirty-five millions! that is only a trifle for those gentlemen who do not see that, in so doing, they are pledging the credit of the country, without Parliament being able to exercise the least control on the application of that money. Thirty-five millions! why, but that represents an annual interest of $1,500,000, and we take as a basis the population as given by the last census, say seven millions of inhabitants, you can see that we have then a tax per capita of $5

for each inhabitant, either man, woman or child.
Those hon. gentlemen think nothing pf taking away the liberties of the representatives of the people. It would seem as if it was a well determined policy on the part of the Government to rob us one by one of the rights, privileges and liberties granted to us 'by the Constitution, rights, privileges and liberties for which our forefathers have fought, for which they have even shed their blood, the better to ensure for us the exercise and the possession of them.
After depriving us of freedom of speech, now the Government seeks to despoil us of the power to administer, the public funds with the assent of Parliament. And so it was that a few days ago the Highways Bill was put through and also the one granting certain sums of money for agriculture during a certain number of years, the Governor in Council having the exclusive right to control the sums provided in those laws.
Nay, they are even going so far as to refuse to those who have conquered those liberties at so much sacrifice, the pure and legitimate glory that belongs to them. And so it was that, a few days ago, the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. "Hughes), at the inauguration of an Grange lodge in this very city of Ottawa, has not been ashamed to hurl such epithets as those of ' fools 1 and ' scoundrels ' at the rebels of 1837! those noble-hearted patriots who have conquered the liberties _ which are so dear to us. Is the hon. Prime Minister prepared to approve such language? Is the hon. Minister of Militia aware that among those fools and scoundrels was Sir George Etienne Cartier, the founder of the Conservative party, and who himself handled a gun at St. Denis?
I have the honour to represent a county which has been the hotbed of that revolt accomplished by those fools and scoundrels. I represent here the descendants of those who have shed their blood for the cause of popular liberty at St. Eustache, at St. Scho-lastique and at St. Benoit; as those other fools had previously done at St. Denis and at St. Charles, on the Bichelieu river. What does the hon. Minister of Militia know of the history of Canada of that time? Does he ignore the 92 resolutions, framed by those very fools and scoundrels? Does he ignore the -acts of those Englishmen of Upper Canada, now Ontario, who in 1837-3839 allied themselves with those fools and scoundrels, as he calls them, the better to claim back those rights which had been taken away from us by the English bureaucracy; rights which had been acknowledged to us by the Treaty of Paris of 1763.
In the face of all those facts, we now see a Government who has come into power under false representations, and with the aid of heterogeneous elements, seeking, through the exercise of its brutal force, to deprive us of those liberties, and seeking, through one of its ministers to tarnish the
glory of those who have conquered for us those liberties. Fools and scoundrels, the heroes of 1837! Fools and scoundrels, those to whose memory a monument has been dedicated on Viger Square, in Montreal, and another in Cote des Neiges cemetery! Fools and scoundrels, all those who have shed their blood for their country! Indeed, fools of that kind are a necessity in the history of a people, but, forsooth! such fools are then called sublime fools.
I will not now discuss the question of emergency; such was the pretext invoked by the hon. Prime Minister, the better to force that law upon us. There is no more talk, to-day, of emergency. The only emergency existing is, for the Conservative party, to emerge from the dead-lock where it has put itself.
. All that is only a false pretext, and false pretences we may also call the promises made by the hon. Prime Minister on the 5th of December last, when he gave us to understand that he had the assurance of the British Government that Canada would be represented in the councils of the Empire. All that has been confirmed by the very words of Mr. Harcourt, the Secretary for Colonies.
In the face of that affirmation of the Prime Minister, that Canada would be represented in the councils of the Empire, if those thirty-five millions were voted as an aid to the naval defence of the Empire, this was the statement of Mr. Harcourt:
That the Committee of Imperial Defence is a purely advisory body, and is not, and cannot under any circumstances, become a body deciding on policy, which is and must remain; the sole prerogative of the Cabinet, subject to the support of the House of Commons.
So then, emergency is only a mere allegation ! Mere allegation also, the representation in the councils of the Empire for the Colonies.
Why then, Mr. Speaker, persist in despoiling us of thirty-five millions for the benefit of England? Why, then, even supposing that there is a necessity for those three dreadnoughts, deny to Canada the advantage and the right to build its own ships? Why .should Canada be denied the power and the right to establish a new industry in this country? Why should we deprive our working classes of the benefit of that industry which would be so advantageous especially for the Maritime Provinces, and I might add for the whole country? Why not bring into this country the shipbuilders, great companies as the Vickers-Maxim, the Armstrong, and others which were ready to erect shipyards, here, and which now go to Italy.
Why, on the contrary, bestow our favours on the great English capitalists, the very ones who now stir up and derive profit from jingoism, who raise and spread the German peril, and whose only desire is to get rich at the expense of Canada, of England, and of the other colonies.

94S0
What spectacle do we see now? In Germany, we see the Krupp Company, the most important of that country for the construction of implements of war, accused of conspiration with other countries of Europe, the better to increase the armaments which are now denounced by the whole world. And that, with the sole object of increasing their capital and to swell their revenues at the expense of the people.	,
I say that the Government, in passing that measure of thirty-five millions, helps in keeping afloat that conspiration of the trust against the public interest, against England itself and especially against the colonies.
The hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Hughes) referred to the promise of the Prime Minister made at a banquet which took plaee in Montreal on the 21st of September, 1912. The hon. Prime Minister then said that his intention w as to convoke Parliament immediately, and that he would submit a measure which would be satisfactory to the people and to England, and that if Parliament should see fit to reject it he would appeal to the people. The hon. Prime Minister was then sincere; there was no after-thought an what he said. But, since then, the situation has been greatly altered. New elements have entered into the Cabinet, others have been removed, and since then the hon. Prime Minister has turned right about face, as moreover he has done with reference to many other questions. Why does he no longer desire to appeal to the people? Is he afraid of the people? Has he become frightened? There is no other conclusion but he is prevented from keeping his promise by the dread of the popular verdict. Does he fear to be reproached with the scandals of Hochelaga, of Macdonald and Antigonish? Does he fear that some one will upbraid him with the scandal of the mailbag locks of the Postmaster General? Does he fear to be reminded of the scandal of the Vancouver lands, or again of those lands in the West sold for $10 to a political favourite and which have been valued at $374,000? Does he fear to be reproached with the release of a man convicted to jail for forgery, to put him in the Civil Service, as he has done in Nova Scotia? Does he fear to be refused the free disposition of those thirty-five millions?	.
He is afraid of everything. He is even afraid, to-day, of the visit of the hon. leader of the Opposition to Toronto. We now see that those hon. gentlemen are convoking a meeting in Toronto, in the midst of the session, for the 19th of May next, at the very moment when the Prime Minister seems to be in such a hurry to get through with the work of the session that he now asks the House to sit in the morning, in the afternoon, and in the evening.
Mr. ETHIEE
What better proof could we have that those gentlemen are now panic-struck and that they wish, in having the Prime Minister go to Toronto, try to destroy the prestige of the eloquent speech of the leader of the Opposition. The prestige of the hon. leader of the Opposition is so great that, besides him, that of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Public Works go constantly decreasing, with the exception of the prestige of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) which is always getting more and more magnified.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They are frightened
out of their wits, and they will now get the harm.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: And that harm will be
incurable. Why does not the Government accede to the wishes of the people? Why does he not accede to the _ desire of the majority of the people; a minority in this House, it is true, but a majority in the country, whatever may be said to the contrary, and that fact has been established with eloquence and certitude, last week, by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), when he then gave figures that nobody has been so daring as to contradict.
Why not accede to the wishes of the people? Is it for fear that Mr. Monk should wake up? Is there any fear that he will come back from the south of the United States to give another conference at Cote St. Paul, when, as every one knows, there is nothing he fears so^ much as being compelled to set foot in this House?
Why did not the ex-Minister of Public Works come in this House, in order to give the explanations which every minister is obliged to give in similar circumstances? Has he been prevented from coming? Has he been beseeched not to come? We do not know. However, it is a well-known fact that he differs in opinion from the Government with respect to that contribution of thirty-five millions. Mr. Monk was asking for a referendum before giving that contribution, and when he met with a refusal he resigned his portfolio.
He has shown some courage which did not last long, and which was followed with a show of cowardice. He has had a moment of courage which the other French ministers have not had; but that did not
last long.	, , , .	,
The benefit which has accrued to him by that act of courage in the esteem of the people and in my own-if that may count for anything-has been lost when he saw fit to become the instrument and the creature of the Government, in being frightened away from the floor of this House to explain his conduct.
But that is not all. A few days ago, at Cote St. Paul, while discussing the question of closure, he expressed himself as

being against the principle of that measure and he censured those who were in favour of the contribution. However, on that same day, a vote was being taken in this House, and we can see in the ' Hansard ' that Mr. Monk, being absent, had been paired. If he had voted, he would then have voted with those who were proposing the adoption of that measure, the better to carry the contribution which he so strongly denounces.
How logical is such conduct, for an exminister of this Government! But his colleagues, the Nationalist members, who had so much confidence in the Prime Minister, where was that valiant phalanx on votation day? Not all, but a good number whom we know very well, kept themselves hidden in the lobbies.
I will now conclude, because Mr. Speaker beckons to me that my time is up. I conclude in saying that I will vote against the Bill, and I declare again that I am in favour of a navy based on the resolution of the 29th of March, 1909, a navy built, manned and operated by the Canadian Parliament.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: 94S3


Mr. LANCASTER:: The first amendment to this clause is that we insert the gauge of the railway. We have not yet that stated in the Railway Act, as I think we ought to have in the interpretation clause, and so we have inserted that the gauge is the usual one of four feet eight and a half inches. Then did not authorize the road as originally proposed. We struck out sub-section (a) and (b), leaving subsection 2. In the place of (a) and (b) we inserted the following:
From a point in the province of Quebec at or near the city of Quebec, towards and through Charlesbonrg, Jeune, Lorette, An-denne borette, Ste. Foye, Cap Rouge, Sillery, and Montcalmville; and also from Charles-bourg through Riviere Jaune, Notre Dame des Laurentides and Lake St. Charles to Jeune Lorette. (b) Around the island of Orleans and across the said island by the most feasible route.
Then in sub-section 2 it was stated in the original Bill that the company-
May also construct a bridge or bridges.
We struck out the words ' or bridges ' allowing them to construct one bridge from the mainland to the island.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8a-consent of municipalities:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the usual clause protecting municipalities from the construction of railways on their highways without their consent.	3


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-agreements with other companies:


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 93, to incorporate the Quebec Rapid Transit Railway Company.-Mr. Gauthier, (Gaspe). (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-incorporation.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amendment to
this clause changes the names of some of the directors. Some of the gentlemen named in the original Bill did not want to act as directors, and the names of others have been inserted.
Section agreed to/
On section la:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the usual declaration that the railway is a work for the general advantage of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
300i
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a slight amendment to this section inserting the word ' Quebec ' after the word ' Northern ' m line twenty-five. In the original Bill it was printed the 'Canadian Northern Railway Company'; we have changed it to Company'ldlan Nort'hern Quebec Railway


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-further powers:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amendment to this section is the insertion of the standard or model clause for the purposes of the undertaking.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-further powers:
* LANCASTER: This section as printed m the original Bill was struck out, and we inserted a clause giving them the powers to acquire hotels. Section 14, as drafted
[Stage Direction]
was in our opinion wrong, and we decided to put in the model clause.
Section agreed to.
On section 15-issue of securities:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a slight amendment at the end of the second line which now reads:
The directors, if previously authorized as prescribed by section 136 of the Railway Act, may borrow money.
And so on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 190, for the relief of George Sentis Deslandes.-Mr. Warnock.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Daisy Madeleine Peterson.-Mr. Nesbitt.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 170, respecting certain patents of the Standard Paint Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Sharpe (Ontario).
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Pierre Zenon St. Aubin.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire-Mr. Borden. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 2:
Mr. LAW:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure it is gratifying to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to find that hon. gentlemen on the other side are able to open their mouths and to say something in connection with this great question which has been before the House and the people for several months past. It is gratifying to us because we feel that if the gag has been loosened to hon. gentlemen on that side of the House it certainly will be loosened to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) before the House rose at six o'clock. I felt sorry for that hon. gentleman at one time during his speech because, when he undertook to tell a joke, he was unfortunately the only one who laughed at it. He found a great deal of fault with this side of the House for its lack of enthusiasm. I am sure that if there has been a graveyard without any new burials during the last three months it has been found on the other side of the House. Very seldom has any hon. gentleman opposite opened his mouth on this question to defend the policy that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) brought in before the House in December Mr. LANCASTER.
of last year. I am sure that if any enthusiasm has been shown at all, it certainly has been shown on this side of the House. On a memorable Saturday night some little time ago there was enthusiasm enough on this side of the House to suit hon. gentlemen opposite and if there is a repetition of it to-night they will probably get all the enthusiasm they desire.
The hon. gentleman went on further to say that he really believed that there were some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who did not believe in any contribution at all. I would like to say to the hon. gentleman from Brantford that ,if he could see into the innermost depths of the minds of some hon. members sitting behind him, he would perhaps find some who were not in favour of a contribution and not in favour of doing anything for the Mother Country. We are prepared to do something, to do just as much as hon. gentlemen opposite although perhaps we may not talk so much about it. We are prepared to show our patriotism and to do something for the Mother Country.
I was amused to hear my hon. friend from Brantford refer also to the visit of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to Toronto the other night. It seems to have stirred some hon. gentlemen opposite, and some of the Conservative newspapers, to think that the right hon. gentleman could go to Toronto and, after filling the largest place in Canada, hold a meeting from which thousands were turned away. It shows that the Liberals in the good old province of Ontario are not all dead and that when they have an opportunity to do so they will speak with no uncertain sound. Even the members of the Tory party in Toronto were so eager to get to this great Liberal meeting that not knowing there would be any room for them, they had to forge tickets enough to enable them to attend. I hope the lessons that they received there will do them good and that they will be able to change their policy in a great many respects.
Then, the hon. member for Brantford found fault with my hon. friend from St. John city (Mr. Pugsley). I have no brief to defend my hon. friend from St. John. Hon. gentlemen opposite have found out during this session that that hon. gentleman is fully capable of taking care of himself. If the hon. member for St. John was looking after the interests of that port I want to ask why the hon. member for Brantford should find fault with hiin. is strange that the hon. member for Brantford, a manufacturer in the province of Ontario, as I am informed, does not seem to have any great love for the Maritime provinces. He, and others like him, exhibited that feeling at the election on September 21, 1911, when they turned down the reciprocity agreement which would have given the Maritime provinces larger

and better markets and put them on the road to prosperity, a road which they will not get on for many years to come. In the eloquent peroration with which the hon. gentleman closed his speech, and he is certainly a good speaker, he appealed to this side of the House and said: Let us bury the hatchet. The Liberal party buried the hatchet, and the axe also, in 1909, when the House voted unanimously for a Canadian navy in reference to the defence of the Empire. I do not think it comes with very good grace from an hon. gentleman opposite to talk of burying the hatchet at this time. He went on to say that he hoped we would stand up to-night and vote with the Government. He will find that we will stand up and vote, but I do not think there will be many members on this side of the House who will vote for the proposition brought down by the right hon. leader of the Government. I have, I imagine, about fifty reasons why this Bill should not pass, and at this stage of this discussion, with the gag tightening around our throats, I do not propose to occupy much time.
I am opposed to it because it is a measure brought into this House for the purpose of extricating the Tory party from an unpleasant position in which they found themselves when they so unexpectedly were placed in the Government seats, which do not fit them, and which they will not occupy after the next election. Then again, I am opposed to it because the people, or some of them only, were deceived by the cry that an emergency existed, and that Great Britain and Germany were on the verge of war. But we have not heard the word ' emergency ' used by any hon. gentlemen opposite for some months. Even the Prime Minister's voice is restored to its natural tone, and not trembling with emotion as it was when he read his pastoral address in introducing the resolution last December. I am convinced more than ever that no emergency then existed, and that it will not be found to exist in the distant future when Germany and Great Britain will have a further agreement as to the building of warships. I further conscientiously believe that the present proposal of the Government has not made the relations between these two great nations any more cordial.
I am opposed to it again because it is neither a gift nor a sane business proposition. At one time we are told by the Government it is a gift, and then again they say there are strings to it. I presume the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), and you, Mr. Chairman, will each have a string, and then, if the Nationalists of Quebec still object to Canada doing anything for the Motherland, they will pull these strings and deter the dreadnoughts from being the most powerful dreadnoughts that ' science can conceive and money buy ' ever do any effective work either in the North sea or tied to the rock of Gibraltar, with all the members of a mongrel government having strings to them and pulling against each other.
I am opposed again to the voting because I firmly believe, feeling as I do our obligations as one of a galaxy of nations within the Empire, that we owe something to ourselves and to those we are bound to, by the strongest ties of a free and autonomous people, and therefore we should at once without delay commence the building of ships and carry out the Laurier naval policy of establishing a navy of our own, with the proper dignity and self-respect of this our young and optimistic nation, thus manifesting that we are true to our heritage and destiny. During the last election the Tory headquarters at Yarmouth had across the whole front of the building the motto:
' Canada for the Canadians.' At the next election I would suggest this motto for their headquarters:	' Canadian workingmen's
money for British ship-builders, and armour plate monopolists.'
I am opposed to the Bill again because I do not believe it commands the respect and endorsation of a large majority of the people of Canada, and after the discussions and difference of opinion that have been expressed I do not know that the people of the Motherland will accept the proposal of the Government at all, and I think they would not be doing justice to a large part of the people of Canada if they did.
We emphatically believe on this side of the House in the building of our own ships, the inauguration of ship-building plants; in short a Canadian built, owned and manned Canadian navy controlled by the people of Canada through its representatives in Parliament, ready at all times to defend and protect our own coasts as well as our ever growing and expanding trade routes. We believe that by pursuing such a policy we shall in a truly patriotic way be rendering aid to the Empire and doing justice to ourselves.
Liberalism stands to-day as it has always stood for enlarged freedom and a strong and deep patriotism. It does not proclaim its loyalty from house tops and on public platforms at election times, but is ready at all times to render aid to the Motherland, not in a grudging manner, or by the application of the gag or closure, whichever you may call it, which throttles free speech, the greatest and most inestimable gift ever enjoyed by a free and independent people, and which shatters the greatest safety valve we had before its application, and which puts back the hands

on the dial of our national clock at least a hundred years.
Again, I am opposed to the Bill because it does not provide for these three ships to be built by tender and contract, by which public competition can be taken advantage of and no doubt thousands of dollars saved to the people of Canada. Why, I ask, is this principle not adopted in the expenditure of this tremendously large sum of money, when it is well known that all expenditures of $5,000 or more in the construction of public works must be done by tender and contract.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this Bill because it is money to be spent outside of Canada and has never had the approval of the people of Canada. Therefore, I submit, Sir, the electors whose, money it is, should have an opportunity to express their approval or disapproval before one dollar is spent. In view of the widely divergent views and open opposition to this measure, I maintain that the people of Canada should be appealed to.
Mr. OLIVER J. WILCOX (North Essex) :	When my hon. friend from Frontenac rose to address the House this afternoon, my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) interjected a question, and I observed that the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) very sarcastically threw out the remark: There's a nigger in the fence.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: In justice to the hon. member for Kamouraska, I must ask the hon. member to attribute that remark to the hon. member for Temiscoata (Mr Gauvreau).


Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: I will
ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: When I talked about a nigger, I did not see the hon. member.


Mr. WILCOX:: It is my duty and
privilege to represent a number of coloured people in this Parliament, and if the hon. member (Mr. Gauvreau) made that remark as an insinuation against the coloured people, I want to repudiate and resent it on their behalf. I can tell my hon. friend that if I were to bring down a few of these intelligent, patriotic, loyal, coloured subjects of His Majesty from North Essex, and if they were to be selected or picked out for any privilege from the point of view of attractive colour, and my hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau) were put beside them, I am sure that my hon. friend is the first one who would be selected.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I do not see the joke yet.


Mr. SMYTH:: You must be Scotch.
Mr LAW


Oliver James Wilcox: Mr. Chairman, as a young member of this House, I desire to congratulate the Government on having the courage and the legislative capacity to enact rules that have made it possible to carry on the business of this country. I feel, as I rise to address this House tonight, somewhat as Paul felt when he was released from prison and permitted to return to his own church, because I now have the right to express my view. That right was heretofore denied to me because about a dozen members of the Opposition monopolized the whole time of the House. Talk about closure! Talk about gag! If anybody in this House has been gagged, the supporters of the Government have been gagged, owing to a few of the leading members of the Opposition monopolizing the time of the House. Three hour speeches! Members opposite making bets in the corridors that they can speak eight hours and then talking about the right of free speech.
My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) addressed the House yesterday evening in his usual good natured manner, and I congraulate him on the attitude and the good judgment which he displays when he addresses the House. He coined a phrase with respect to the application of the new rules, which he called ' gliding from one clause to another.' If the term ' glide ' is applicable to any gentleman in public life that I know of, it is applicable to my hon. friend from Welland, because in 1911 he glided from this House to Welland and-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid the hon. member is wandering from the subject.


Oliver James Wilcox: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time of the hon. gentleman has expired.


Oliver James Wilcox: I have only one line
more:
-or when misfortune happens to you either by flood or fire. And they have spent three millions of dollars for rifles.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Is that a part of the
speech of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin)?


Oliver James Wilcox: That is the campaign
tactics of the Liberal party enunciated in 1896. And they should not sit in glass houses and throw stones.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: I
am pleased to be the first to congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Wilcox) upon his release from imprisonment. I am glad to see the gag removed in his case, and he seems glad to have it removed. But he seems to have a rather strange idea as to who applied the gag. The hon. gentleman should remember that if members on this side had the right to speak, hon. gentlemen on the other side had the same right. It is impossible to employ the gag in the way he says. He must have been pretty hard hit before the gag was applied, and the gag was pretty effective, because it is very seldom I have known hon. gentlemen opposite to be quiet so long. We are pleased to hear the hon. gentleman again and to see him at liberty. It is always unpleasant to the well-regulated mind to see another in prison or in durance.
I desire to refer to the lemarks of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) in his speech yesterday. Speaking of the measure before the House he said:
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.	I
I do not believe that the people of Canada demand or desire the measure that is before the House. I believe the hon. gentleman is right in his second statement, that the majority of the people of Canada have been willing to contribute to a system of maintaining the supremacy of the Empire and to share in the expense thereby incurred. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are just as willing as any hon. gentleman opposite to support this view, and it is utterly unfair for hon. gentlemen to say that this is not the case. It is true that we have different ways of doing things; we believe that a certain course which we advocate would be in the best interests of the country and tend to the security of the Empire. My hon. friend also referred to the statement I
Mr. WILCOX.
of the right hon. leader of the Opposition that when England is at war, we are at war, and that it does not follow that because we are at war we are actually in the conflict. The hon. member for Red Deer asked a very pertinent question in connection with that, and the answer of the hon. member for Vancouver was surprising. Speaking about the Afghan war, he said that it was not a war, but only an expedition, yet in that conflict an entire regiment of Highlanders was practically destroyed. Who is to decide whether or not a conflict is a war? If we are to be guided by the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver in regard to this matter, we are going to have another emergency-that of deciding who is to determine whether or not there is war. Apparently the conflict in which the killing of a whole regiment takes place in not a war. I fancy my hon. friend is not a Highlander or he would have more sympathy for those unfortunate persons who were killed in Afghanistan. However, he had a little more to say in regard to that matter:
I should say that undoubtedly Canada should take part in any war that might occur there. I say further that I care not where 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.
He says: 'If it is necessary for Canada to participate in it,' and the hon. gentleman therefore himself admits that there may be wars in which we should not engage, and that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition is right. The hon. gentleman is to be complimented for that, although I do not say he has dealt as fairly with it as he should have done, he has been fairer than any other hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. My hon. friend seems to agree with the first proposition laid down by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, that when England is at war we are at war, and all parts of the Empire are at war. I am not going to quarrel with that proposition, because we all admit that. The next argument is the one to which our friends opposite are apparently opposed, but the hon. member for Vancouver practically said that was right, because he said that only in case of necessity should we be engaged in the conflict. Who is to decide whether or not that necessity exists? We claim that the Government should decide whether or not that is necessary. If it is true to-day that when the Empire is at war we are at war, it was also true in the eighties. Within a few years three very serious wars were engaged in by Great Britain, in Zululand, Egypt and the Soudan respectively. Following out this principle, we were at war when England was at war, but we were not in the conflict. Facts are stubborn things, and hon. gentlemen oppo-

site cannot face the facts and justify the political, capital they ma*ke out of the statements of the right hon. leader of the Opposition by saying that which they cannot back up and which they know is entirely unreasonable. The hon. member for Vancouver makes a rather remarkable statement in that connection. Referring to the statement of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that when England is at war, we are at war, and that it does not follow that because we are at war we are actually in the conflict, he says:
How any person could entertain such contradictory views as these is beyond nay comprehension.
But he himself entertains those views; he positively stated them before he was through. Some hon. gentlemen have given their views as to the dividing line between the parties with regard to this great question. I shall not quarrel with any of those views, but I wish to repeat what I said when first addressing the House in regard to this matter, that the real dividing line between the parties is the dividing line between a policy of centralization, followed by the members of the Government, and their supporters, and a policy of self development supported by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
I listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Welland (Mr. German) last evening, and, though he expressed his views in this regard in different language, they were practically the same as mine. The desire shown by the Government to retain in their own hands to the exclusion of Parliament the expenditure of money is caused by their desire to centralize, and our desire to oppose them is because we want to develop our own country and our own institutions. Their original desire to have the ships built in England and placed in the North sea was caused by their faith in the policy of centralization, and they are the legitimate successors of the members of the Family Compact of old days who desired centralization by Downing Street rule. It is true that there is in our country a spirit of Canadianism which makes it impossible for hon. gentlemen to go so far as members of the Family Compact went, and therefore they have not done so.
My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) told us last evening that his forefathers took part in the struggle for selfgovernment in Canada. I am in the same position as my hon. friend. If my hon. friend and I, as well as other hon. members on this side of the House, were to take any other ground than that we are taking now in the same great struggle, we would be unworthy descendants of our forefathers who fought for self-government in Canada. One thing that makes me a
little proud of my pedigree is the fact that my father and grandfather were engaged in that struggle during the whole of their lives and I am going to continue in it.
The joint resolution of 1909 has been the subject of considerable discussion in this debate, and we have heard the rather surprising claim made on behalf of the Government supporters that the present Bill is in accordance with, and in furtherance of, the principles laid down in that resolution. In every Bill that is brought before this House, there is some great central dominating principle, some dominating object round which the other provisions centre, and I think it will be agreed that the central and dominating object of the resolution of 1909 was the speedy construction of a Canadian naval service for the defence of Canada and of the Empire. I think that is unquestionable. That was the central thought, the central idea, in the minds of the hon. members of this House so far as I could gather from the resolution itself and from the debates in connection with it. It is true there was_ a secondary object, as there generally is, and that was to express our readiness to make a contribution to the Empire in case of immediate need or emergency. I do not care which term you use. The two dominating ideas of that resolution were first, the speedy construction of a Canadian naval service for home and Empire defence, and secondly, a contribution in case of an emergency. I do not think that the right hon. the leader of the Government will deny that these were the ideas, and yet the right hon. gentleman tells us, perhaps not in the exact words that I am using, that the Bill before the House is carrying out the principles and objects of that resolution. Strangely enough, he tells us that this is not a contribution at all. Surely it is not carrying out the other object; and if it is carrying out neither the speedy construction of a Canadian naval service, nor the idea of a contribution, what is it? According to my right hon. friend's own words, it is not in any sense, carrying out the objects of that resolution of 1909. It is entirely contradictory to it, because the carrying out of the terms of the Bill would be the greatest factor in the speedy construction of a Canadian navy.
We have heard a great deal about an emergency, but as my time is limited I think I will have to leave it out. It has pretty well escaped, and I do not think we can do anything more now than chase it. Anyway we need not worry ourselves about it.


George Perry Graham: It gets out of the way.


Levi Thomson: It is gliding; it glides
as gracefully as my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) did from imprison-

ment to liberty. If there be an emergency, the proper way to meet it is by a money contribution. That would be the most natural way of meeting it. I fail to see how the present proposition would meet an emergency, assuming there was one. My hon. friend from Vancouver, (Mr. Stevens) made a suggestion in connection with this. He said he is not quite satisfied, that he himself believes the contribution would be best, a contribution of ships. I say that if we give a contribution in the case of an emergency it would be better to give a contribution of money. The reason for that is clear. If we ourselves were in any particular need or danger, which we could not see ahead, it would be pretty hard to know in advance exactly what we would want, and if the British Empire were in danger from any outside source, the best way to meet that danger would be to give a cash contribution which the British Government could use in any way they saw fit. However, as my time is nearly up, I do not wish to follow that matter any further.
With regard to assistance in the case of an emergency or need, we on this side of the House are prepared to do everything required to assist the British Empire in naval matters. The only difference between us is as to how this should be done. We must remember that the British Empire includes Canada, and that Canada requires defence as well as any other part of the Empire, and if we are able to do anything for the defence of the Empire generally, we might at least start at home. If we built our own vessels and placed them on our own coasts, they would be of as much use in defending the Empire as if they were placed anywhere else. If required anywhere else, it would be an easy matter to send them. We are told that vessels from the British navy can be sent from the centre to the circumference, and surely it would be as easy to send them from the circumference to the centre.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Victoria, New Brunswick):: For the past two months we have not heard the supporters of the Government on this great question, but I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister upon allowing some hon. members on the other side to express their views to-day on this great issue. I am sure we have gathered some interesting information from their speeches, and I am only sorry that they are not being allowed to continue to give us their views. Hon. members on the other side must have received orders that they could no longer speak this evening. There is a thinking bureau in England Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).
composed of able men, and these gentlemen give their time and study to the best naval defence possible of the British coast. We have also in this country a thinking bureau composed of the members of this House and of the Canadian electors. For four years we have all been thinking very seriously about the best way of defending our coasts and protecting the British Empire. We were at one time of one mind in the matter of the defence of our coasts on the Atlantic and the Pacific. When we were of one mind, we were, from the point of view of our friends the Conservatives, good and loyal British subjects. The hon. member from Frontenac has the same opinion of himself now as he had then in reference to the naval defence of this country. But he is on the other side of Mr. Speaker now, and he cannot speak in this House without first attacking our honoured chief in the most un-British and unfair manner. If the hon. member was wrong in 1909 and 1910, what about his dear and loyal subjects now? How many hours of sleep has he lost since last December? Have we had the benefit of a fair discussion of this great question on the part of the supporters of the present Administration? In their minds they may have dropped the Laurier naval policy, but they have been disciplined by a few of the ministers to keep silent upon the question. They were ordered not to take part in the discussion of this great issue and if any one of them dared to speak, he was reprimanded in much the same way as was John's wife upon one occasion when she and her husband paid a week-end visit at an English castle. There was a wealthy business man who received an invitation for himself and his wife to spend a weekend with a well-known aristocrat. At breakfast, on the morning following their arrival at the ancestral castle, Mrs. Noveau Riche, in trying to chip off the top of an egg with her knife, exercised so much strength that the egg was knocked out of the cup and rolled under the table. Not knowing the correct thing to do in such [DOT]circumstances, she appealed to her husband. 'John,' she whispered, 'I ^have dropped an egg. What am I to do?' 'Do not cackle,' replied the matter-of-fact John. Our hon. friends opposite have almost dropped the naval policy and when they appealed to their right hon. leader he said to them: 'Do not cackle.'
The Pacific coast at this moment needs a few vessels and we have lately had a lesson from our friends in New Zealand and Australia with regard to this phase of naval defence. With the permission of the committee I shall read a brief article published in the Vancouver Daily News, upon

the question of Pacific coast defence. This is what it says:
The question vitally affects this province. We have vast interests on our coast demanding protection. The Premier of the province, the Navy League and papers of both political parties have frequently drawn attention to our defenceless condition. We are endeavouring to enforce an immigration policy which is devised to keep this a white country. Must we expect aid from the Australian fleet or the British China squadron? How much better it would be if all the dominions on the Pacific joined with the British China fleet in forming a formidable force to protect the coasts of the British dominions washed by these waters! But there is an economic aspect of the question which also concerns this province. We require permanent industries; new centres of industrial activity. These would be created as a corollary of the organization of a Canadian naval force. We would see the development of an extensive sliip-building industry in our waters which would give us a pre-eminent status among the maritime nations who will soon be fighting for the trade supremacy of this great ocean. The Prime Minister of Australia recently uttered a striking expression in discussing the defence problem. ' What would be our answer to a threat of war ? * he asked. ' It would be the clang of five thousand hammers on the anvils of our country/ So should it be with Canada. The people should be given an opportunity to decide this question and it should be decided at once.
I was amused at the remarks of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) who spoke before six o'clock. What a great man he is in his own mind when he speaks of the British Empire! Let this Parliament give the people of Great Britain a preference of fifty per cent instead of thirty-three and a third, and what will ibe the state of the Imperialistic mind of my hon. friend? It would be like his steak under the potato. In his essays on naval defence, Vice Admiral T. H. Colcomb, alter making some allusion to the invasion scares- which every now and then startled the British people says:
We may look upon the Empire as an immense commercial speculation. The base of operations is English money, which is laid out in investments in all parts of the world. Upon the freedom of communication the commercial existence of the Empire depends. From this point of view, the greatest calamity which can befall this gigantic enterprise is that pressure from without which would threaten to cut off the greatest number of its communications. That danger may, any day, assume a very visible form in the shape of a powerful foreign fleet in the channel. The capital of the greatest commercial enterprise in the world could not be more effectually locked up than by the suspension of ' imports/ and exports; *which would, as a consequence, follow such a contingency.
For the reasons we have briefly given, it is evident that the safety of the channel must be maintained; and that it is worse than
useless to distribute the forces for the protection of our commerce over various parts of the world, while the base of our naval operations, the most vital spot in our commercial system, remains insecure. As this involves the employment of a large sea-going fleet for channel service only, it is advisable to ask the question. Will not a fleet sufficient for this purpose be equal to the task of protecting England from invasion?
There is a thinking body in this country who will soon speak, I hope, upon this great issue. There is a body of advisers who hold the destiny of this Dominion in their hands and it is the electors of Canada. The members of this great thinking body, Sir, are, first the manufacturers. What will they say about the spending of this $35,000,000 outside of Canada? Will they have tiheir share of this money? If, not, what will they say as electors of Canada at the next election? What will the farmers say, who compose the great majority of the people of this Dominion? They want a share of this money in the sale of their products to the labour class. Then, what about the labour class? The labour man is entitled to a part of this money. He has to pay a high duty on everything that he buys to support the administration of this country. If the Government wants to be generous to this particular class of the Canadian people let it give a preference on -the British goods which are brought into Canada. They would buy their hats, clothing and their underwear much cheaper in many instances than they can procure these articles in this country. England needs our cheap farm products to-day more than a gift of $35,000,000. Great Britain needs the help of our young men on board of Canadian men of war. The British Empire wants a test of our loyalty, not in money, but in our presence in the firing line in case of need.


Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve):: I want to deal with this question from another point of view than that from which it has been considered so far. I want to deal with it from the point of view of the autonomy of Canada as well as to present to the committee a few considerations showing the dangers attendant upon Imperial federation. If we read history as far back as 1790 and compare the manner in which colonies were treated at that period with the way in which they are treated at the present time we cannot but shiver at the expression 'Imperial Federation,' as a dangerous step towards the prevention of the development of our country.
One might say, and rightly so that conditions have changed since; that many in Great Britain have become educated of the importance of our Dominion that our natural resources have been the subject of consideration by the capitalists of the

Motherland; that a large amount has been and is now being invested in our country; that the manner in which colonies were treated then cannot be feared at present. All these things may be true, but we must bear in mind, that if our great and vast country has prospered, it is no fault of the great Imperialists. For, outside of furnishing money at a respectable interest, they have done nothing to stimulate, to encourage, to change conditions of a century ago or more, and the policy of let well enough alone might be applied to them in this present case.
The masses to-day are reading, are studying, are comparing conditions in all their forms, and as great producers of wealth they are afraid of embarking in a policy of Imperial federation. Now, Mr. Chairman, let us see some of the effects of such conditions of a century past. We read in ancient history that the great men of Downing Street thought rightly or wrongly that colonials were nothing but serfs; a negligible quantity, and only good enough to wring from them whatever productive power they then possessed. The occupants of the large House that formed the end of that cul-de-sac so well known then as it is to-day by the name of Downing Street, thought then as they do now, that they could control the whole Empire. Colonists or others at that period could talk of the Crown, of the Parliament, or the public; they could talk of the honour of the first, the wisdom of the second, the knowledge, the opinion, or the rights of the third, but, Mr. Chairman, at that period neither Queen, nor Lords, nor Parliament, and less, the public itself, could exercise any power, or could vindicate their rights, or their will. We must bear in mind. Sir, that the destinies of the colonies, then, were in the hands of Downing Street. One can say that there must have been appeal to the Crown, and so there was, and this privilege was more than once exercised by the public, but without any success, for the reason, that never did such an appeal, go further than that office. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. member from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), if such incidents were to repeat themselves, would we be justified, in having anything to do with such a body of men.
If we go deeper into the probable effects of such a federation, it is more alarming, for again history and common sense teach us, that the same powers may at any time use their knowledge, and their activity, to force their views, on any one human being who may be sent to represent Canada. What have we to gain by leaning towards this idea? Must we bind ourselves to the views of one or two or half a dozen men? In a democratic country like ours, the Mr. VERVILLE
mentality of our citizens will not now, and I hope never will accept, to be governed by others than themselves.
We have seen our country grow in a marvellous way in recent years; we have developed in a sphere other than that occupied by the occupants of Downing Street, and I really believe that our prosperity is-the subject of jealousy, from these so-called benefactors of society. I claim, Sir, that we have no right to take any steps which may lead us to such a federation. The people of the country do not want it, and this present policy would, I have no doubt, drag us into this federation. Leaving aside the expressions of members on. the other side-of the House, and looking at the question in a cool spirit, in a common sense way, no-one can conclude differently. My firm belief is that those hon. members who now sit in this House, and have Imperialistic ideas, do not represent the majority of their constituents. I am convinced that the majority of members to your right, Sir, do/not: represent any such ideas. I will ask them now whether it is not better to have confidence in our own citizens, who know the country, who know its needs and the laws required by these needs, than to be governed by an Under Secretary of State in the-British Isles, who does not know even the country he is supposed to submit legislation for.
Our vast country has risen from her slumber of years ago. She has taken her place amongst nations; she has turned her face to the briliant sun of prosperity and activity, and no one has the right to enact, any law, that would have for its effect the diminishing of our national pride. It is not very long ago, Sir, that a great Lord had to mourn over our destinies, or rather mourn over the future of the Dominion, and the oldest settlers to-day can remember that, not any later than 1839 (seventy-four years ago), not a lengthy period in the life of a country, Canada could in no way, be compared, with the republic to the south. Anyone travelling then, had to travel on the only railway then existing which extended for fifteen miles, from the St. Lawrence to Lake Champlain, Montreal then the biggest commercial centre of Canada, could not. be compared with Buffalo, which was almost a new creation. But, outside of commercial centres, the contrast was still greater. What could be found then, in the lower provinces, in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick with that 1,000 miles of line of separation? A widely scattered population, pour, and apparently unenterprising, but very industrious. We were then separated by a tract of forest, without towns, and almost without villages, and without means of communication with each other; the people living in small houses, and deriving a mere subsistence, and I may say condemned to eternal misery. But, Sir, what has changed these conditions? Was

it the command of Downing Street or selfdevelopment? The country was to some [DOT]extent in a dormant state until Confederation, hut, the new generation of that time saw that their future prosperity as well as that of the country, rested on the development of their knowledge, their energy, their commercial spirit; and instead of relying on the knowledge of a few enterprising institutions, they picked up their courage, they faced all obstacles in their path, as do the gold seekers in our great mountains of the West, and they set to work to raise themselves to the standard of their cousins on the other side of the line. Now, what has been the success of their endeavours? The generation of 1867, have been the admiration of all the civilized world. They have created enormous wealth; they have developed our natural resources; they have supplied our means of transportation; they have erected our great industries, and set them in operation. They have produced and are now producing for the markets of the world. They have erected large cities and towns in which you will see the finest buildings of the world. They have developed their brain power to such an extent, that, to-day Canada, as a country, stands second to none in proportion to her population. The working masses have borne the largest share in this marvellous development and they have commanded the respect due them, by other class of society. They have through their spirit of citizenship been recognized and rightly so, as bulwarks of democracy which no one can deny. They have on all occasions shown their spirit of gjoderation; they have shed their blood and given their lives to command the respect of our nation.
I ask you now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the members of this House, I ask the country, why our artisans are to be now looked upon as unable to bring to perfection what after all _ is nothing but an industry. Is it not plain, Sir, to anyone, who gives any thought to this great problem, that we are stepping in a wrong direction. Is it surprising to anyone in this House, or out of it, that the masses do not want any legislation passed by this Government that would have for its effect, forcing our country into the clutches of the magnates of Downing Street. Can the masses of this country be blamed if they are jealous of their rights, jealous of the prosperity of what they have created. and if they believe, and rightly so, that any federation other than that which we are now developing would be dangerous for our country, would be un-Canadian, unBritish, and would have for effect the betterment of a few to the detriment of the masses.
Mr. Chairman, if we take the history of the development of Australia and read it carefully we shall be astonished at the
means employed to build up a new country. In this House, from time to time we cite, as an example, the conditions existing in that part of the Empire. Certain classes of society are astonished at the progress of Australia from an economical standpoint. Has this progress been brought about by titled men, by the autocracy of Downing Street, or by the democratic spirit of the inhabitants of Australia ? No one would ever have dreamt that a mass of people in a free country could have done so much for the Empire. The masses in that country have prevented to a large extent the introduction of class distinction, and thus have remained free and loyal subjects of the Empire. . We expect to do likewise in our great Dominion, and for this reason let us keep away from Imperial federation.
Mr. Chairman, I have stated in this House that, if we kept on enacting dangerous legislation, we would incite the masses to some kind of a revolution. On all occasions my remarks have fallen on deaf ears. I suppose that our hon. friends opposite have made up their minds that a warning of this nature, coming from the most feeble member of the House, should be brushed aside, and that, instead of preaching a doctrine of this kind, I should preach one of peace and harmony amongst the great producers of wealth of the country. The man is not yet born who can preach such a doctrine with any good result under present economic conditions. Every time that a ray of sunshine appears on present conditions, it seems that the power of money and the power of industries, wherever they are, cover them with a cloud of self-protection, of centralization of power, to crush the legitimate demands of the majority of the people of any country, and we will say then, as representatives of the people, that we are empowered to legislate even against our autonomy. All these things, Mr. Chairman, are of a nature to create amongst the masses a stronger feeling of discontent than existed before.
if the Parliament of Great Britain, as far back as 1689 and 1776, lost its prestige, and if a blow was struck at the authority of hereditary monarchy, a veritable revolution in the political life of England, it was because of the oppression which the masses resented, and because the rank and file said that iron rules could not be tolerated any longer. I will admit that present conditions cannot be compared with those of a century ago; but nevertheless an imposition of the character of the one that we are about to pass at present, .if giving away our revenues perhaps to ouy a few titles, or to step into the federation of dreadnoughts, is for our present generation as bad as conditions were in the seventeenth century for the masses in England.

Mr. Chairman, I call on the present Government not to proceed any further with this dangerous legislation. I call on the ministers of the Crown not to force on me and on those that I have the honour to represent, legislation that may _ have the effect of creating an enormous disturbance in our economic world. I call on the Government not to interfere with our present rights-our present autonomy. The people of this country expect to receive, from those whom they have sent to represent them in Parliament, more than a submission to the gTeat power of Downing street.
I call on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) to intervene, on this present occasion especially, in order to protect and to safeguard the interests of those whom he is supposed to represent. If my hon. friend does not believe my assertions; let him ask the labour men of the country by petition or otherwise, what their sentiments are on this very important matter, and he will then see that the policy which he is now supporting so energetically is not supported by the majority of our population.
I may be told, Mr. Chairman, that I am mixing economics too much with politics. It is a question whether you can make or discuss politics without introducing the question of economics. If the members of this House were to study the legislation brought before them from its practical point of view, they could not refrain from stepping into the economic field, because the great political questions of the day are becoming more and more economic questions. In order to corroborate my assertion, we only have to look around continental Europe as well as at our friends to the south, and to judge from present occurrences, to see how the economic question comes more and more to the forefront of politics. One may judge also, from expressions made on the floor of this House, intentionally or otherwise, that every one has to some extent spoken in favour of autonomy. If economic questions have taken their place in politics, it is because of the natural feeling of jealousy of the poor towards the rich, and of the debtor towards the creditor. It finds its interpretation in the fact that our country has prospered so tremendously. The development of her commerce has excited the jealously of the civilized world. Our industries are the pride of our nation, and all these things have come about because of our autonomy. These are very good reasons why we should fear Imperial federation. Mr. Chairman, why should we be interfered with? Have we not enough trouble of our own? Even at home with all our riches, our minds are constantly occupied with our own operations. Our difficulties have proceeded largely from economic as well as from national and political causes, and such expenditure in a strange Mr. VERVILLE.
land will surely lead us to severely tax our industrial resources. Commercial and industrial considerations must weigh more with us, if we are to secure our position in the Empire.
Mr. Chairman, these questions are_ not by any means the only considerations. Let those of us, and it should be allfwho>
wish to help and to maintain the advancement and progress of our country, must seek to answer clearly the economic questions that are pressing themselves upon us, by looking at them in the right light- the one afforded to us by the history of a great industrial Dominion. That great question can also he applied to our great farm producers. They have already acknowledged its effect. They know full well, that any departure from our present system of autonomy would effect the downfall of their prosperity.	,
Over sixty per cent of our population cannot be looked upon as possessing an inferior knowledge of the needs and the future of our country. It is through sacrifices that they have risen to their present condition. It is through their spirit of citizenship that they are now commanding the markets of some parts of the world; and, true to their principles, they also ask not to be governed from Downing street. Must we blame them? Must we blame the great industries for being suspicious of the doings of a handful of men who are trying to force legislation that will have the effect of creating a few more millionaires? From that standpoint it is more dangerous, and I am surprised that the present Government still insist on returning to ancient history, because servitude and slavery have for all time to come been abolished. Modern legislation, democratic action on the part of government, is what the people want and expect to receive.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time of the hon. member has expired, unless he has ieave from the committee.


Alphonse Verville: Do I understand I am not allowed to finish the remarks I have' to make?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Alphonse Verville: Nowhere can we see
an example more striking of Imperial federation and its effect in benefitting a few than in England herself prior to or about the time of the industrial revolution. The business men of Great Britain then, as now, wanted to regulate the trade in the colonies, and nowhere do we see more clearly, the combination of national policy with class interests. The intention of legislation then was to require that the colonies should be entirely subordinate to the Mother Country, and that their trade and industries should be regulated, so as to.

increase at once the political power and the wealth of the class in control of the Mother Country's a Hairs. Legislators at that period had only on? object, that is, what seemed hest for their national policy, and they were strongly supported by merchants and manufacturers whose private interests it was to keep the colonial trade as far as possible in their own hands.
What were the colonies, after all, at that period? They were looked upon as markets for the Motherland, from which you could draw as you saw fit and which you could command as you saw fit, if you happened to be a member of the controlling element of society.
What was the objeet then of the great merchants in establishing the West Indian colonies? It was merely a device to support a few moneyed men to the detriment of the colonials themselves.
What can be the objoc-t of our Imperialists who are now sitting in this House? What can be the object of those travelling through the country to preach this gospel of Imperial federation? What does it all mean? It means that they are not even satisfied with the enormous profits made by them on the operations of trusts and mergers; they wish this Government to go beyond its legislative power. They wish this Government to favour a mode of operation that would have for effect the making of an adjunct to the Motherland of our great Dominion. The present Government, by acquiescing in the demands of the jingoes of the land, would no doubt, create closer friendship with the money power of our country. They would receive, I am sure, titles, which I am invited to believe some are anticipating. They would form an aristocratic class, as in the Old Country, thus abolishing the spirit of democracy which has dominated in our Dominion. They would, by so doing, produce a strong feeling of distinction of classes in our population. They wouli succeed, I have no doubt, in creating a sentiment of revolution, which it is	the special purpose	of a
democratic government to prevent. They would centralize the productive activity of our commercial industries for the benefit of a few. They would control our imports and exports, also our modes of transportation. They would increase taxes to such an extent that Canada would diminish instead of increasing in population. In summing up, Mr. Chairman, they would be, masters of the country. They would command all, even the Crown. They would establish a system so disgraceful that we should be a country of slavery instead of a free and emancipated people. My remarks may appear severe, but when legislation is brought before Parliament the passing of which may bring about the conditions I have just alluded to, it is my duty as a representative of the people to protest in the strongest possible language permitted by this House, and to bring to light the consequences of an Imperial federation.
Mr. Chairman, you may tell me that the present Bill has nothing in common with such a federation. But it has been said and proven by members of this House, as well as by newspapers supporting the present Administration, that the passing of this measure will inevitably draw us into the mechanism of Imperial federation, and take away from us our autonomy of which we are so proud. Australia, a colony governed by a democratic government administered by a labour party, have lately, as you know, approved in its entirety the policy propounded by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition in this House. I am proud to say, Sir, that the Canadian policy is approved by my fellow-workingmen of that part of the Empire, and time will show, I am sure, that other colonies will also approve the spirit of democracy, the broad-mindedness of the present leader of the Opposition.
Another reason why we should keep our absolute autonomy is the growth of the Canadian people. The number of the citizens who have left the land of their birth, to come to the land of the free is very large, and should be taken into consideration. The mentality of our population, from its cosmopolitan composition, cannot be regarded as likely to be satisfied with laws that would have for effect the withdrawal of our autonomy. Our immigration law and the announcement of our country's prosperity have had for effect the landing on our shores a mass of people from all parts of the world. These people become loyal subjects of His Majesty, they are living in harmony and in conformity with the usages of the land of their adoption, and have become true and law-abiding citizens. Before they left the land of their birth they believed, and they believe now, that they were coming into a colony of the British Empire which had a government of its own, which enacted its own laws governing and administering its own affairs in conformity with the constitution granted to us in 1867. They knew that we were living under British rule and under British institutions; they knew that such institutions are safeguarded to their liberties; they expected that their rights and privileges would be protected to the fullest extent. They knew that Canada, as a colony, had full autonomy. For all these reasons people from all parts of the civilized world responded to the call of our Government to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.
Would it be possible, Sir, after what we have done-could we call ourselves loyal

to our promises, if we should by a scratch of the pen substitute another legislative power over our destinies? What could be expected from our population as at present composed under such conditions? Have we ever stopped to consider what the effect upon our country would be if the different nations we now have, as well as those occupying other colonies of the British Empire, were to become dissatisfied with our mode of government? The great statesmen of our country as well as those of Great Britain have foreseen such an effect. The great leader of the present Opposition has, on more than one occasion, expressed himself in that respect, and always in the same way-in favour of conciliation amongst different nationalities which composes the population of our Dominin.
Mr. Chairman, I claim that those whom are now preaching this doctrine of Imperialism are the worst enemies of the Empire. 1 have no doubt that some are convinced that centralization would be in the best interests of our nation. There may be a few, Mr. Chairman, whose convictions are sincere, but the majority are preaching selfinterest, regardless of the state of things that may be brought about by such a policy.
The population of the Motherland cannot be compared with the population of Canada, as the great majority of the people of the Old Country were born in the British Isles. The development of their mentality has been conducted in another sphere. Tuey have suffered, it is true, but at home, and one can stand more in his own home than in the home of a stranger; not that he does not wish to brush aside the conditions which compel him to suffer, but physically and mentally he can stand more. Can we ask as much from those who come from a strange land? It cannot be expected of them at once; it will take more than a generation to change the customs of foreigners coming to our country-common sense teaches us that you could not expect the contrary. In facing those conditions would we not be justified in proceeding in a cautious way in that respect? Not that I fear, not that I even doubt the 'sincerity or the loyalty of our foreigners to the Crown-far from it, but up to the present time nothing has been done to awaken that spirit of nationalism amongst our great population, and this is the chief reason why we are prospering. If we were to take separately each nationality composing our population, and study their mentality and the effect of each on Imperial federation, I have no doubt that we would find it a very difficult problem to solve. Why should *we create a stronger feeling of discontent amongst our population? Why should we say that the conditions under which our foreign population have lived for years, Mr. VERVILLE.
from the political point of view, are not ideal for our great industries, as well as for our great financial interest. Do we expect that a policy of this nature would be thankfully received by the masses of the country? If we do, we must be absolutely ignorant of our present economic conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I refuse to believe that those who are in favour of sacrificing our autonomy to an Imperial federation are moved by any other motive than the good of our country, but we shiver at the very idea when we stop to consider its effect from every point of view. I, for one, Mr. Chairman, want the Government to be recorded on this very important question, for, As the Opposition is already on record as being against any law that would involve even a shadow of federation, it would seem that the Government should do likewise, so as to keep our population in peace and harmony. Not many years ago the labour men of this country were pressed by many who thought that the labour interests lay in the formation of a Canadian federation. Organized capital did all it could at that time to inculcate in the minds of organized labour that they as organizations had no autonomy. The campaign of discrimination against international bodies found its way even into our chambers-and why? Because it was then believed that the labour organization of our country were governed by a Downing Street-that is, from the United States. I remember the trouble we had at that time to educate our legislators that we had our full autonomy. We were jealous of our rights on the economical field, and we fought by all the legitimate means at our disposal those who were misinformed as to our situation, and that economical fight was to safeguard our full autonomy. Can you understand now, Mr. Chairman, why we are now fighting for autonomy in the political field. The labour men of this country, whether organized or not, will, I am sure, unite in a common cause for liberty, and if necessary a strong appeal will be made in that respect to our brother workmen from the British Isles.
I have expressed the feelings and sentiments of the labour men of my county, and I hope to see the day that the Minister of Labour of the Parliament of Canada will have practical knowledge enough to be in unanimity with those he is supposed to represent. Let us not only protect but grant the full rights of those producers of wealth; let us be loyal to our constitution; let us legislate in conformity with the mandate we have received from our constituents; let us respect whatever feelings the different groups of our population may possess; let us live in peace and harmony with the full possession of our autonomy.


Mr. EDMOND PROULX (Prescott):: I
was very much impressed last night by the arguments laid down by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). I think he truly appreciated the spirit of this Bill when he said that the basic principle of the policy of the Government was centralization and control by the British Government and that the policy of the Opposition was that of the preservation of responsible government. He enunciated the principle that Canada should assume her duties in regard to defence, as she had in the past with regard to her national development and the building up of her great public works, and that the Canadian Parliament should control Canada's naval as well as her other expenditures. Why have the Government adopted their present policy? My impression is that the Government was very much embarrassed, and that the Prime Minister was hesitating between two divergent opinions which had taken root in his party. In 1910 he said that Canada should not undertake any policy of naval defence without having a voice in the foreign policy of the British. Empire, and a great number of his party desired that something should be done immediately, without waiting until Canada had such a voice in Great Britain's foreign affairs. The Nationalist party did not want to do anything until Canada should be represented in the Imperial councils. The Prime Minister has decided to make a contribution of $35,000,000, without deciding whether or not Canada shall have a voice in the foreign policy of the British Empire. I am surprised that the Prime Minister, who is a very logical man, should deem it advisable that Canada should make a contribution of $35,000,000 without having a voice in the foreign policy of the Empire. I think the policy of the Government is very illogical. In 1909 the Liberal party, endorsed by the Conservatives, started upon the policy of creating a Canadian navy. In 1910 the Liberal Government put their policy into operation by passing the Canadian Naval Service Act. As my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) said last night, that Act is still on the statute book. The right hon. the Prime Minister made a promise to the Nationalists that he would erase it from the statute-books, it is still there. If the present Government desired to have ships built they did not require to bring in another Bill this session. They could have had the ships built under the Canadian Naval Service Act -of 1910.
Then there is the question of control. In presenting this Bill to the House in December last, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said that it expressed the wish of the Admiralty. I do not doubt his word, but I think the policy of the Admiralty is one of control, and that the dominions should pay. It has been the policy of the Admiralty in the past; they prefer to control; they think they can do so better than the dominions, although at the Imperial conference of 1907 the First Lord of the Admiralty conceded that the dominions should build their own navies. He said:
In the opinion of the Government, while the distribution of the fleet must he determined by strategical requirements of which the Admiralty are to judge, it would be of great assistance if the colonial governments would undertake to provide for local service in the Imperial squadrons, the smaller vessels that are useful for defence against possible raids or for co-operation with a squadron.
I understand that in Australia, it is desired to start some naval service of their own. Perhaps, I might suggest that if the provision of the smaller craft which are necessarily incident to the work of a great fleet of modern battleships could be made locally, it would be a very great help to the general work of the navy. You cannot take small craft, such as torpedo boats and submarines, across the ocean; and for warships to arrive in South Africa, or in Australia, or in New Zealand, or in Canada, and find ready to their hand well trained men in good vessels of this kind, would be an enormous advantage to them. It would be an enormous advantage to find ready to hand, men well trained, ready to take a part in the work of the fleet. There is, I think, the further advantage in these small flotillas, that they will be an admirable means of coast defence; that you will be able by the use of them to avoid pratically all danger from any sudden raid which might be made by a cruising squadron.
The right hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have told us recently that the ships which they want to give to the British Admiralty will be used for colonial defence, that they will be placed in a colonial squadron at Gibralter. If Canada were suddenly attacked, either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific, I do not see how thosp lehips could djefend .our coasts. The First Lord of the Admiralty, the Bight Hon. Mr. Churchill, said they would he twenty-three days distant from Vancouver, twenty-eight days from Australia, and thirty-two days from New Zealand. So that they could not defend our coasts in the event of a sudden raid. Therefore, for some years our coasts would be without local defence. In 1909 the intention of the late Government was to provide our coasts with local defence. Canada was to have a squadron on the Pacific, and on the Atlantic. The policy of the Liberal party this year is to increase the naval forces on both oceans, to make it more effective by the addition of a dreadnought, providing one fleet unit for each, ocean. The Government has not announced its permanent policy. They admit that this contribution of three battle-ships-whether it be a gift or a loan, is quite immaterial -is the first instalment, that it is only a temporary policy to meet an emergency



which no longer exists, because for a few months I have not heard any hon. member on the Government side claim that an emergency still existed. It might have existed in the minds of some of them in 1909, because there was a panic at that time, but since then, I do not think they believe that an emergency exists. They are not even unanimous on the 'Government side with regard to this so-called emergency. They have different names for it. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) called it a need. The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) did not know what to call it. He said it was in the air. Well, what is in the air is not very dangerous. They say it is only a temporary need, and that afterwards Canada will evolve some permanent policy. Why not commence now? Why not use the $35,000,000 to construct two fleet units, one to be placed on each ocean, to serve as local defence, and, in time of need, to assist in the defence of the Empire. The difficulty about the policy of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is that it is not permanent. It has no object. He wanted to obtain from the British Government the concession of representation, and he seems to think that we should not evolve any permanent policy until representation is conceded. As my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) said last night, the question is not one of amount, it is a question of principle, ' the basic principle of Canada abandoning her prerogative of responsible government to control the public expenditure. The right hon. Prime Minister has proposed an amendment to the Bill providing that a detailed statement of the expenditure shall be tabled in the House at the next session. But the time to scrutinize the expenditure is not when the money has been spent. It looks like locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen. We will not be asked every year to vote a certain amount according to an estimate prepared by the Admiralty, _ or by the experts of our own naval service. We are asked now to vote $35,000,000, which will be spent in a year, or two years, or three years, and we will get information only after the money has been spent. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said this afternoon that under our system of government the Government were responsible for their legislation. The Opposition have done their duty by discussing this Bill as fully as possible, although we cannot discuss it as much as we would like, because at 2 o'clock to-morrow morning we will not be able to continue the debate further. We have performed a duty, we have discussed this Bill for a certain length of time, but the Bill, in the last resort will
Mr. PROULX.
be pronounced upon by the people who will give their verdict upon the action of the Government and that of the Opposition. If my right hon. friend would say that, before this money is spent, the Government will appeal to the people I would not have so much objection to it. But if the Government waits for two or three years to hold the election the money will be spent. What then would be the use of submitting this question to the people, even if the Government is punished by being ousted from power?


John Wesley Edwards: Does my hon. friend
think that the Government ought to appeal to the people before they expend any money under' the Highway Bill, or any other similar Bill?


Edmond Proulx: That is a very different
question. Under the Highway Bill the money is to be spent in Canada and for the advantage of the Canadian people. I think there was mention of such legislation in the manifesto published by the right hon. Prime Minister before the last election. The country expected that hon. gentlemen opposite, coming to power and finding an overflowing treasury, the result of the excellent administration of the former Government, would spend money for the benefit of the people. This money which is to be spent on highways will certainly be for the general advantage of the Canadian people. But this is an altogether different proposition because the people expected that whichever party should be in power the policy to be adopted would provide for the construction of a Canadian navy, and that in so far as possible, the money would be spent in Canada. I do not suppose that one per cent of the electorate expected that this Government would offer a contribution of $35,000,000 to the British Government as only a temporary policy and would not immediately adopt a permanent policy. If, as I said, the Government, before spending the money, would submit their policy to the people, I would not have as much objection to the passing of this Bill as I otherwise would, but if they wait until the parliamentary term expires, which will be three years from now, probably the money will all be spent and it will not make much difference then even if the people punish the Government by ousting them from power, because it will be too late to change the policy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the great difference between the policy of the Government and the policy of the Opposition is that the Government want to delegate to the British Government the responsibility which should properly belong to itself, whilst on this side of the House,

we want to assume the duty of defending our own coasts and at the same time of assisting in the naval defence of the Empire, and, while doing our duty, keeping control of the expenditure.


Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa):: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Like death.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Yes, like death, but you
can provide against an emergency and you cannot provide against death. Look at the condition of Europe to-day. Does anyone think that Germany is increasing her armament just for fun ? Why has Great Britain found it necessary to increase her ships in the North sea? Is it not plain to any man who wishes to see, that there is an emergency and that that emergency will continue until the nations of Europe stop building ships and increasing their armies. The question for us as a loyal daughter of the Motherland, is, how can we best render effective aid, and render it immediately. Can we render immediate aid in this emergency by starting to build a Canadian navy here in Canada ? Why, every sensible man knows that it would take fifteen or twenty years to build these ships in Canada; but even if it took only ten years, the purpose of our building a navy might have disappeared by that time, and effective aid would be too late before these ships were ready to take their places in the battle line.

I believe, Sir, that the people of Canada are behind the Government in their naval policy. It is admitted by alt of us that we ought to render the Mother Country assistance, and the division only crops up between the parties when the question comes as to what form that assistance should take. This Government proposes that to render aid which is worth anything, that aid should be made effective as quickly as possible, and the Opposition urge delay. Do hon. gentlemen of the Opposition contend that there is no emergency because there is not a war raging ? Why, an emergency might occur at any time; one indiscreet captain of a warship might start a conflagration in Europe, so tense is public feeling, and where would Canada be if we adopted the Liberal policy and waited to construct our ships in Canada. And, while these ships are being built here, and while these dockyards are being constructed to build these ships, what about the defence of the Empire in the meantime ? Surely the better policy is to give the Motherland immediate aid, and the only way of giving that aid immediately is by the policy enunciated in the Bill we are now considering.
' Neither must it be forgotten that the naval policy of the Government now propounded, is only a temporary policy. We say we will vote this money and have the ships built in England, because we will have the ships ready within three years and we will present them to the British nation until such time as Canada needs them. For myself, as a young 'Canadian, I do not believe that the people of Canada would at present favour the expenditure of such a vast sum of money as we are told in the memorandum of the British Admiralty would be required to build a navy in Canada. I believe the people of Canada would condemn any government which proposed to involve the country in the expenditure of $60,000,000 in the first place to build dockyards and then the enormous cost of constructing dreadnoughts in these shipyards, and keeping on building them which the policy of the Opposition means, for, as we know, battleships become obsolete in a few years and once we begin building them we would have to continue. I am surprised that hon. gentlemen in the Liberal ranks,' who represent farming communities, would vote for launching this country into the expense entailed by even the fleet units which their leader has proposed. Until the people of Canada become seized of all the facts and circumstances in connection with the building of a navy, and until they realize its enormous expense, I believe before we adopt the policy suggested by the leader of the Opposition, the people should have an opportunity to digest its real significance. During the two or three years that these Mr. FRIPP.
battleships are being built, the people of Canada will have an opportunity to understand what an extraordinary expensive programme is being laid out for them by the proposal of the Liberal party, and the enormous increase of taxation which it will place on their shoulders. I rather think, speaking for myself, that the people of Canada would even prefer paying an annual sum to England to look after the naval defence of the Empire, than to engage in the construction and maintenance of a Canadian navy in our present state of growth as a nation. -


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That is my private opinion.
I do not think that at the present time the population of Canada is large enough or rich enough to undertake the almost incalculable expenditure necessary for the building of a Canadian navy.
We have heard a good deal in this House about sending this money over to England and taking it away from the labouring people of this country. Well, Mr. Chairman, that comes with ill gTace from the Liberal party. When, in the history of the country, have they ever been favourable to the labouring interests? Why, Sir, had we adopted their reciprocity policy a year and a half ago it would have taken the bread and butter out of the mouths of the worldng people of Canada. Their policy was to put the industrial workers of this country out of business, and to enrich the citizens of the United States. The working people of Canada well understand that the Conservatives have been their real friends in the past, and they will not be misled by any such specious argument. And, even if these ships were built in Canada, would we not have to bring artisans from England to do the work? Surely every member of this House knows that. What the labouring people of this country want is industries that will stand competition against the world and that will be permanently established here for the benefit of our own citizens. I am satisfied that if we proceed, under the policy of the Government, to begin ship-building in a small way with the assistance of the British Admiralty, and to increase the industry in Canada as time and circumstances will permit, our working people will favour such a policy and will in the end reap the greatest advantage from it.
I notice by the latest census returns, and I want to give this idea for what it is worth and as a reason why I think we should pass this Bill unanimously-I notice by the last census returns that a large number of foreigners have come to Canada and that at the present time 120 different dialects and languages are spoken in the Dominion. Now, Sir, while these foreigners are coming to this young coun-

try, it is in my opinion a noble policy for us to impress upon them that Canada is part of the British Empire, and teach them to realize from the very first that Canada is prepared to bear her share in the defence and maintenance of the British Empire. I believe that, by giving this effective and immediate aid, we can best show these newcomers that we intend that Canada shall support the Empire; and, when we support the naval forces of the Empire we are taking our own share along with the other portions of the Empire.


Mr. HUGH GUTHEIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend who represents the city of Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) does not often favour the House with his views on the various measures which come before us. During the two sessions that he has had a seat in the House, he has been conspicuous by his absence perhaps more than any other hon. member, unless it be the hon. member for West Toronto (Sir Edmund Osier). My hon. friend from Ottawa appears to be an understudy of the hon. member for West Toronto, because on the only two occasions upon which my hon. friend from Ottawa has seen fit to address the House, he has rather scored and criticised the House because the speeches were too long and the business was not accomplished with sufficient despatch. On this occasion he was inclined to congratulate the House on the good quality of the speeches under the new rules. Perhaps he heard the speeches over the telephone or from the gallery; he certainly did not hear them from his seat in the House. To my mind he made a rather extraordinary statement. He said that when this Bill was brought up he expected that it would be accepted unanimously by this House. Where in the world he got such an idea or expectation it is hard to understand, in the face of what his own political friends along with the Liberal members voted for in 1909. He has not been keeping up with the times. He could not have known of the resolution of 1909 which embodied a policy so far removed from this one. He evidently did not know what his leader had said and done in 1909, or he would not have ventured to make that statement to-night.
In the few minutes at my disposal, let me pass rapidly over some of the chief criticisms which I think can be fairly made to this proposal. I know what I say will have no effect on the Goyemment, but 1 shall get it off my own chest anyway and shall have that much satisfaction. In my humble opinion this whole policy from its inception to the present time has been nothing short of a bungle. I doubt if two ministers of the Crown sitting here to-night really know the meaning cf the Bill that they are asking Parliament to pass. I ask
my hon. friend, who is known as the dominant factor in the Administration, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), if he will explain what _ this Bill means. I ask him whether it is a gift, a loan, a contribution to the British Admiralty, a loan with a string on it, or the beginning of a permanent naval policy. Let him stand up and answer me if he will. No. He has been only a short time in the Administration, and perhaps he may plead ignorance of what took place in 1909. Beside him is my friend the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid), who has had long experience in the House. Will he tell us whether this is a gift, a loan, a contribution, the beginning of a permanent r.aval policy, or what it is? Beside him another member of the Government without portfolio, my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp). Will he vouchsafe the information which I am asking for? There they sit, four, five, or six of them, and not one of them can ratioually explain this policy or tell us what he thinks it to he. That is the position to-day after we have been thrashing this matter out in this committee day after day and week after week.
Half the Cabinet are unable to tell us what the Bill means. It is a policy which was shaped in the first instance upon wrong information. Where the Government went wrong was when they went to England last year and imagined, from what they heard there, that there was some foundation for the German war scare. I believe that the Right Hon. Winston Churchill put one over them, and he knows it. We are getting nothing out of it; he expects to get something; but he may take it out in expectation; we cannot tell just yet. Judging from what transpired in London last year, by the facts as we know them to-day, I believe it is certain that Mr. Churchill took the Prime Minister and liis colleagues into his confidence and deliberately put one over them. There was no German peril. There was no foundation for any German war scare. I believe I aim absolutely correct when I say that this whole policy was launched on the House with the idea that there was a German peril. That at all events was the excuse given. We remember the opening days of this debate, the opening speech of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister when he read the memorandum of the Admir-altv. German warships, German dreadnoughts, German torpedo boats, on one side, in comparison with those of Great Britain on the other. German naval laws and preambles to German naval laws! That was the reason for the proposal of the Government. Let us follow the other speeches. Take the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Hazen):	column after column devoted to

this German naval scare and comparing the great German navy with that of Great Britain. Take the speech of my right hon. friend the Postmaster General made about that time: he said the theatre of war was to be in the North sea. Who was going to fight us? Why, within twelve hours steaming of Great Britain was Germany, always Germany. On the 18th of December last, in that magnificent oration delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) before he went away, he told us of the German menace. He said: 'where is the danger? not in Asia, not in the Pacific ocean, but in Europe, in the North sea.' He said: ' I want every dollar of Canada's money spent in that scene of conflict.' That is his language. What was the foundation for the policy of Government? What was their reason for it? It was a German war scare which had no foundation on fact and no reality. Members of the Government and hon. member after hon. member spoke of Germany and German armaments as a menace to Great Britain. They only called a halt when the news came in from some of the German sections of the province of Ontario that this would not do, this nonsensical talk, which was nothing short of a menace to Germany and an insult to the good German citizens of Ontario. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel), in an admirable speech, drew the attention of the Prime Minister to some of the facts. He let him understand that this insult to the German citizens of Ontario would not do in Waterloo and that he would not stand for it. When my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) went to South Perth, he did not talk of any German peril; it was European armaments that he discussed; and, when the word came from the Hurons, the Bruces the Perths, and the Haldimands, there was no more German war scare talk, no more German armament talk in this House; no more question of Canada's ships in the North sea to fight against Germany; but, according to the latest accounts, as was well said by the hon. member for Bed Deer, we are going to link up with the Malay states at the Bock of Gibraltar.
I submit to the Prime Minister that his was a bungled policy from the beginning.
I am glad the right hon. gentleman is in his seat, because I want to ask him a question. When he returned to Canada, he was loudly acclaimed by the people of this country. He had been congratulated, pampered, entertained, flattered, in Great Britain. He had, as his Minister of Trade and Commerce said, imbibed the atmosphere of old London, an Imperial atmosphere. When he came back his friends in Montreal entertained him. At that meeting he said that he would introduce into this Parliament a Naval Aid Act, and that Mr. GUTHRIE.
if this Parliament did not pass it, he would appeal to the people. I ask my right hon. friend to-night, will he make good that promise? He smiles, but I want to get an answer. Some of us have fairly hard-fighting constituencies, and we want to get ready. I think I can fairly appeal and ask my right hon. friend for an answer to my question.
Some hon. MEMBEBS: Go on.


Hugh Guthrie: Never mind the ' Go
on '; I stay with this for a moment or two. On the 5th of December last, when the right hon. gentleman introduced this Bill, similar language was used by him. I have the exact words here. He said he would find out in England if there was an emergency, or words to that effect, and if there was he would bring his measure before Parliament, and if Parliament did not pass it, he would appeal to the people. Will he make good in that? Will he keep his promise? Will my right hon. friend answer?


Mr. BOBDEN:: I will give my hon.
friend his answer in due course.


Hugh Guthrie: Will my right hon.
friend answer me now? He shakes his head. I suppose that is tantamount to saying that he will not answer. Well, the promise is there, and it must be emphasized. It was made in Montreal, it was made here, and I think it was made in Toronto. A few days hence the right hon. gentleman is going to have a great meeting in Toronto, in the Arena, to try to even up with the effects of a greater meeting held last Monday in the same place. I think he will be asked on the platform that night whether he is going to keep the promise made to the electors of this country when he introduced that Bill. I do not know whether he will answer that question there or whether he will merely shake his head. Here we have the spectacle in this House of Commons, on a great jssue, on the night when we are going to have the first application of the gag in this country, we have the spectacle of the Prime Minister, the chief representative of the Crown in this House, who has made a pledge in his opening address in thi3 House on this very Bill, and he will not answer me now whether he will keep his word then given.
An hon. MEMBEB: He always keeps his word.


Hugh Guthrie: There is only one inference. He says that if this Bill is not passed by Parliament he will appeal to the people. Perhaps the hon. member for Peterborough has bored a hole through which the Prime Minister will crawl. I do not think he will. I think anybody will see the force in the Prime Minister's statement and will believe from that statement

that he meant what he said. Now, the question is, will he carry out his word? He will not tell me. Well, it is a humiliating spectacle-I do not like to use so strong a word, but it is the word that describes the fact. If he does not carry out his word, I know why he will not carry it out; it is because he cannot. And why? Because the ' Manitoba wonder ' will not let him. This is a time, in the last few minutes I have-I have about ten minutes more I think-for plain speaking. We have a Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) who boldly asserts in this House that if he knows anything, he knows something about elections. And he knows so much about them that he will not let the Prime Minister dissolve, because he knows what the consequences will be.


Mr. THOBURN:: The same as on the 21st of September, 1911.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Come on.


Hugh Guthrie: aj28
could have gone to the people, and if the people had returned them they could have made their gift to Great Britain with the moral support of the people of Canada. But they cannot do it now; it is impossible. Their Bill would not pass without the gag, and they know it. They are unconstitutionally passing a measure against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of this country. We have opposed the Bill as strongly, and as stubbornly, and as consistently as we could. We would oppose it to the end if we were permitted to do so, but to-morrow morning at two o'clock automatically our discussion and opposition shall be cut off, and the voice of the people has not been obtained with regard to this greatest measure, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) has said, that has come before this Parliament since Confederation.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: It is hardly possible to realize that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is the same gentleman who came back to the House after the Christmas vacation. Before the Christmas vacation that gentleman was literally giving vent to fire and thunder; when he came back from the vacation he was willing on bended knees to eat out of the hands of the Government, and he said: Compromise in regard to this measure. The hon. member came back and said: We are prepared for a compromise.


Hugh Guthrie: I must correct my hon. friend; I said nothing of the kind.


William Humphrey Bennett: ;The hon. gentleman
said: You are right in your policy of contributing dreadnoughts; we will back you up in that policy.


Hugh Guthrie: I made no such statement as the hon. member for Simcoe has asserted.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman
said this:
Might not that portion of the Bill he modified to makeit two dreadnoughts? Might not we on this side of the House modify our proposal a little and allow these dreadnoughts
to he constructed in Great Britain?
And yet the hon. gentleman, thinking I did not have his words before me, and being as reckless as he always has been on the platform


Hugh Guthrie: The statement quoted was only a partial one; it was not the statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe originally, and if he were a gentleman he would say so.


William Humphrey Bennett: For the past twenty years I have known the hon. gentleman, Mr. GUTHRIE.
and I have known him at a time when he was known by the Liberals in the province of Ontario as the boy orator at ten dollars per meeting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Hugh Guthrie: That is an absolute
falsehood.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will accept the hon. gentleman's denial, but I would refer him to a report of the West Huron election trial, when the name of the hon. gentleman was bracketed with Cap Sullivan's, and the question was whether it was an act-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. gentleman should keep to the question under discussion.


William Humphrey Bennett: So, with his usual recklessness, the hon. gentleman makes a certain statement even in the face of those who know him well. There is a great question before the people, and there are two great policies before the people of Canada. This measure contains the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister of Canada. The hon. member for South Wellington asked the Prime Minister whether he would keep his word. I may tell my hon. friend that the Prime Minister of Canada has always kept and will always keep his word. When the Prime Minister made the statement that if Parliament did not carry this Bill he would go to the electorate, I want to say to-night that if the House of Commons does not carry this Bill, the Prime Minister will go to the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let me touch on one or two facts referred to by the hon. gentleman for South Wellington. He said a wonderful meeting was held in Toronto. Yes, it was a wonderful meeting. The ex-Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen opposite went to that meeting, and in their pockets they carried the resolutions that were to be passed at that meeting. What were the resolutions? To demand of the Senate of Canada that they should throw out the Naval Bill. But when the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) dared to make remarks derogatory to the Prime Minister of Canada, the temper of the meeting was so manifest that they had to pocket the resolutions.


Michael Clark: I rise to a
point of order, or privilege, or whatever you wish to call it, Mr. Chairman. I was one of the speakers at that meeting, and I want to say that so far as I was concerned, I took no resolutions, I pocketed none and never will for the hon. member for Simcoe or any other Tory that ever lived.


William Humphrey Bennett: Somebody has wisely
said that ' the_ most manifest sign of wisdom is continued happiness.' I want to call the attention of the committee to the continued happiness that exists on that side of the House as shown this afternoon by the hon. member for St. John and the hon. member for Red Deer. When it is so apparent that happiness does not exist with hon. gentlemen opposite, what a lack of wisdom there must be on the other side of the House. The real lack of wisdom centres in the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, and he knows he has made the mistake of his life in the stand he has taken and is taking on this question. Everyone knows this, and the Montreal Herald, that great Liberal newspaper, has told him he is wrong. The right hon. gentleman laughs; I know full well that when he laughs his agony is greatest. The position of the Prime Minister of Canada has been a consistent one throughout. I will not quote his words uttered before the last election, but they were to this effect:	If power is vested in
me, I will go to the Old Country and ascertain from the Lords of the Admiralty the requirements of the Empire, of Great Britain and of Canada, I will act accordingly, and give effective and speedy aid. These were his words, and every word he has lived up to. This Bill is the product of the statement he made. I am not going to read the statement of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. In brief it was this: That the British Admiralty would accept the powerful aid that Canada would give as provided in this Bill. These were his words, and they are in the memorandum furnished by the Admiralty. But even if no arrangement had been presented to the people of Canada, if the right hon. the Prime Minister, with the reputation that he has, had returned and had told the people: I sat down and consulted with the Admiralty; they took me into their confidence, and as a result, I ask Canada to pass this Bill, this Bill would have been approved of by the people of Canada, as it will be approved of by every Conservative in this House. More than that, it will be approved of by an hon. member on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. McLean) who voted for the resolution. We have been told that secret conferences took place between the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues and the Admiralty. Why should there not be secret conferences between men of their high position ? Would hon. gentlemen have England's position blazoned forth to the world? It is only a short time ago that Lord Roberts spoke on the condition of affairs existing in England, and he was blamed .by the British press for having exposed the weakness of England. Let me take
another case. When a prisoner is condemned to death, and an appeal for executive clemency is made, the trial judge's report is laid before the Minister of Justice and his colleagues, but I ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether any one of them would move that that report should be placed upon the table of Parliament and made public to the world. It would not be done, and it never has been done in a capital case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this a capital case ?


Charles Avila Wilson: It was done in the Shortiss case.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hanging of a man
is a serious matter, and a case that involves the whole future of the British Empire is of such a nature that confidence must be reposed in those who are in high authority. After consulting with those in charge of affairs in England, was the Prime Minister of Canada to come here and create a panic ? We all know that when the North Atlantic Trading Company frauds were exposed in this House a few years ago, and it was shown that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been illegally and improperly spent, the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) rose in his place and said, we cannot give the names of the parties involved because they will hang themselves; and yet hon. gentlemen opposite say that every confidence which was reposed in the Prime Minister of Canada by the lords of the Admiralty should be revealed to the people of Canada.
Let us take another case. There was a certain gentleman, the head of a great political party in this country, who went from one end of the Dominion to the other, sounding a note of alarm. Did he tell the people of Canada that his party was not going to succeed ? No, east and west, north and south, he told his friends; ' Put your money on the old cock,' and to-day the right hon. gentleman is cursed roundly by his friends and admirers who lost their money in betting on the old cock. It is absurd and preposterous to suggest that the secret and confidential matters that were arranged between the lords of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues, should be made public. Sympathetic meetings between the lords of the Admiralty and the representatives of Canada were held, and as a result this Bill is before the Parliament of Canada, and to a great extent it has the approval of the people of Canada. It is wonderful to listen to hon. gentlemen opposite in their at-temns to make merry over the question of agreement between Canada and Great Britain on this great question. Throughout the discussion the hon. member for St. John


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Chairman, I think I can appeal to the memory of hon. members on this side of the House, as well as on the other, that it is not my habit to take up any personal references to myself in any debate which occurs in this House; nor do I intend on this occasion to depart from this rule. I have only one word to say to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bennett, East Simcoe), and it is that, when he says we left Ottawa with the resolutions in our pockets for the meeting at Toronto, he makes a statement, small as it is, hardly worth mentioning as it is, which has not a shadow of foundation.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not think that I said the right hon. gentleman or any of his party left Ottawa with the resolutions in their pockets. What I did say, I think, and what I intended to say, was that the resolutions were to be submitted to the meeting, and, if they were not, then what was the object of the meeting?


Wilfrid Laurier: The correction of the hon. gentleman does not at all come within the scope of the words which he uttered; but it does not matter. No resolutions were prepared, and we went to that meeting in the exercise of our rights as British-Canadian subjects to present our views to the people of Toronto.
I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the debate to go into the general discussion which has engaged the attention of the House now for many weeks. I do not know whether I shall be luckier than my hon. friend behind me, who just put a question to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as to the very important amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) to clause 2.
But, before I approach this subject I desire to say a word in reply to the observation which has been heard several times during the last few days, as to the length of the debate upon this Bill in the committee stage. This observation was made as if implying that the length of the discussion had been abnormal and excessive. It has been stated frequently that the Bill has been in the committee stage now for twenty days. I ventured earlier in the day to say that this was neither abnormal nor
excessive, but that I could point out instances in England where, notwithstanding the gag, the guillotine and the kangaroo, which a member of this Government could pray God we should not have in this country-he will not be able to pray God any more-notwithstanding all these obstacles to free speech, the debates in the committee stage on one Bill occupied more than one, two, or three weeks. In these modern days the discussion of a Bill in committee is the important part of it; indeed, it is stated by authorities that the most important part of the consideration of a Bill has always been in the committee stage. The Austrian author, Redlieh, who has written on the British parliamentary system perhaps with greater clearness than any British writer, has this to say with reference to the discussion of a Bill in the Committee of the Whole:
We may, then, say that the centre of the whole legislative action of the House of Commons lies in the region of the work of Committee of the Whole House. It is in committee that the fate of a Bill is really decided; its ultimate form is there settled in the clash of parties and opinions or by the compromises made between them. In this stage debate is quite free; members may speak to each question as often as necessary. Speeches in committee are generally short, to the point, businesslike and simple. Their manner is almost conversational and seldom tinged with rhetoric. The object of committee debate is to arrive at decisions upon special questions of substance and to settle the essential points of detail one by one. The aim of what is said is to convince, not to gain a mere debating advantage. Committee therefore offers to individual members the best scope for display of expert knowledge, untiring industry, capacity for routine work and ready action; many a new member makes his reputation there, especially a man whose claims to foremost rank in Parliament are based upon ability and knowledge of political and administrative business rather than on brilliance of oratorical display. On a Bill of first rate importance the committee stage may last for weeks.
Everybody will agree that this, is a Bill of first rate importance, and therefore it i$ nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary, that the committee stage should have lasted weeks, as it has already. Indeed, the very observation which I have read from Redlieh is exemplified by a fact to which I desire to call the attention of the House. My hon. friend from Welland has proposed an amendment which goes to the root of this Bill, which is of extraordinary importance, which was introduced only two or three days ago, and which has not occupied more than a couple of hours discussion. The second clause of the Bill which we now have before us is in these terms :

95*0
which he has prepared is devoid of every precaution. It simply provides for the voting of the money. All the precautions with which grants of money by the Parliament of Canada are usually accompanied, are lacking in this Bill. Take the Bill from the first clause to the last. Let me read it to my right hon. friend:
Prom and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may he paid and applied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
The objection, which I repeat, is that this money should :be voted not in a lump sum, but by yearly appropriations. The Bill goes on to say:
The said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governor in Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modern and powerful type.
Here again the Governor in Council is given ample power so far as the wording of the Bill is concerned. (Reading):
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.
I submit to my right hon. friend that this Bill should be amended in three different ways. First, the appropriations ought to be yearly. In the second place, all the contracts should be by tender. In the third place, all the contracts made by the Government should be submitted to Parliament. I do not know whether my right hon. friend is bound to give an answer to my question, but I submit that Parliament has a right to know whether or not he is prepared to accept these amendments to the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, I find no fault whatever with the request of my right hon. friend, which is entitled to respectful consideration and a plain answer.	[DOT]
Before coming, however, to the questions to which the earlier portion of his remarks led up, I would like to say that no one realizes more thoroughly than I do the importance of work done in Committee of the Whole House upon any Bill. But surely my right hon. friend will remember, and every hon. member will realize, that nine-tenths of the discussion which has taken place on the committee stage of this Bill has been discussion which, if it took place at all, should have taken place on the second reading. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) is almost the only hon. gentleman who Sir WILFRID LAURIER
has addressed himself to criticism of the character that I think is proper in the committee stage of a Bill.
The right hon. gentleman refers to very important Bills in the Imperial Parliament and in other parliaments as having been for weeks in the committee stage. Surely the right hon. gentleman remembers that those were Bills of a very lengthy character, with two hundred, three hundred or four hundred sections and involving complex considerations. It was upon Bills of that kind, not upon Bills of less than half a page in length, that two or three or four weeks have been taken in the Imperial Parliament, if my recollection is correct, and I think it is.
The right hon. gentleman has said that Parliament will have no account in respect of the payments made under an Act of this character, if passed by Parliament, until after every important step has been taken. Well, what fuller account was given to Parliament in respect of the ships my right hon. friend undertook to build in 1910? What fuller account is given in respect of any appropriation for the Transcontinental railway? What fuller account will be given upon the appropriation asked for by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways in respect of the enlargement of the Welland canal? We have given to this committee every information that is available for the purpose, and if hon. gentlemen on the other side have not received ail the information that should be given, it is because they have not asked lor it, but have occupied the time that should have been devoted to legitimate criticism of the Bill in committee, in carrying on a debate which should have been carried on upon the second reading of the Bill.
My right hon. friend in the ehd made three inquiries of me. He desires to know, in the first place, why it is that we do not assent to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German), which was supported by arguments -from that hon. gentleman, that an amendment should be made to the second section of this Bill which, in effect, would absolutely cut that clause out; it provides that $35,000,000 shall not be appropriated now but shall be appropriated whenever it is voted by Parliament. The situation would be exactly the same if section 2 as proposed by my hon. friend from Welland were not in the Bill at all, because it could not take effect until the appropriation was voted by Parliament.
And that is the very thing w-e are asking -that this sum for the purpose of rendering the immediate and effective aid to the Empire which we deem is necessary, shall be voted by Parliament here and now, in order that the Empire and the nations of the world shall know that Canada will

give this effective aid at this juncture. In what way is the public interest to be safeguarded by yearly appropriations, more than it is safeguarded by the proposals we lay before Parliament? Have we not given to the best of our ability all information asked for by hon. gentlemen on the other side-more than the right hon. gentleman himself gave in 1910 when he placed his proposal before Parliament? What is the effect of his proposal that we should emasculate this Bill by striking out that which alone makes it effective, the granting of the money? It is to hand what one might call a gold brick to the Mother Country in the shape of an empty measure that would not be effective until Parliament had further considered what appropriation should be made for it. The right hon. gentleman may consider that the best way of dealing with a great question of this character, but I am bound to say, so far a3 I am concerned, that his suggestion does not in the slightest degree commend itself to my judgment, if we are to assume -and the right hon. gentleman tells us that we ought to assume-that it is the desire of both sides of this House to do what is reasonable and necessary in the interest of the whole Empire at this time.
Now, the right hon. gentleman is very much concerned about the yearly appropriation and the control by Parliament. I think I have some recollection of measures brought into this Parliament before Parliament had been consulted at all, and brought in by the right hon. gentleman himself.


Wilfrid Laurier: What measure? ,


Robert Laird Borden: The measure for the
building of railways in the Yukon, signed two days before the opening of this Parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: Subject to the approval of Parliament.
Mr.. BORDEN: That is what we now propose. The only difference is that we did not first make a contract with the British Government that these ships should be built, and then come to Parliament and ask Parliament for the money. If we had been disposed to follow the example of my right hon. friend, that is the course we should have taken. We should have said to the Admiralty: We are prepared to commit Canada to the building of these ships to be joined with His Majesty's other ships in the common defence of the Empire; and then we should have signed a contract and brought it down to Parliament in order that Parliament might ratify it. That is the course the right hon. gentleman took in the case I have alluded to. He made a definite bargain and contract in regard to the
Drummond Counties railway, and had it executed before it was submitted to Parliament. He made a similar bargain and executed a similar contract with regard to the Canada Eastern railway. And he made a similar bargain and executed a similar contract with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway; and he brought all these measures before Parliament after all his following had been in effect committed to them, because they could not vote against them without turning their party out of power. I think I am very well within the mark when I say that our course in this case, in placing this proposal before Parliament under such conditions that Parliament was absolutely untrammelled, contrasts favourably with the course which the right hon. gentleman took on the four occasions I have alluded to, when he hound the hands of bis own party by signing a contract before he came to this House. I think I have heard rumours of contracts made under the late Administration which extended for periods of ten, fifteen or twenty years. It may be that appropriations by Parliament would have to be voted year after year; but in the meantime, if I am not mistaken, the credit of the country had been pledged to them. Were there not some contracts for clothing extending over a period of six or seven years made by the Ministry of which the right hon. gentleman was the head? I would like my right hon. friend to give us some light on that subject. Were there not some contracts made for lighting, covering a long period of years? I am not sure of that, but my recollection is that I have heard something of that kind. And was there not a contract made extending over a considerable period' of years-


An hon. MEMBER:: A perpetual contract. .


Robert Laird Borden: A perpetual contract, for the supply of rifles and guns made by the late Administration? And was there not a contract extending over a period of years for stamp-vending boxes made by my hon. Mend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). We had a great deal of trouble in trying to have some of the provisions of that contract modified so that it might be a little more in the public interest.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: A Bill was introduced
regarding the stamp vending boxes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, my hon. friend,
without consulting Parliament, made a contract for twenty years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken.


Robert Laird Borden: Did my hon. friend inform Parliament of the twenty-year contract before he made it?
[DOT]9543


Rodolphe Lemieux: I brought a Bill before the House in 1911. I do not remember having signed the contract at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the Bill authorize
the contract for twenty years?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not remember; 1 will refer to the statute in a moment, but I do not think my right hon. friend is right.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to do my hon. friend the slightest injustice; I have stated only what I believed to be the facts. I would like to point out that the Bill either did or did not authorize a contract for twenty years. If it did not authorize a contract for twenty years, then my hon. friend was in the wrong in making it; if it did authorize a contract for twenty years, why was such an absolute violation of constitutional doctrines introduced in the form of a measure by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House?
My right hon. friend goes further, and desires to know whether there will be in this Bill a provision that the construction of these ships shall be dealt with by tender and contract. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, as he is so insistent on that point, why he did not introduce a similar provision in connection with his appropriation in 1910? He provided for an appropriation of several million of dollars in 1910 for the construction of ships, and I am not aware


William Pugsley: Any amount not expended within the year would lapse.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that, but that is not the point with which I am dealing. I am asking why this particular provision, requiring the construction to be by tender and contract, was not attached to that appropriation. This is an appropriation of $35,000,000 for the construction of battleships; that was an appropriation of eight or ten millions for the construction of smaller ships, and there was no stipulation attached to that appropriation that these ships should be built by tender and contract. My right hon. friend very properly undertook to build them by tender, but he did not make any stipulation of that kind in connection with his appropriation Bill. The answer given to me across the floor of the House when I adduced that illustration in reply to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), was this: Oh, that was the Tegular appropriation bill, but this is not. If any member of this committee can see any reason or any sound argument in that distinction, he has a quality of intellect that I do not possess. If it is proper that we should have in this Bill a stipulation that these vessels must be built by tender and contract, then I say it will reasonably occur to every hon. member of this House, on this side or the Mr. BORDEN.
other side, that it would have been equally proper and necessary to have made such a provision in connection with the vote that the right hon. gentleman asked for in 1910. I challenge hon. gentlemen to indicate any possible distinction between the two cases. I have no desire or intention to depart from the ordinary procedure in this case; but, as I pointed out last night, it is possible that, if Parliament approves of this Bill, some of these ships may be built in one of the royal dockyards in Great Britain, in which case I assume they would not be built by tender and contract, but would be constructed under the close and vigilant supervision of the officials of the Admiralty in England. I said last night, and I repeat it now, that so far as the construction of these ships is concerned, we shall be governed by the advice of the Admiralty, who have had practical knowledge and experience in these matters which are not possessed in Canada by the Government or by any person in the employ of the Government.
My right hon. friend asks lastly whether or not we shall submit to Parliament the contracts and all information in connection with them. I say to my right hon. friend undoubtedly so, and all details of expenditure so far as they shall be available, I have already introduced an amendment to this Bill for that very purpose. This is an appropriation of public money, and it is not only eminently desirable but necessary tnat we should have in this Bill every possible safeguard for the public interests. After having been appropriated, the money is to be expended under the control of the Governor in Council, and upon the Governor in Council will rest the responsibility for the wise and prudent expenditure of that money, and of affording to this Parliament ail information in conection with it. It would be perfectly idle for this Government or for any government to seek to divest itself of any part of that responsibility, and we do not for one moment desire or intend to do so. i say again to my right hon. friend that we see no reason why the whole of this money should not be voted at once, in order that the construction of these ships may be assured once and for all. So far as the tenders are concerned, we propose to abide by the usage which has characterized the practice of Doth governments in that regard, subject to the consideration to which I have alluded-that some of these ships might be constructed in the Royal dockyards; and, so far, as information is concerned, we shall deem it our absolute duty to furnish all information in connection with the expenditure of this money that may be available to us.


Bowman Brown Law: Does the Prime Minister say that the ships not built in the Royal dockyards shall be built by tender and contract?


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that that
course will be followed; I see no reason why it should not; but I have already given assurance to my hon. friend that so far as the construction of these ships is concerned we shall be guided by the advice and experience of those who know a great deal more about this kind of work than we do. It seems to me that that assurance ought to commend itself to every hon. gentleman in this House, and I hope that they will regard it as a reasonable statement of the position of the Government in this connection.
In conclusion, I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that having given this information io rny right hon. friend, I trust that I may have his support in the passage of this measure. He stated to the people of Ca ' ada, during his recent address at Toronto, and also in the early part of this session that he and his party are willing to make such provision as many be necessary for the purpose of giving at this juncture the desired aid in the defence of the whole Empire. This is not a question of the defence of Great Britain and the British Islands alone; it is not a question of the defence of that commerce and shipping which belongs exclusively to the United Kingdom. In making this provision we are primarily providing for the defence of Canadian commerce and Canadian shipping, because that commerce and that shipping and the defence of our interests upon the high seas can be fully and absolutely safeguarded only by the protection of all the naval forces of the Empire. In assisting the naval forces of the Empire at a time when help seems very much needed, we should not regard that assistance as some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have been inclined to look at it- as aid sent by Canada for the advantage and benefit of people in the British Isles alone. It is not in that spirit that this measure is being proposed, because we have declared that these ships are to be placed at the disposal of His Majesty the King for the common defence of the whole Empire. It is for the common defence of the whole Empire that we ask the co-operation of our hon. friends on the other side *of the House, and I trust that, in the end, they may come to the conclusion that, however much they may criticise some aspects of the proposal, yet in its largest and broadest and widest aspects, it is one that commends itself to their judgment, and that the purpose of the measure, if not all its methods and details, they are prepared to support and to assist us in carrying it out.
I realize to the full, Mr. Chairman, what was alluded to by rny hon. friend for South Eenfrew (Mr. Graham) last evening, that it is unfortunate that there has been a divergence of views between the two parlies in this respect; but, for the purpose 302
of endeavouring to convince my hon. friends on the other side of the ' House,
I pointed out some weeks ago that even if this measure passed, these ships could not be put in - commission until after a general election had been held in this country, and if, as my hon. friends have so often and loudly boasted, the people of Canada are of the opinion that their proposals are those upon which this country should embark, then it is absolutely possible for this measure to pass, for this money to be voted, for these ships to be built, and for the proposals which my hon. friends on the other side of the House favour to be carried out. The determined and defiant opposition which is offered to this Bill I am absolutely unable to under-'d, and I trust that, in view of the ex- ' -.-ion I have given to-night, and of the suggestion which I have just now made, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will, in the end, join with us in putting this measure through, and in doing something effective and necessary for the common defence of the Empire 'of which we form a part.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with considerable interest-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I shall wait until ordei is observed. I would like to know if under the new rules this delay will count against my time? I would like your ruling upon that point, Mr. Chairman.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is for the Committee to decide.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Not for the Chairman?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would certainly
allow the hon. gentleman all the time he deserves.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: We have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I am sure that we have made some progress this evening, and had we a few more days' discussion on this measure, we might be greatly enlightened. The right hon. gentleman _ has _ spoken of what he styled a little Bill with a few sections. It is a little Bill with a few sections, and, on account of its length, ought not to require a great deal of discussion. But my right hon. friend will admit that its import is very great for the British Empire, and for the Dominion of Canada. Where my hon. friend makes a mistake is in saying that he thinks the Opposition wished to introduce certain amendments in order to have him send these ships over to England as a gold brick. My conception of a gold brick is something which



is gilded on the outside, and which contains none of the precious metal within. As I heard the right hon. gentleman speak of these ships being sent over as a gold brick. I thought that, in their present form, they answered the exact definition of a gold brick, something precious on the outside, but containing absolutely nothing within. And when the right hon. gentleman came to his final plea, and said what he has said on several occasions, _ that the ships cannot be placed in commission before an election takes place, I think he used the weakest of all the arguments which he has placed before the House, and if the right hon. gentleman would permit me to say so,
I must give him credit for having used very powerful arguments in advocating at least some policy which would be in the interests of the "British Empire. But let me call the right hon. gentleman's attention to the point at issue. It is not so much the sending of the ships, .as the mode of expenditure of the money, that is the point at issue. The right hon. gentleman has said that he has power under the constitutional law to ask this Parliament for a certain sum of money, and to send that money over to Great Britain without Parliament knowing the conditions and terms of the expenditure. I will refeT in a moment to certain sections of this Bill to prove to the right hon. gentleman that if the Bill is passed in its present form he has absolutely no power, and this Parliament has no power to make any conditions, to impose any terms, or to make any arrangements with the Government of Great Britain, unless the Government of Great Britain sees fit to make such terms or arrangements. Before 1 come to that point, I would like to point out to the committee that when the right hon. the leader of the Opposition was arguing that this House has a right to know just how the money was expended, he was following out exactly terms of the contract entered into by the late Government^ which contracts were subject to ratification by this Parliament. The rule which is laid down in Todd's Parliamentary Government in England, as found on page 489 of the second edition, is as follows:
Furthermore, that if any contract he entered into by any executive department for work to he performed, the cost of which will exceed the amount already voted by Parliament for the service to be contracted for, such contract should expressly state that payments on behalf of the same would be made ' out of moneys to be voted by Parliament;' and that application should be made to Parliament for a further appropriation to cover such increase of expenditure. This would afford an opportunity to the House of Commons to express its disapproval of the matter, if it should think fit to do so.
The course which was followed by the late Government, and which the right hon.
Mr. DEVLIN.
the leader of the Opposition is asking the Prime Minister to follow out in this instance, is the course which should be followed under the authority of the constitutional law of this country and of Great Britain. The question which is immediately under consideration in clause 2, is not so much the disposition to be made of the ships, as the mode of expenditure. Let me read this clause;
From out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
Will the right hon. the Prime Minister allow me to ask him one question for information? Under the Bill, $35,000,000 are to be voted by this Parliament for one purpose and one purpose only, that of building three ships. Under section 3 the money is to be expended on the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modern and powerful type. Under section 4 they must automatically go to the British Empire. The wording is:
Shall said ships when constructed and equipped he placed by the Governor in Council at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire.
The moment his ships are built they must automatically go over to . Great Britain for the common defence of the Empire. Under what authority can he make ' terms, conditions and arrangements ' with Great Britain ? If the wording of section 5:
Subject to such terms, conditions and arrangements as. may he agreed upon between the Governor in Council and His Majesty's Government.
-were immediately after the words contained in section 4, and formed part of section 4, he could make terms and arrangements with Great Britain. But clause 4 stands by itself, it is a law in itself, and it says that the Government must place these ships at the disposal of Great Britain. If Great Britain refuses to make terms, conditions and arrangements, suitable to the Canadian Government, what action can my right hon. friend or his Government take ? Would he give me an answer to that question ? I do not say that they will refuse, but if they should refuse.


Robert Laird Borden: The British Admiralty
have already signified their willingness to accept the ships, and the terms and conditions have, in the broad sense, already been communicated to this House. The hon. gentleman surely understands, from his knowledge and experience as an eminent member of the Bar, that sections 4 and 5 must be read together.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understand the right
hon. gentleman's point, but I am asking him a direct question. If the Government of Great Britain refuses to make terms and conditions suitable to the Government of Canada-these ships then are built.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is mistaken about that; the ships are not built.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But the moment the
ships are built, they must, under section 4, go over to Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: The money shall be
used and applied to build ships, and the 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.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By section 4.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend
think there is any difficulty about the making of these arrangements before the contracts were let or before the order is given to construct the ships in the dockyard ?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But we are in committee at the present time, and one of the duties of the committee is to consider the wording of the law.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so; absolutely
right.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Under the wording of this Bill my right hon. friend must place these ships automatically at the disposal of the British Government; so says section 4. Section 5 gives him the power to make terms and conditions with the British Government. But if the British Government offer terms and conditions which are not acceptable to my right hon. friend, the $35,000,000 is voted and, under the law, it must be applied to the construction of the ships. Your ships are constructed and automatically they must go to Great Britain. What terms and conditions can you make F


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I can make it plain to my hon. friend; I will try once more. The terms, conditions and arrangements are to be agreed upon under section 5.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Why was that not placed under section 4?
_ Mr. BORDEN:	Will my hon. friend
'pardon me; he is too eager. If we do not get the terms, conditions and arrangements satisfactorily settled, we are not obliged to build the ships.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is a new phase of the question altogether.
302J


Robert Laird Borden: That is a very old
phase to me.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then this is not a free
gift; it is not a contribution.


Robert Laird Borden: I have explained to my hon. friend and to other members of the committee a great many times that the ships are to be under the ownership of Canada and that they are to be placed at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire. I have also explained that if these ships are required for a Canadian navy, or for a Canadian division of the British navy, or a Canadian unit of an Imperial navy, they may be recalled upon reasonable notice.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: You have not that power under the law as it stands to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: My hon. friend has introduced a new phase of the question. We are getting some information now. We started upon the consideration of this question with the booming of cannons and the holding of tremendous receptions. The right hon. gentleman had come back from Great Britain and announced that he was going to make a great big free contribution to Great Britain for the defence of the Empire. I presume that was a sentiment that was acceptable to Great Britain and Canada. We afterwards heard that there was an emergency threatening Great Britain and that on account of that emergency we should spend $35,000,000 for three ships to be put at the disposal of the British navy. We also later heard that the British Admiralty had prepared a memorandum. After reading that memorandum my right hon. friend came to the conclusion that the only dignified action for this country to take was to send $35,000,000 over to Great Britain. We heard to-night for the first time from the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett)- I noted his words-a new explanation. His explanation was that there was a sympathetic meeting between representatives of Great Britain and Canada with this Bill as a result. He thought that this sympathetic meeting between the representatives of Canada and Great Britain, and a certain degree of sentiment, were the causes of this Bill coming before the Canadian Parliament. When he said that, the thought which passed through my mind was that, if it was due to a sympathetic meeting between representatives of Great Britain and Canada, and if it was due to a certain amount of sentiment, what becomes of my right hon. friend's argument earlier in the session that he based the whole of his policy upon the memorandum of the Board of Admiralty? What becomes of the argument that we have heard

so often that even if the British Admiralty had never prepared the memorandum, there was a great big emergency facing the British Empire? There was war over in the Balkans, there was war all around us and therefore we had to run to Great Britain with $35,000,000. My right hon. friend said last night that he was guided a great deal by sentiment. I am speaking purely and simply as a Canadian, and as one belonging to a country within the British Empire, intent upon doing all he can to strengthen the bonds of the British Empire but whose first duty is to his own country. I have tried to get as much education upon this question as possible.
I started back to ,1909 and my eyes first fell upon an article published in the University Magazine, which is under the editorial supervision of such distinguished gentlemen as W. Peterson, M.A., C.M.G., LL.D., principal; P. P. Walton, LL.D., dean, Faculty of Law, McGill University; W. J. Alexander, B.A., Ph.D., professor of English; Pelham Edgar, Ph.D., professor of French; J. Mavor, professor of Political Economy, University of Toronto; Archibald McMeehen, B.A., Ph.D., professor of English, Dal-housie College, Halifax. I assume that any article which would have been submitted to this editorial committee dealing with a matter connected with the British Empire would have the right ring about it, and that if I followed the principles therein enumerated I would be pursuing a sound course. The purpose of the University Magazine, as set forth on the title page is: ' To express an educated opinion upon questions immediately concerning Canada,' and the very first article in this magazine is upon the Canadian navy. The article which is published under the supervision of these eminent Empire builders says:
One thing I shall take for granted. It must be a naval force of onr own. The proposal that we pay a cash contribution to the Royal navy-let our defence out to contract, hire Englishmen to do our maritime fighting for us-has been discussed; and I think that the sense of the nation has turned decisively against it
Seeing that article was exactly in line with the policy laid down by my right hon. leader


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time of the hon. gentleman has expired.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I had a great deal to say had I more time, but I must submit to the rules, although I would like to finish the reading of this article.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The article continues to
say:
Thus it seems suitable that our naval
force should be devoted at the outset to coastal defence. We should guard our coasts so well that no enemy's cruiser would care Mr. DEVLIN.
to haunt them, and that our ships sailing to England, could gain the blue water without molestation. Later, when our_ coastal defence is organized, we may consider the advisability of discouraging hostile cruisers from hanging about in the North Atlantic; but that is matter for a fairly distant future.
This article practically winds up with the significant words:
Meanwhile, our Canadian Government could be acquiring the ships-gun-vessels, small cruisers, big cruisers, torpedo craft, submarines-as the progress of the service rendered necessary, and could be building upon the shore establishments which go with ships. The ownership of the material should be strictly Canadian.
Which means, of course, that the navy should be built in Canada. I find that this article is signed by one C. Frederick Hamilton, and not knowing who the gentleman was I made some inquiry and learned that it was he who inspires for the Toronto News all items that go out from this House. If my right hon. friend the Prime Minister wants us to be educated upon the question, he cannot ask us to go to a hotter source than the authority of Mr. Frederick Hamilton. Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) to the fact that when he says the Prime Minister has been consistent in his naval attitude, he is making a great big, well I shall say statement-that I think is parliamentary-but it is rather difficult to find parliamentary language to characterize the assertion made by the hon. member (Mr. Bennett). I have been partly educated on this question by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and I find that speaking in the city of Halifax where shipbuilding was once a great industry, the right hon. gentleman lauded the Laurier Naval Service Bill of 1909 and stated it would revive the ancient industry of shipbuilding in Halifax. I was curious to know what that ship-building has been of which my right hon. friend had spoken, and I asked the Government a question about it some time ago, but I have not yet got the information. However, I will call the attention of the Prime Minister to some interesting reading in the work of Mr. Castell Hopkins who informs us that up to the time of the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, the ship-building industry of Canada was considerable, but the moment that reciprocity treaty was abrogated, ship-building declined in Nova Scotia and elsewhere. Air. Hopkins says:
There were several other vessels equally remarkable. The ship-builders in Quebec hastened to build for the United States markets prior to the expiration of the reciprocity treaty but this abrogation of the arrangement and the sudden demand for iron ships reduced ship-building there as elsewhere in British America to its lowest ebb.

There was a ship-building industry in Nova Scotia, Mr. Hopkins tells us:
In 1850 the largest ship that went up the Clyde was built in Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia was then the leading province in Confederation in ship-building.
I feel that if I went on giving this information to the committee which the Government has failed to give me, I would be exceeding the limits of the time at my disposal under the new rule.
I certainly do not wish to be qualified as an obstructionist or as breaking rules, whether I consider those rules justly or wisely passed, wise or unwise. As long as I have a seat in this House, I for one shall try to respect the authority of Parliament.
Before I resume my seat, I should like to say that, if it had not been for the gag, I would like to have taken up the report of the conference dealing with the military and naval defence of the Empire, and to have asked my right hon. friend a number of questions. I also wanted to take up speeches which have been made by the right hon. the Prime Minister in Great Britain, wherein he said that the autonomy of the Dominion should be safeguarded in all matters of self-defence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Robert Laird Borden: Goon.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Who leads? Does my
right hon. friend lead, or do those behind him lead? The majority, we are told, must rule in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is leading the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: My right hon. friend is in the minority. I must bow to the rule of the majority behind him, who insist upon my resuming my seat.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Chairman, in considering the amendments to section 2, which I understand are before the committee, I desire to say that I strongly support, especially the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. * German), requiring that the money which is to provide the proposed naval aid to the Empire shall be voted by Parliament. I do so because it is the rule of Parliament, it is the first principle of parliamentary government that, in the granting or voting of estimates, there is the right on the part of Parliament to the fullest possible information from the Government in regard to the purposes for which this money is to be used, the reason for the proposal being made and the expected consequences of the payment.
I disagree entirely with the position taken by the Prime Minister that there has been
exhaustive information given by the Government in regard to the subject matter of this Bill. When he suggests that because the Bill contains only six clauses, therefore it is not properly a subject for long or serious discussion, or properly a subject for the asking and answering of great, important and many questions, I can only say that I do not agree with him. I maintain that the mechanical fact of a Bill containing only six clauses has no bearing whatever on the importance of the measure, of the questions involved in it, or of the right of Parliament to know from the Government every particular in regard to the questions so involved. When the right hon. the Premier suggests to Parliament and to the country that there has been obstruction of this measure by Teason of the attitude of the Opposition, I want to say emphatically that such obstruction or such delay, as this measure has met with in reaching its present stage, is solely and only because the Government of the day absolutely refused on their own behalf to give the information that this House and country was entitled to, and refused their followers the privilege of giving their opinions in regard to the measure.
When my right hon. friend presented his resolution to the House, he raised a number of questions, giving reasons why this proposal of his was a good ofie. I maintain that the House is entitled to know just what merit there, was in each one of those reasons. He said that this measure would be the beginning of the establishment of a shipbuilding industry in Canada. He had made arrangements with the British Admiralty whereby they would undertake the construction of vessels in Canada, subject to Canada paying the difference in the cost between Canadian construction and British construction. A great part of the contention of the Liberal party has been in regard to the question of construction in Canada. My hon. friend, from the moment that the last word of the paragraph in his speech to which I have just alluded left his lips, has never since alluded to that suggestion which he placed before Parliament as one reason why this proposal should be passed, and none of his followers have done so. The House had a right to know how far this proposed system of construction was likely, to be carried. He said that if we voted this money, under the conditions that he proposed, protection would be given to our Pacific coast by the British fleet, such as it does not receive at the present time, that is to say, that the proposal placed before Parliament by the Opposition for the maintenance of a Canadian fleet unit on both coasts was rendered unnecessary by the arrangement

that he had with the British Admiralty. He has given no word of information in regard to that matter. Nearly half of the speech he made on that occasion was devoted to a statement that the principle of his Government was that there should not be naval aid to Britain unless there was control in Canada. He has given no further information in regard to the important proposal for a change in the constitutional relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom in connection with this measure. And when all these points have been discussed from this side of the House, when questions have been asked by the Ministry, they have been addressed to empty ministerial benches. The Government has not done this House the courtesy to sit in tlieir places and be prepared, or be willing, to answer the questions that were addressed to them. Not only so, but, as I said, they denied to their followers the privilege of even voicing their opinions. My right hon. friend has said that they gave information. They gave information? The information they gave-I will not use stronger language-is yet the subject of controversy in this House as to its accuracy. And they only condescended to profess to give information, if my memory is right, during a period of some three hours during which section 2 of the Bill came under discussion in Committee of the Whole, until they entered upon the policy of undertaking to conduct the business of Parliament by the rule of physical force. Since that time they have not condescended to give this House one atom of information in regard to the subject matter of section 2 of the Bill. If there has been delay in the carrying forward of this measure, I want the House and the country to understand that the delay is because of the action of the Government, it is because of the assertion by the Opposition of the right of the people of Canada to have the fullest particulars in regard to the policy of the Government on this important question. My right hon. friend, when challenged with the demand that Parliament should vote this money from year to year and thereby be in a position to demand particulars of its uses and expenditure, has said that it was important under the conditions existing that there should be an announcement made to the world that Canada was prepared to vote $35,000,000. When he said that, he said it with the intention of creating the impression in the country that this vote was to be a strength to the Empire, that it was to have a practical and immediate result. I say, he wanted to create that impression. But in the course of this debate, whether it has lasted one month or three months, he has never yet put into words anything that would bind himself or his Government to any definite action at any Mr. OLIVER.
time towards the strengthening of the Empire in any practical way by the use of this money. There have been evidences of these conditions brought to the attention of the House before, but I propose to take the liberty of bringing again before the House the evidence that in the minds of some of the right hon. gentleman's^ supporters, what he said in this House did not convey the idea that he desired to convey to the country. And they are absolutely close to the ear of my right hon. friend, members of his Government, associates of his in Parliament-they hold views such as I will quote to the House. I read from La Semaine, published in Grand Mbre, Champlain county, of the issue of Friday, May 2:
Last Scruples-Opposition to a Moral Aid has no Sense-Neither has a referendum.
The idea of a Canadian navy, the phantom of periodical contributions, the assailamts who might prey on our cheese and butter on the high seas, as well as the famous so-called gift of thirty-five millions, are so many ruses made up for the fight; but documents, reasons and common sense have already triumphed over them all. It has now been admitted even by the Opposition, that the Borden proposals mean none of these. They amount purely and simply to a demonstration of friendship which cannot take, until many years, any other form but that of a moral aid; at least as long as the people will not have been consulted.
Does the committee remember that on the 5th of December last, when my right hon. friend was shaking with fear at the sound of the thunder and the flashes of the lightnings of war, he demanded then that $35,000,000 should be voted as an emergency towards the Empire? But here on the 2nd of May a reputable newspaper, representing the sentiments held by the supporters of my right hon. friend in the county of Champlain, says the proposals mean a demonstration of friendship which cannot take, until many years, any other form than that of moral aid.
The article goes on;
The Borden contribution was formerly declared by the Quebec Conservatives to be no less nefarious than the Laurier navy. One must not forget that that contribution meant the immediate gift of a sum of money from hand to hand to the Admiralty. It was a gift pure and simple. The present Bill mentions no gift; it provides for the construction in two or three years' time of three Canadian vessels which may be loaned to England in five or six years' time. It bears no resemblance -whatsoever to the Borden proposal when made by him in opposition. There is no more talk of contribution. This Bill only lends a moral help to England, and safeguards the rights of the Canadian people.
The article goes on:
As a premature, if not useless, Canadian navy and a passive contribution without any

condition, the, Conservative party has selected the most happy solution. A loan which give a moral aid in the eyes of the world, and which in the last resort reserves to the people the supreme decision.
With such statements as these presented as being the mind of a large and important section of the supporters of the right hon. gentleman in regard to this proposal, which he represented to the people of Canada! in an entirely different light, this opposition is and has been more than justified by every moment of the delay that has occurred in bringing to a conclusion the discussion in regard to this measure. My hon. friend has insulted Parliament by refusing to give the information to which Parliament is entitled, as he has insulted Canada by asking Parliament to consent to a proposal that brands Canadians as cowards, and denies to the Empire that help and that assistance to which it is entitled, and which Canada and Canadians are and always have been proud to render.
Hon. RODOT/PHE LEMIEUX: I had no intention of taking part in this debate, as I have spoken before on different occasions; but my right hon. friend the leader of the House, doubtless without wishing to impugn my good faith in the administration of the department which was under my cara when I was a member of the Government, said a moment ago that I had departed from the golden rule provided under the constitution of making yearly appropriations for the expenditure of public money.


Robert Laird Borden: I said my hon. friend
had entered into a contract extending over a period of twenty years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend refers to the stamp-vending machines, which are now in use in this Dominion, in hotels, post offices and lumber camps, he is about right; but I beg to inform him that this was done with the knowledge of the Parliament of Canada. It was not done secretly, and without the consent of the House of Commons and the Governor General. During the session of 1911 I introduced legislation which my hon. friend will find in 1 and 2 George V, chapter 19, intituled an Act to Amend the Post Office Act. This legislation was introduced during the session of 1911, and my right hon. friend will find in ' Hansard,' session 1910-11, volume 5, pages 8065, 8066 and following pages, the necessary explanation as to that legislation. My hon. friend was in his seat at the time, because I notice that I addressed myself to him whilst I was explaining the Bill. I said for instance:
As my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition is aware, the postal box in the street
is, according to the Post Office Act, a post office by itself.
This new device was placed in post offices, lumber camps and large hotels, so that on Sundays and local holidays the people of the hotels and in these camps would get their stamps without going to the post offices. In introducing this Bill, I said:
The stamp vending boxes can be purchased by the department, and placed here and there in the country; we have already purchased 50 as a trial, but our inspectors, and our superintendent of post offices, Mr. Ross, state that in certain sections of the country, especially where we have lumber camps, we may have difficulty in getting a regular post office, or even a regular agent for the sale of stamps to lumbermen. My officers say that we might well give the company which manufactures the boxes the privilege of installing those boxes in those remote sections of the country, the company to draw what commission we would pay to agents having 6tamp vending licenses.
That is the gist of the legislation concerning the stamp vending machines. I have no recollection of a coimact which was passed with the company, but even if the contract was passed -


Robert Laird Borden: I think the contract was made first with an individual, and then transferred to a company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events, I would like my hon. friend to think that he does not find anything improper in the contract, because no money was paid to the company that obtained the license; they got the commission which any licensee would have received.
I gave a full explanation to the House at the time the Bill was introduced. The device, which had been adopted in England and in Australia, was called a conscience box, because no false coins could be introduced into it. All I have to say is that I got authority from Parliament, and that any contracts which might have been entered into by officers of the department with the company were proper contracts and in the interests of the service.
Now, to come back to the question which occupies the attention of the House. I have listened with great pleasure to the speech made this afternoon by my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). It is many weeks ago since we heard from the hon. gentleman. I do not know in what spirit he read the statement made only yesterday in the British House of Commons by the Colonial Secretary on his pet scheme of Imperial federation. When in December or January last the hon. gentleman delivered his very interesting speech in this House, he stated that, in his judgment, the days of autonomy were gone, and that now Canada should think imperially; that is to

say, should seek Imperial federation. I listened with great attention to the weighty remarks made at that time by the hon. gentleman, but he will find in this morning's Citizen an announcement which may alter his mind as regards that Imperial scheme of his.
Regarding Imperial federation, Hon. Mr. Harcourt said he wanted clear information. Was the parliament to be elective? If so, was it to be on the basis of population? Or area? Or what was it to be on ? On white population alone? Was it to have supreme legislative or taxation powers?
I will not quote the balance of the remarks made by Mr. Harcourt. Only an Englishman from England could use the language attributed to him. If a humble Colonial, belonging to the minority, as myself, were perchance to refer to the tea-chest party, I would at once be branded as a traitor and a separatist. But, reverting to the statement made by Mr. Harcourt, what will the Imperial Parliament be ? Will it be based on the population of the United Kingdom and the colonies; will it be based on colour, or on area ? What will be the legislation framed and enacted by that Parliament ? With the keen common sense of John Bull, Mr. Harcourt has expressed in three lines all the objections which have been found insuperable for the last thirty or forty years.
The hon. member for St. Antoine has referred with great gusto to the programme published by the Australian Commonwealth on the occasion of the arrival in Australian waters of His Majesty's ship Melbourne, and he thought he had made a point when he read from that programme the statement that the Melbourne had been practically designed and built in Great Britain. Who has ever said that the first ships of the Canadian units would be built in Canada ? The right hon. leader of the Opposition, and every hon. member on this side of the House know well, that Canada cannot now begin to build dreadnoughts. But can we not imitate the action of Australia by starting with British firms, and inducing those British firms to do in Canada what they are doing in Australia, what they have done in Italy, and what they are doing in Spain to-day? The hon. gentleman quoted but one passage from that souvenir programme; he should have turned the page and read to this House the words of the Minister of Defence, the Hon. Mr. Pearce. They are there on the programme as a lesson to be remembered by the children and grand-children of those Who witnessed the demonstration in Australian waters. Let me quote the words of the Australian Minister of Defence:
We in Australia feel that we have reached manhood, and that the grown-up son should shoulder some of the great responsibility Mr. LEMIEUX.
which the parent nation ha^ been carrying so long and so nobly.
These are the sentiments of the truly loyal Canadians who advocate the creation of a Canadian navy.	*
The arrival of the Melbourne is a concrete illustration of the national awakening. What we are doing to-day and what is planned for
the future must have regard to the possibilities of the morrow. The British Empire is one, and the fleets of the Empire must have one common object and be able to work together in every emergency. The duty which lies nearest our doors is the protection of British interests in the Pacific. If we can maintain those interests in that ocean, we shall be doing something worthy of our history, and of service to the Empire and the commonwealth.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that we can well afford to duplicate what has been done by the sister dominion, the great Commonwealth of Australia. By duplicating the noble work of Australia we would be working, not only in the interests of this Dominion, but in the real interests of the British Empire. South Africa is to-day facing the same problem as that which has been faced by Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Not later than yesterday I read the words of the Prime Minister of South Africa who spoke on a resolution, introduced in the South African Parliament by one of the members of that House, favouring the policy which is being enacted here. General Botha stated that South Africa understood her duties by the Empire and by South Africa too, and that in his judgment, and in the judgment of the people of South Africa, the best policy was not one of contribution but the creation of a South African navy such as the Australian and New Zealand navies. We are told that the Malay States have offered to the Mother Country ships which, in the squadron stationed at Gibraltar, will be sister ships to those provided by Canada. If what I have read in the British papers is true, the gift of the Malay States is far from being a gift. I have read the story of that gift in the Referee of March 2, a paper published in London and, it looks .as if a large amount had been tolled from the semi-barbarian people of the Malay States.
Says the writer:
The * gift ' of a battleship is no gift. It is an exaction. It is a tribute. It is a levy of ship-money of the odious kind that was resisted by Hampden and I'ym in Stuart days. Memories are short. People forget what ship-mony is. A clever lawyer-placeman whispered to Charles the First that the equipment of ships should be levied from the roast towns. A writ for the money was issued. Next year a second writ was issued by which the inland towns and counties were required to contribute. Writ after writ was issued until the sum of four thousand five hundred

pounds was at last demanded from the county of Buckinghamshire to build a ship of 150 tons for use against the Scotch, with whom we were then at war. The levy of ship-money was pronounced illegal by the House of Lords (now abolished) in 1611. It is unseemly that the levy should be furtively revived at a great distance from these shores under circumstances of secrecy and tyranny that recall the Stuarts and their lawyers. We must give back that ship or pay for it ourselves.
Sir, let me say in conclusion that though the right hon. gentleman and his friends behind him may belittle the idea of a Canadian navy, though they may minimize the project, yet, to the minds and imaginations of the Canadian people, that project, that Canadian navy, appeals far more than the policy of tribute which is now being forced upon this Parliament. I do not forget the line which I read in a French poet: ' Mon verre n'est pas grand, mais je bois dans mon verre'-my glass is not large, but I drink in my glass. Our navy may not be a big navy, but it is a Canadian navy, in which we all have a deep interest. That Canadian navy project was endorsed first by our Parliament in 1910, then by the Home authorities in 1911. Our plain duty is to live up to the agreement which was passed between the Canadian Government and the Australasian Commonwealth at the last Imperial Conference.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.):: Mr. Chairman, my object in rising is^to direct the attention of the committee to a very important admission made by the hon. mem/ber for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). He stated in his remarks that Canada could not now build cruisers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not before having a
shipyard.


Angus Alexander McLean: He stated most emphatically that Canada was not now in a position to build cruisers. What have we been fighting here since the 5th day of December? What has been the contention of the Opposition in this debate?-that Canada could build all the dreadnoughts and cruisers which were required for the defence of the country and of the Empire. But, at the end of this debate', a few minutes before the guillotine will be applied, we find this important admission made by a former minister of the Crown. What has been the argument of these hon. gentleman day and night almost since this debate began? The most important argument which these hon. gentlemen have adduced before the House and the country has been that Canada should build the ships for the protection of the Empire and that it was not necessary at all to pass this law which the Government has introduced in pursuance of an agreement with the British Admiralty. These remarks have been made by these gentlemen day in and day out since the 5th of December and now they are admitted to have been made for no use whatever, that they were futile and that they had no effect. They say now that we cannot build any ships until we get shipyards. What is the cost of the shipyards that they were going to build? When could these shipyards be completed? Could they equip these shipyards in a year, or two years or three years? When would these ships, which we require to-day for the defence of our country, be constructed? I think the statement made ,by the right hon. leader of the Government (Mr. Borden) is absolutely correct that it would take at least twenty-five years to put Canada in a position to be able to supply this country with a proper equipment to build these ships. Where would you get the men? We have not the workmen in this country to construct these ships. We would have to import them and before we could get any ships built, before we could put ourselves in a position to defend our country and our trade, we might find the great nations of Europe at one another's throats and we might probably find that Great Britain 'had fallen owing to the neglect of Canada to do her duty by the Empire. These admissions are made to-night in cool blood. The remarks prior to this were made very vehemently by members of the Opposition during the twelve days of continuous sitting. But to-night -we find these hon. gentlemen very quiet, a change has come over the spirit of their dreams. One says that we have no rules at all. One member of the late Administration, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), comes here and makes the bold statement that we have no rules and that we are simply at the mercy of the Opposition. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) stands up and says that he does not agree with the hon. member for St. John. I think we have a divided party. The man who led the House during the twelve days that the rumpus took place is now turned down by the member for Red Deer and we have the spectacle in this Parliament of two leading men who led that opposition to the naval project of the Prime Minister fighting amongst themselves. We know, and the members of the Opposition know themselves, that their arguments do not amount to anything. They had to put up some bluff before the country and one of their bluffs was the statement that we could build these ships in Canada. To-night we find them denuded of that argument, and nothing is left to them now except that they came here tonight, as they have come here many other nights and worked up the old threadbare argument that we should submit this question to the people of Canada. Did they sub-

mit the Naval Act of 1910 to the people of Canada? Was there one word uttered then by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in favour of submitting his Bill to the people? We all know that their contention in this respect is insincere. I do not believe they want the question submitted to the people. I do not believe there is a man who has studied this question from one end of Canada to the other who believes that the Liberals would have any chance in an election. They do not believe themselves they would succeed in an election, and they simply put up this bluff


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Let us try.


Angus Alexander McLean: These gentlemen tell the people of the country that if they got an election they would be returned to power, but what would they do if they were returned to power? I presume they would take up the old threadbare naval policy of 1910 and dilly-dally along with that and do nothing effective for the defence of the Empire. Why are 5,000,000 men under arms in Europe to-day? Suppose a conflict took place, the British navy would be employed defending the shores of Britain and what would become of the protection of our trade routes. We would have nothing to defend us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not know what the hon. gentlemen are making so much noise about; their argument is all noise, all wind and nothing else, I heard a man in the corridor say to-night that the present position of the Opposition reminds him very much of the Scotchman who was playing the bagpipes and there was a lot of wind while the bag was full, but when the bag was pierced there was nothing left but the chanter. So it is with hon. gentlemen opposite: there is nothing left but shout in them to-night, and notwithstanding that they were so fond of blowing a few days ago.
The Argentine Republic is a country almost as rich as Canada, and the Argentine Republic is having its ships built in foreign countries for the simple reason that it is not in a position to erect shipyards at home. Australia and New Zealand are having their big ships built in England. These dominions are pursuing a common sense policy, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite who proclaim that they are so willing to take part in the defences of the Empire, set up the bluff that the ships should be built in Canada and not in England, when they know very well that if that policy were followed there would be no ships built in Canada for years and years to come, and no defence for the Empire. Their reasons against the policy proposed by the Prime Minister are Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.)
without foundation and illogical. It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to make any extended remarks to-night, further than to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Rouville has receded from the position he and his friends took at the commencement of this debate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we have had a curious spectacle presented to this committee for the last two days, in that when hon. gentlemen opposite found that as the result of their closure measure the mouths of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were to be definitely and certainly closed at a fixed hour, they immediately began to give utterance to all their thoughts and ideas which have been under absolute subjection ever since this measure was introduced on the 5th of December last. The illuminating propositions that have come from hon. gentlemen supporting the Government this afternoon, have been such as to indicate beyond a shadow of doubt that these gentlemen sadly needed instruction on the question. If any justification were required for the debate which has been carried on on this side of the House, it is to be found in the curious and wonderful speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite this afternoon, because almost every one of them who spoke showed a total and absolute ignorance of the real issues, even as they had been stated by their own leaders. One hon. gentleman talked about this being a free gift to the Mother Country, when the Prime Minister himself has declared that that is not so. What is it a gift of? Is it a gift of money? No. Is it a gift of ships? No, because not a single ship is given to England. These hon. gentlemen opposite who sailed into beautiful adulations about the British Empire and the aid that was going to be given by the gift of these ships, talked about something that was absolutely incorrect. Other hon. gentlemen talked about the wonderful assistance that was going to be given to England because of this peculiar compromise between the Nationalists of Quebec and the Conservatives. Had these gentlemen listened to the speeches delivered on this side of the House they would not be in the humiliating position they found themselves in this afternoon. For example, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) stated on the strength of an article in the National Review that Australia proposed to build something like fifty-two ships within the next twenty-two years, and he drew the inference that Australia was giving real aid to the Mother Country while the Liberal party in Canada hesitated to follow her example. But, it never dawned upon the hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt) that the naval law of the Commonwealth of Australia is almost word for word the Naval Ser-

vice Act of the Liberal party of 1910. Whatever Australia has done up to this date or may do in the future, it will be done under the law, the very principle of which was placed upon the statute book of the country in 1910. Let me read the report of Admiral Henderson who had come out from England to Australia to lead Australia along the proper path. It is absolutely conclusive evidence as to what Admiral Henderson's opinion is about the policy of South Africa and Australia in comparison with the know-nothing, no-name policy of the Conservative party in Canada. This is what Admiral Henderson said:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What paper?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A telegraphic despatch to the Manitoba Free Press.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend does not desire to misrepresent me. That statement

was made once before when I called it in question, and no authority was found for it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend will find the authority on page 710 of ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend
read it?


Mr. MACDONALD (reading):: In my humble opinion, nothing of an efficient character could <be built up in this country within a quarter or perhaps half a century.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend reads the context, he will see that I was not dealing with shipbuilding, but with the establishment of a naval organization.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend surely does not mean that he was referring to some peculiar naval organization in which there were to be no ships. This naval organization of the mysterious and peculiar character, that it was to take at least a quarter of a century to build up here, surely required the construction of some vessels. My right hon. friend is drawing too fine a distinction when he endeavours to escape from the positive statement that he made to this country when he introduced the measure, which statement has been heralded all over the country by his followers as a statement of fact. What is a naval organization? Is it an admiral, a commander, a group of clerks or officials in an office, or is it actual ships in which there are men and instruments of war? These are the things that mean naval construction. These are the things which the right hon. gentleman had in mind when he took the position which his friends behind him are taking and arguing, as my hon. friend from Mus-koka (Mr. Wright) did this afternoon in regard to the impossibility of doing anything in Canada. When my right hon. friend says that it will take twenty-five years for Canada to do what Australia has done in four, I say he is insulting Canadian manhood and Canadian intelligence. Why should he talk about Canada being master of her own destinies and deal in platitudes of that kind, and why should he appeal to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to come in like good boys and support this proposition? There is not a man on this side of the House w'ho does not regard this issue as a most fundamental one in the interests of the people of Canada.
The idea of this miserable makeshift proposal, a combination of disloyalty on the one hand and extreme professions of loyalty on the other hand, which is put forward simply for the moment in order to tide over a political condition-the idea of appeal-Mr. BORDEN.
ing to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to give up their Canadian pride and fall in behind a policy of that kind! Why, the right hon. gentleman knew when he made that suggestion that there was no foundation for it, no hope even in his own mind that it would ever be accepted. This theory that Canada cannot do anything in the way of ship-building for twenty-five years is a nice proposition indeed to emanate from the party that has always gloried in having been the party that, in 1878, laid the foundation of the national policy. My hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) declared that he and his party were the true friends of Canadian labour and Canadian industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friends
opposite have not wakened up to the fact that the very essence of this proposition is the denial of the fundamental basis of the national policy, they do not know what they are talking about. The Conservative party said to the people of Canada: ' Even though it be so much the worse for British connection, Canada proposes to establish a tariff which shall descriminate, if necessary, against the manufacturers of England in order that we may build up a manufacturing industry in Canada. That is what Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper said in this Parliament in 1877 and 1878, and that is what every man on the otheT side of the House has gloried in. Yet, to-day, they tell the people of this country that they have sunk so low that after nearly fifty years of Confederation, their position is so mean that they cannot hope for twenty-five years to come to engdge in an industry which men in other parts of the Empire have learned to engage in successfully in two or three years. Well might my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), coming from a portion of this country where, even within a short period of time the steel industry of Canada has been built up so that to-day we have an industry there that exceeds in possibilities anything to be found in any other part of the British Empire, and equals in the character of its products anything even in the Motherland, a portion of the country where to-day they are in a position to roll plates, where within six months from now they will be able to give to the ship-building industry plates that might be used for the construction of vessels in the shipyards to carry on transportation or provide for the protection of commerce-I say well might that hon. gentleman say that the action of the Government was to throw to the dogs and the wolves the steel industry of the country, and the

labouring men engaged in it. To-day, this Government, after six months of tribulation in dealing with this measure, have discarded the theory that this is a gift to the weary Titan across the sea. This is no gift of money or grant of ships-it is nothing 'but a loan of ships. My right hon. friend began to minimize this on the 7th of April. This was only a loan of ships which he assured the House and the country and were to be returned whenever Canada provided for the oonstructiin of a naval system of her own. At that time I asked my right hon. friend to say whether his true permanent policy was not the policy which we advocate, the only permanent policy this country can ever have, and the right hon. gentleman knows it. It is the policy of speedy organization of a Canadian naval service which he stood for in 1909, which he spoke for in England, in his own constituency and all over Canada. I asked my hon. friend three days ago to tell this House frankly, before he submitted this measure to its final passage whether or not that was not his permanent policy. I ask him now, before we leave this committee, to be frank for once on this question, and tell us where he stands upon it. So far, we have had the most delightful evasions, we have had special interpretations put upon this proposition, one in one part of Canada to suit the electorate theTe and another in another part of Canada to suit an electorate differently minded. We have seen the delightful way in which the newspapers in your own constituency, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Blondin), have gilded this pill for consumption in that part of Canada, where men were wont, two years ago, to go up and down the land telling the people that Canada owed nothing to England, and that she ought not to have anything to do with naval contribution, or naval service. And we find in the I/Evenement newspaper in Quebec this statement of that wonderful policy forsooth we are asked to accept:
It is sufficient to read this Naval iBill to grasp the fact that there is no real question of sending a single cent to England, hut only a mere appropriation of a fixed sum which the Government spend in any way it pleases, and w'hich it need never spend at all if circumstances change some of these days; for the Bill specifies .no date, place, or conditions, or even any obligation to spend the money.
. . . The conclusion is, therefore, that the Naval Bill is simply a manifestation of friendship and of gratitude toward England -merely a moral object.
A nice title for this measure to bear 'a moral object'. There are various other kinds of 'objects' I might speak of as descriptive of it, but, we will be content with the beautiful language of the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) in his newspaper wherein he, one of its own fathers, calls it a 'moral object.'


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The time allowed to
the hon. member has expired-unless the committee cares to-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have until two
o'clock; I did not start until twenty minutes to two. So, this is not a gift of men, or money, or ships, to the Mother Country. And all these wild patriotic appeals in which hon. gentlemen have been indulging here and elsewhere have gone for naught-for nothing but 'a moral object' in which this Government, perhaps, may never spend a single dollar. The statement in this paper is a strong argument in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) which we have been contending for for twenty-four hours, the position that, as this Bill is drawn, you are simply giving a blank cheque to this Government to do with as they please. My right hon. friend the leader of the Government, even in his last address on this question, apologetically says:	Gentlemen of Parliament, be
good enough to support this measure, because, even if we give the order to construct these ships, they will not be constructed before 1916 and by that time you will have had a chance to go to the country. But he said that nothing had been done about a permanent policy. Is he going to stand upon this as his permanent policy? Is this all he has?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Another contribution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: ' Another contribution,' my hon. friend from Beauce says. But the leader of the Government has closed the door against that, because he has declared that he does not stand for contribution.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He has declared for both.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend has made such an ingenious speech that it is possible for him to declare for a contribution policy or for a construction policy, whichever suits him. I say again the right hon. gentleman ought to be more frank with the committee than he has been on this important matter. Before he forever shuts off discussion in committee on this important measure, he should tell the House and the people of this country where he really stands in the matter. There is not an hon. gentleman sitting behind the right hon. gentleman in this House who knows whether the leader of the Government to-day stands for a policy of contribution or a policy of construction. My right hon. friend is putting the gag upon Parliament; he is applying the closure and preventing free speech in order to prevent Parliament and the country from ascertaining from him

where he really stands in this matter. My right hon. friend, by virtue of his majority, and by introducing rules in a manner unconstitutional and never before heard of, may bring this discussion to a close, but let me ask my right hon. friend before he does	so if he	can	tell	the peoplewhether	this is a	gift	or	a loan ora moral	object lesson?	The	people willwant to know from the Conservative party and from its leader if they are in favour of the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service, just as Australia is, as New Zealand	is, and as	all	the	other great
nations of the Empire are; or whether they are in favour of a policy of contribution, a policy of humiliation for the Canadian people? And let me say that the people of Canada will in the end decide this question, and when that time comes they will support a policy under which Canadian pride, Canadian confidence and Canadian assertion of rights will find full and complete fruition.
Saturday, May 10, two a.m.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now for the gag.
Committee divided on amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. German:
That clause 2 be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor: Upon appropriations in that behalf being from time to time made by Parliament, there may be paid and applied from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of speedily increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 63; Nays, 96.
Committee divided on amendment proposed by Mr. Guthrie:
That section 2 of the Bill be amended by inserting therein after the word ' dollars' in the third line of the section the following words, viz: to be expended in Canada in the construction and equipment of naval forces as hereinafter set out.
Amendment negatived:	Yeas, 64; Nays,
96.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is now
on clause 2:
From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
Shall this clause be adopted?


Mr. NEELY:: I would like to make a
few observations on this clause.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Under the rule, no
hon. member is allowed t.o speak after two o'clock.
Mr. MACDONALD.


David Bradley Neely: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. Why does the Chairman put the question-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must tell the hon.
-member, if he persists in going on, that 1 have put the question.


David Bradley Neely: Why does the Chairman
put the question if it is not to be discussed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I repeat that the discussion finished at two o'clock. I have put the question on clause 2.


An hon. MEMBER:: When is it twoo'clock?


David Bradley Neely: I rise to a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that the hon.
member is out of order.


David Bradley Neely: I want to appeal to you
on a point of order. It is this: if there are rules to govern debate in this House, those rules have been persistently disregarded to-day by the right hon. gentleman who inaugurated them in this House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. gentleman make his point of order?


David Bradley Neely: I am making the point of order that the rule which governs this situation, that this debate shall close at two o'clock in the morning, has been persistently disregarded by the Prime Minister and by every hon. gentleman behind him since this debate commenced this afternoon.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that that is
not a point of order. The question is now on clause 2. Shall clause 2 be adopted?


Alphonse Verville: I spy a stranger.


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario):: There is a stranger over there.
Committee divided on section 2:	Yeas,
96; nays, 63.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3:
The' said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governor in Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modern and powerful type.
Committee divided on amendment proposed by Mr. German:	Yeas, 64; nays,
96.
Amendment negatived.
That clause 3 be amended by striking out the words ' the Governor in Council ' in the second line thereof, and inserting the word ' Parliament ' in lieu thereof, and striking out the words ' the most modern and powerful type' in the third and fourth lines, and

inserting in lieu thereof the words ' a class approved hy Parliament/
Section agreed to: yeas, 95; nays, 64.
On section 4:
The said ships when constructed and equipped shall he placed by the Governor in 'Council at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire.
Committee divided on amendment proposed by Mr. German:
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.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 64; nays, 96.
Section agreed to: yeas, 96; nays, 65.
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.
Committee divided on amendment proposed by Mr. German:
That clause 5 be amended hy 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.
Amendment negatived:	Yeas, 64; nays,
97.
Section agreed to: Yeas, 96; nays, 64.
On section 6:
A detailed statement of the sums expended on the authority of this Act for the .then last preceding fiscal year shall be laid before the House during the first fifteen days of each session of Parliament.
Committee divided on amendment proposed by Mr. Carve 11:
That the following words be added to the section:	' provided, however, that all work executed under this Act shall he by contract awarded upon pnblio tender/
Amendment negatived:	Yeas, 61; navs
95.
Section agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move, Mr
Chairman, that the Bill be reported as
amended.
Mr. CARROT.!.:	This afternoon I intimated that I proposed to make a motion adding another clause to the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of
order.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Let the hon. member state his point of order. A point of order is always in order.


Arthur Meighen: My point of order is that the Prime Minister having moved that we report this Bill an amendment cannot be moved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; sit down.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not a point of order. I beg to say a word on
the question of order. The question at this moment is whether or not an amendment cun be moved at this stage of the proceedings. My hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) rises to move an amendment, and the point of order is taken that he cannot move an amendment.
Mr. MEIGHEN; If you will excuse me, that is not the point. The point is this: the Prime Minister, as I understood it, rose and moved that we report this Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a matter of little importance who rose first. The question is whether or not my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll), who was told this afternoon that he could not move an amendment when he proposed to move it, can move it now. It is an important point whether under these rules we can move an amendment now or whether we are shut off from further discussion. I propose to discuss that point. I submit that the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) is perfectly in order in moving an amendment to this Bill before it can be taken out of committee. When he rose this afternoon to move his amendment, he was told that he could not move it. I thought the point was well taken, because the Prime Minister had moved the motion of which he had given notice yesterday evening and that motion had been adopted by the committee. He had moved:
That the further consideration of the second, third, fourth and fifth sections and of the proposed sixth section of this Bill, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed.
As that motion was agreed to, my hon. friend from South Cape Breton could not move an amendment until the committee had ordered that the first consideration of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth sections had been disposed of. Let us examine these rules. The motion was moved by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister acording to the rules. The rule saya that, if the House be in Committee, it can be moved:
That the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of
the committee.
Mark the words. Shall not be the ' only ' business, but shall be the 'first' business

of the committee. If that is so, that necessarily implies that it can be the second business, the third business and the fourth business. If the person, who framed the rule, meant to say that it should be the only business to be considered, he should have said so, and I would then understand that no amendment could be moved. The motion that we have adopted is that the sections which are to be considered shall be the first consideration of the committee. When we have disposed of them, when they have been adopted, are we precluded now from going any further. If we are not, my friend the member for South Cape Breton can move his amendment. Am 1 to understand that he cannot move that amendment, because the rule goes on to say: *
If in committee, on any such resolution,
clause, section, preamble or title; and if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before two of the clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith.
What is it that is to be decided forthwith now that the sections have been disposed of? What is there in the rules to prevent a member from moving an amendment? I cannot see a word.


Robert Laird Borden: I pointed out to the right hon. gentleman this afternoon and to the hon. member for Cape Breton that there was a simple method by which he could get the right to move an amendment. In speaking of this right to move an amendment, I distinctly said that I was guarding myself after two o'clock. I most distinctly made that statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: I never heard it.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend said in reply to that statement: Then, everything is to be shut off at two o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not according to the rule, but according to the will of my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: According to the rule.
I had risen, at the conclusion of the last vote, to move that the Bill be reported, and I had a perfect right to rise and make that motion. My hon. friend the member for Cape Breton and hon. gentlemen opposite would have no difficulty about dealing with this amendment except by their own default. Why did they not take the vote on the amendment of my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) this afternoon and then let my hon. friend from Cape Breton move this amendment as a subSir WILFRID LAURIER.
*amendment, as he could have done. It was perfectly competent for them to take that course.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see.


Robert Laird Borden: They did not see fit to
do it. Under the circumstances I am justified not only by the rules of this House but I think on account of their conduct, in moving that the Bill be reported.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have we no
business to decide what are our rights? If we had decided not to speak and not to *debate, then my right hon. friend could have come in, but because we decided to take the right of speaking once in twenty minutes, my hon. friend from South Cape Breton cannot have the right to move his amendment. That is not the point I raise. My point is this: Is there anything in the rules at the present time to prevent us from moving an amendment? My right hon. friend's motion was simply that such and such clauses should be the first business of the committee. That motion was agreed to. It says the 'first' business, not the 'only' business. We can now gc on with the second. You can shut us out, as you have the majority, but the question is whether or not you have a rule.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is
indulging in a great deal of excitement about a very simple matter. He knows perfectly well, as every hon. gentleman in this House knows, that a very large proportion of the discussion which ha3 taken place since three o'clock yesterday afternoon was not relevant to the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Welland.' When my right hon. friend speaks of restriction of debate, I say that the discussion which we have had would be just as relevant to the amendment of the hon. member for South Cape Breton as to the amendment of the hon. member for Welland. There would have been no restriction whatever by reason of substituting one amendment for the other. As I pointed out to my hon. friend, they were at liberty to move as many amendments as they liked, if they took the course of having a vote on one amendment and of moving another in addition to it or in substitution for it. They did not see fit to take that course for some reason best known to themselves. That being the case, I cannot see why they have any right or justification to complain, if I move, as 1 do move that this Bill be reported.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do you say
that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton has not the right to move his amendment?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must confess


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The hon. member
will-


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of
order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Please sit down.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, you
have no right to give your judgment without hearing us. We have a right to discuss the point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
The Chairman having resumed his seat:


William Pugsley: Now, Mr. Chairman,
that is right.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I had no intention of preventing the hon. member from speaking. I was-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, sit down.


William Pugsley: I meant no disrespect to you, Mr. Chairman; but it seemed to me you were taking advantage of our sitting down to go on and deliver judgment. If you did that you would prevent us from discussing the point of order. As I understand the Prime Minister, he relies on the words of the rule that no member shall rise to speak after two o'clock. If that were to be construed in the way the Prime Minister would have it, what right had he to rise to move that the committee should report the Bill? What right had he to take the floor? Surely if he had the right to take the floor in order to make the motion, my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), who had the floor first, had an equal right to make a substantive-


Robert Laird Borden: I do not admit that he
had the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes, he had.


William Pugsley: There is no question
whatever about it.


Mr. HAZEN:: Yes, there is every question.


William Pugsley: The only way that the
Tight could be taken away from him would be for some gentleman to he guilty of the same discourtesy as was shown to the-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
'The CHAIRMAN: I do not want the
hon. gentleman to use strong language.


William Pugsley: That is the only way his right could be taken away. He had the 303
right because he had the floor first. It is manifest that this rule means-because a fair and reasonable meaning must be given to it-it is manifest that this rule-or resolution, because as I said, I shall not call it a rule, for the reason that it was illegally and irregularly passed; but, assuming for the moment that it is a rule of the House, all that it means is that no member shall have the right to rise and speak on any of the sections in regard to which the minister has given notice. The fair interpretation of the rule is that, in respect of these clauses of the Bill in regard to which the minister on a previous day has given notice, the closure-the guillotine, which is better, and following the kangaroo -shall be applied at two o'clock. But that applies only to those sections in regard to which the minister has given notice. When the guollotine falls as to these sections, they are disposed of. But that does not take away the right of any member of the committee while the Bill is under consideration to rise and move a substantive motion for the addition of another clause to the Bill. That is what the hon. member for South Cape Breton proposes to do. It is bad enough to have these rules apply, even giving them their fair meaning. It is dishonouring and degrading to Parliament-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: In using these words I have used words used a few days ago by the right Hon. Walter Long in the British Parliament. That right hon. gentleman stated that the application of the guillotine was degrading and dishonouring to Parliament, reducing it from a real Parliament to a mere board of registration of the will of the executive. That would be true of this Parliament if these rules apply. It will be bad enough to apply them according to their meaning, but if they are to have the interpretation suggested by the Prime Minister, it would prevent this Parliament from occupying a useful position, and would degrade and dishonour it, and would prevent private members from having anything to do with the carrying on of legislation. We know that the Government have the majority, and that it is their special business to propose legislation. But it is still the undoubted right of every member, a right which ought not to be taken away from him, to have a reasonable opportunity to propose amendments to legislation brought before the House. Therefore I maintain that the hon. member for South Cape Breton, having the floor before the Prime Minister and proposing to move an additional section of which he gave notice this afternoon, has the right to propose that additional section.



Now, a word in answer to the Prime Minister. He says that if the members had not taken up the time in discussing this question, my hon. friend from South Cape Breton, after clause 2 had been disposed of, might have moved this as a sub-amendment. But my right hon. friend ought not to forget that the hon. member for Cape Breton South could not control the speakers. Several members from that side spoke occupying a very considerable time-three or four; four at least, I think.


Henri Sévérin Béland: More than that.


William Pugsley: MoTe than that, some hon. member says. Surely, ' the hon. member for South Cape Breton, as a representative of the people, ought not to be deprived, by the action of honourable members in taking up the time to two o'clock, of the opportunity to exercise this right. It seems to me he has an undoubted right to propose an additional section to the Bill.


William F. Carroll: When, this afternoon, I spoke to this amendment,-if you call it an amendment, a proposed new clause to the Bill-I was told by you, Mr. Chairman, that at that time I was out of order in moving such a proposed clause. I appreciated what you said and realised that you were right and ceased any effort to press my motion. At that time I understood you to say-and I would like you to give attention to the few words I have to say on the subject-that on the passage of clauses 2, 3, 4. 5, and 6, I should be in order then if I moved this proposed clause 7.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We all heard it.


William F. Carroll: Now, I am not going into a discussion of the technicalities that are concerned in this particular rule of order. I	do not wish to
be in the least discourteous to the right hon. Prime Minister in rising in my place, as I think I bad the right to move this clause. And to show the Prime Minister that I had the floor and had the eye of the Chairman, I have only to bring to his recollection that I was called to order by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. I submit with all due deference to the stand taken by the Prime Minister that under the rules of the House as at present constituted I have the right to move a new clause to the Bill as it stands in the committee at the present time.


William F. Carroll: If that right is denied me I will accept your decision gracefully; without further discussion I will wait for your ruling.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I have any quarrel, so far as my individual opinion goes, with the interpretation of the Mr. PUGSLEY.
rule put forward by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. But what I say is that that has no application here, for this reason. It is true I rose to a point of order when the hon. member for South Cape Breton had the floor. I rose, not because I doubted his right to move an amendment, but I did object to his rising after the Prime Minister had moved to report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite may not have observed what I observed. There may be no difference between us as to the interpretation of the rules; it is a question of fact-whether the Chairman saw the Prime Minister first. That is the question before the Chair. I would have had no right, in my humble judgment, to have objected to the course of the hon. member for South Cape Breton if I had not believed that a motion to report was already before the Chair.


William Pugsley: Might I suggest to my hon. frifend that, according to my interpretation of the rules, my friend from Cape Breton had the right to move this amendment?


Arthur Meighen: Not when he rose.


Wilfrid Laurier: It means that a member of this House is deprived of the right to move an amendment by the Prime Minister's jumping up to prevent him from doing so.


Arthur Meighen: It does not mean what the right hon. leader of the Opposition says it means, for the reason given by the Prime Minister himself-that the opportunity occurred times without number for the moving of this amendment this afternoon and last night.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I wish to say a word or two with regard to this point of order. I do not intend to discuss-and I think it will be needless for any member of this House to discuss it-whether the hon. member for Cape Breton had the floor; that is left entirely with the Chairman; but I do say that if the right hon. Prime Minister had the floor, he had no right to take the floor for the purpose of moving that this Bill be reported.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: Let us look as the new rules very carefully and see what they really do 'mean. Last night the right hon. Prime Minister, under these new rules, rose in his place and said:
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 sections and of the proposed sixth section

95S2
of this Bill, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed.
To-day when this House went into committee, and when this order was called, the right hon. Prime Minister rose in his place, and, according to the notice given last night, moved that the further consideration of sections 3, 4 and 5, and the proposed section 6 of this Bill, should be the first business of the day, and should not be further postponed. The consideration of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th sections and the proposed 6th section, has been the first business of the committee, and it has been .concluded. I would like the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie to be kind enough to follow with me the reading of the new rule. The second paragraph has been invented to kill so many birds with the same stone that it is somewhat ambiguous, and if you read that portion which refers to this debate you will find it to read as follows:
If the House be in Committee of the Whole, any minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the further consideration of any clauses, shall be the first business of the committee, and ^ shall not further be postponed; and in either case such question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and if the same shall be resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes, on any such clause, and if such postponed consideration shall not have been concluded1 before two of the clock in the morning, nol member shall rise to speak after tha-t hour,! but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such postponed consideration, shall he decided forthwith.
At two o'clock this morning what happened? The clauses which were mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister last night in his motion were brought before this committee and voted upon. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) endeavoured to speak upon one of these clauses, and he was called to order, but if these rules are constitutional-and I shall presume for the purpose of this argument that they are- the Chairman was perfectly right in calling him to order; he had no right to speak. But here is a member of this House who desires to present an amendment to this Bill in the form of clause 7. When did the right hon. Prime _ Minister tell us that we would have no right to discuss clause 7? Was that notice ever given to the Committee? Did the right hon. Prime Minister give notice to the Committee that consideration of this Bill would have to be concluded tonight? He has no right to do so under the rules. According to the rules a member may move:
303i	,	31 ~ US'
That the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be postponed.
Why were the words 'Bill or bills' not added thereto? If the words bill or bills had been added, the Prime Minister could have moved last night that the consideration of this Bill must be concluded at two o'clock this morning, and not be further postponed, but he has no right to do so under the rules as they are at present. Certainly there is a flaw in the framing of these rules, and I might say that if they had been submitted to a committee of the House, the followers of the right hon. Prime Minister would have been enabled to correct this defect and to insert the words 'bill or bills' and the gag might have been more effective than it can be to-night. Is this the proper time for the hon. member for South Cape Breton to present his amendment? Could he have presented the amendment earlier in the day in the form of an amendment to any other clause? Bourinot says he could not. At page 661 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, 3rd edition, hon. gentleman will find:
In proceedings of the Whole House upon Bills, the preamble shall be first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
And, at page 662:
It is irregular to propose to leave out all the words from ' that ' to the end of a clause
in order to substitute other words, as such an amendment is in the nature of a mew clause, which should be considered at a later stage in committee.
The new clause should be considered at a stage in committee when the other clauses have been disposed of. The clauses in the Bill were not disposed of until a quarter to three this morning; it was at a quarter to three that the hon. member for South Cape Breton got up to propose clause 7. I say that under the rules this was the proper and the only time for him to propose this clause. I will cite an authority to my right hon. friend. On page 663 of the same edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure he wall find this:
In the session of ,1875, the House went into committee on a Bill ' to amend the general Acts respecting railways,' and a question arose whether it was competent to add a clause requiring the Government to purchase goods for the use of Dominion railways upon public tender and contract only; and the committee having arisen for the purpose of receiving instructions from the House upon the point at issue, Mr. Speaker Anglin decided that such an amendment would be regular, without an instruction. A similar decision was given ' in Committee of the Whole on a Bill to re-

peal the Insolvency Laws now in force in Canada.
I submit that this is the proper time to introduce this new clause. It could _ not have been introduced at any other time. If we are going to consider the new rules as being constitutional and for the purpose of my argument I am willing to consider them so, they decree very clearly that everything in the way of debate relating to the clauses mentioned last night by the right hon. the Prime Minister must be over and done with by two o'clock in the morning. The Prime Minister did not refer to any further proposed clause. He did not postpone consideration of the whole Bill, because under the law he has not that right. The words ' Bill ' or ' Bills ' are not added. The rules might perhaps be amended in this regard for future occasions, but as they stand to-night I claim that the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) has a perfect right to submit his amendment, that this is the proper time for him to submit it, and that it must be considered by this committee. If the opportunity is not to be given to members of the House to discuss that amendment we might as well turn ourselves into voting machines and be gagged entirely, never to speak in this Parliament again. We turn to Bourinot, an authority on parliamentary procedure, and find that he says you will present your amendments at such and such a time, and that authority is not contradicted by any new rule introduced by the Prime Minister. Perhaps the majority of this House will say that the member for South Cape Breton has no right to move an amendment. I claim that he has a perfect right to do so. He might have no right to move an amendment to any other clause, but he has the right to move that a new clause be added to this Bill, and he should be given an opportunity to do so before the Bill is reported.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I was going to explain and to make clear to the committee how the question stood. Before this discussion is permitted to go on there is a question to be disposed of first by the Chairman on his responsibility, and that is the question of who had the floor. It has been said that the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) had the floor, but it is for the Chairman to decide. I must say that I saw the Prime Minister first.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: You can appeal from my ruling.


Mr. GERMAN:: I would like to say a
word regarding the point of order.
Mr. BOIVIX.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that my ruling is that the Prime Minister had the floor.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Too late.


William Manley German: I rise to another point
of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask permission to
explain to the committee.


William F. Carroll: I was asked to take my seat.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You were too late,
Mr. Chairman. Why did you not decide it at the time?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I saw the Prime Minister first, and he had the floor, and made his motion, and we have now under consideration his motion. How can any point of order be raised?


William Manley German: I submit that even if the right hon. the Prime Minister had the floor, in priority to the .member for South Cape Breton, and even if he had regularly moved that the Bill be now reported, that does not close the discussion. The hon. member for South Cape Breton can get up and move an amendment. He can say, no the Bill shall not now be reported, and I move that the Bill be not now reported, and that the following clause be added to the Bill as clause 7. On a point of order I submit he has a perfect right to do so.


William F. Carroll: I ibeg to move-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member
speaking on the point of order?


William F. Carroll: As I understand it, the point of order has been disposed of by you.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I hope I shall be permitted to state the position. I understood the hon. member for Welland to raise a point of order, which was that, even if the motion to report the Bill has been made, an amendment may be moved. That is the question under consideration now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to support
the view taken by the hon. member for Welland, and to point out that the decision which you gave a moment ago that the right hon. the Prime Minister had the floor, if it was the correct one, was a decision arrived at altogether too late, and that it was impossible for you to come to any decision when you were considering a point of order as to whether the hon. member for Cape Breton could go on and move his amendment. The situation was this, the hon. member for South Cape Breton was proceeding to move his amendment. It was recognized that he had the floor when the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) raised a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is
not speaking to the point of order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I submit that I am. I am pointing out that the premises, under which this discussion arose, are entirely erroneous. You had no right-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am quite within
my rights. The Chairman had no right to decide as he did after he had recognized the hon. member for Cape Breton.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member
is-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You can rule after
I am through. Let me state the facts as I understand them. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for South Cape Breton had the floor, and was proceeding to move his amendment when the hon. member for Portage la Prairie raised a point of order. In the discussion of that point of order, the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and my hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Boivin), joined. The question they were discussing was not the question as to whether the hon. member for South Cape Breton had the floor, but whether he had the right to move the amendment. I want to point out to you, Sir, that when you evaded the decision of the point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has no right to reflect on the Chair.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am using the English language, which you do not understand. I say when you evaded the decision of the point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -which was being discussed by deciding an entirely different point in regard to a matter that was not under discussion, you had no right at that stage to deal with the question at all. I want to point out that you had no right to dispose of the amendment of my hon. friend from South Oape Breton by coming to any decision of that kind. Any decision of that kind should have been given before my hon. friend proceeded to move his amendment. I say further in regard to the point raised by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) that he is perfectly right, and my hon. friend from South Cape Breton will not only be treated with discourtesy, but will be deprived of the right, which every hon. member has under the rules, if he is not permitted to go on.


Arthur Meighen: The only point of order for you to decide, Mr. Chairman, is as to whether or not an amendment can be moved to a motion to report the Bill. I submit that under sub-clause 2 of rule 17 it cannot be moved. Sub-clause 2 reads as follows:
Every motion heretofore debatable made upon routine proceedings, except adjournment motions and every motion standing on the, order of the proceedings for the day,-
It is not that.
-or for the concurrence in a report of a standing or a special committee-
It is not that.
-or for the previous question

It is not that.
-or for the third reading of a Bill, or for the adjournment of the House when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, or for the adoption, in committee of the w-hole, or of supply, or of ways and means of the resolution, clause, section, preamble or title under consideration shall be debatable, but all other motions shall be decided without debate or amendment.


William Manley German: I am not suggesting that the motion is debatable. I am suggesting that we are entitled to move as an amendment that the Bill be not now reported but that this be added without debate.


Arthur Meighen: What the hon. gentleman suggests is that the motion to report the Bill is subject to amendment. It is not subject to amendment and it must be put without debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite sure that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) will admit that these rules of the House which we have adopted, being intended to restrict freedom of speech, the liberty which we have had before, must be construed strictly. I have to point out to him that rule 2, as we have it now, has made provision for the guidance of the House only in the House and not in Committee of the Whole. Rule 2 has made provision for the guidance of the House when the Speaker is in the Chair but it has made no provision for the guidance of the House In Committee of the Whole.


Arthur Meighen: I think my right hon. friend will see at a glance that he is wrong. The rule says:
-or for the third reading of a Bill, or for the adjournment of the House when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, or for the adoption, in Committee of the Whole, or of supply, or of Ways and Means of the resolution. '
Etc. That applies to the committee and nothing else.


Wilfrid Laurier: Everything has been barred by these rules. The motion of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton has been rejected for the reason given a moment ago.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps I oould make a suggestion to my right hon. friend. I

think it is desirable if possible to finish the
committee stage of this Bill at this sitting, and I would be willing, as a matter of courtesy, to withdraw my motion and let the hon. member for South Cape Breton move his clause provided we can have an understanding that we shall proceed with it at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: We do not
want any courtesy in this matter. It is a matter of our rights. Either my hon. friend has a right to move his amendment or he has not. If he has a right we want to know it, and if he has no right we do not want any courtesy at all.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for
South* Cape Breton might have moved his amendment last evening. He could have adopted that course.


Georges Henri Boivin: He could not.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for
Shefford must have misunderstood me. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) took that very course last night although he did it as a matter of fact after I had proposed to add a clause. The hon. member for South Cape Breton had exactly the same right as anyone else and he could have given notice in regard to the clause which he desired to add if he had seen fit to do so. But he did not do so for some reason which I do not understand. The hon. member for Carleton would have added his amendment as a substantive clause to the Bill if it had not been that I had made my motion and he nreferred to propose it as an amendment to that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: With regard to the proceedings last night, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister pretends that the hon. member for South Cape Breton could have moved a new clause. What was the proceedings? The Prime Minister moved that further consideration of clause 6 as proposed be postponed. We voted on that and it was decided in the affirmative. Then the Prime Minister rose immediately and moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to site again. How could my hon. friend from South Cape Breton move another clause?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that my
hon. friend is quite accurate.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am quite accurate.


Robert Laird Borden: There was some general discussion after that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not a question of what I did last evening; it is a question of what I have a right to do this morning and what my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) has a right to do. It is true that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton could have
Mr. BORDEN.
given notice last evening, just the same as I did, and must have waited /until this morning to give notice, just the same as my hon. friend from Cape Breton has done. I think that the Prime Minister is not doing himself justice. On three separate occasions during this discussion he has raised the question that you ought to do this thing because you took a certain course yesterday afternoon; you spent all your time in debating clause 2 when you should have passed clause 2 and gone to clause 3, and if you had done so you would have given the hon member for South Cape Breton a chance to move his amendment. It is not a question of what we might have done, it is a question of what our rights are now. The hon member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), the father of these iniquitous rules, has exhibited more nerve than I have ever seen him exhibit before. When he saw the Chairman had recognized the hon. member for Cape Breton he got up and said: You should have seen the Prime Minister first, and you had better turn around and say that you did so. The Chairman accepted his suggestion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I repeat, Sir, that you
did so. It looks as if we we were living in
Russia. We not only have the gag applied to us but we have had a private member of this House directing the Chairman as to what he should do. We have had enough of this farce during the last two or three months.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will talk here as long as I want to. We have had men put in this Chair who had no right to be there and we have had the hon. member for Portage la Prairie coming down and telling them what they ought to do and what they ought not to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is
out of order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am making a few pertinent remarks, Mr. Chairman, something that should be said to you and I am the man who has got the sand to say it to you. I want the right hon. Prime Minister to take notice of what I have said. Now, I want to address myself to this amendment. It is necessary to use harsh language sometimes when we have exhibitions such as we have had to-night. I do not care whether the point of order taken by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) is well taken or not. The father of these rules, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, has admitted to the leader of the Opposition that he is right in his interpretation of them. The

Prime Minister has acquiesced in that construction. The whole question now is, can the Prime Minister of Canada by a ruse with his Chairman refuse to allow a member to wave an amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that the point of order is not well taken, and that no amendment can be made at this stage.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I want to put a question to you, Mr. Chairman; under what rule is there a motion to be made that you report the Bill? I always heard you ask the Committee, ' Shall I report the Bill?' which means; has anybody else any other motion to make? You did not say that to-night, and if you had said it the member for South Cape Breton would have risen and made his motion, and you would have accepted it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The regular course is that somebody should make a motion that the committee rise; but ordinarily the Chairman assumes the motion has been made, and leaves the Chair without waiting for someone to make it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: With all due respect-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Allow me a moment. There is another rule, rule 56, which says;
The amendments made in Committee are reported by the Chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith.
This means that the Chairman reports the Bill with amendments to the House without any motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am now putting the motion that the Bill be reported.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those in favour of the motion will please rise.


William Pugsley: I move that you now leave the Chair.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Let me make my point of order, please.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion now before the committee is that I report the Bill. I ask those who are in favour of it to rise.
Some hon. MEMBERS; No, we won't rise.
Other hon. MEMBERS; Shame.
The CHAIRMAN; Those who are in favour of the motion will please say: ' aye.'
Some hon. MEMBERS; Aye.
Other hon. MEMBERS; No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those in favour of the motion will please rise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.
Some hon. members having arisen;


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those against the motion will please rise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame; don't
vote. Nobody vote on this side.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the Chair:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You have a false report.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Blondin, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The report is not fair.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Blondin from the Committee of the Whole reports the Bill with an amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. False report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the Speaker is on his feet it is the duty of hon. members to preserve order. I have no doubt that hon. members are equally interested with me that the business of the House shall be conducted with decorum.


Frank Oliver: Where is the decorum on the other side?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The report is false.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Nationalist gag.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I ask the hon. members of this House, as befitting what should be expected in Parliament, to join me in maintaining the dignity of Parliament and the prerogatives of this House in a proper and orderly way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why don't they respect the rules?
Mr. Oliver having risen in hie place:


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


Frank Oliver: The prerogatives of this House have been usurped by the Government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order.


William Pugsley: The Chairman made a false report to you, Sir.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When shall this report
be received?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. Don't receive it.
Mr. BORDEN moved the adjournment of the House.	.
On the question being put:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We won't adjourn.


William Pugsley: I desire respectfully to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Deputy Speaker has made a false report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: There was another motion before the Chair when he left the Chair; he ignored that motion, and the Speaker ought not to receive that report.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I want to say that it is not the right of a member to either criticize or reflect upon the conduct of the Chair in that way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. That can only be done by a substantive motion, and it can be done by giving notice at any time. That is the rule.	.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, you are
asking us to observe the rules, and we ask you to sustain the rights of the minority.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment, the best way to maintain the Tights of the minority is to maintain the rules.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: The rules were broken by the Government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rules are made for the minority as well as for the majority.


George Perry Graham: The rules were openly violated by the Chairman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion be carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I declare the motion
carried.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.40 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 12, 1913.