Mr. OWEN.

I wish to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) if he has issued an order that parcels sent by registered post must be signed for at their destination by the party to whom they are addressed before they will be delivered up.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

If my hon. friend (Mr. Owen) will put a question on the Order Paper I will answer. This is an order from the department of' which I may not have had any knowledge.

Mr. MAGRATH.

I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General to an order issued on December 13, and to a return brought down by the Minister of

Public Works on January 20. The return called for reports, documents and correspondence between the two departments and other documents as well in connection with providing proper post office facilities for Lethbridge. The return evidently was prepared bv the Public Works Department, but I think it has escaped the attention of the hon. gentleman's department as there is no correspondence with his department shown in the return, and I know there is certain correspondence that has been had with his department.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

I will look into the matter and see if anything has been left out but I do not believe it has been left out. I may inform my hon. friend that his wishes in the matter have been carried out. I know he has taken some interest in the Lethbridge post office. He is probably not aware that proper post office facilities in Lethbridge have been arranged for. At all events I will see that the correspondence is completed.

Mr. MAGRATH.

I thank the minister for his courtesy in giving me this information, but it has come to me already through other sources from Lethbridge.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

That shows that the post office is well organized.

Mr. BEAUPARLANT (St. Hyacinthe).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed at the outset to express my thankfulness to my hon. friend from Victoria,

N.B. (Mr. Michaud), who was kind enough, at mv request, to move last night, on my behalf, the adjournment of the debate, the state of my health preventing me from addressing the House at such a late hour. I have also to thank the House for having graciously acceded to such request, customary as it is to do so.

I had the pleasure of listening to part of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve). He is entitled to congratulations on account of the able manner in which he expounded his views, though distasteful to me. There is nothing beyond criticism in this world, and I shall single out two references in his speech to which I am bound to take exception. In the first place, he was in no way warranted in referring to the management of the Department of Marine in the manner he did. While technically a man occupying a position of trust may be called Mr. MAGRATH.

to account before the public for certain happenings, even if he be laid up and unable to attend to business, the hon. member should in all fairness have pointed out in what respect the management was inefficient in so far as the minister was concerned; and moreover he should have supplied some proof in support of his contention, and that was lacking entirely. He was content with making a few broad statements reflecting more or less on the minister whom illness confines to his house, and in support of these he has not adduced any facts, I repeat it, although he and his friends have had a whole session and a prolonged investigation devoted to unearth such facts. In the second place, the hon. member shows some inconsistency when directly after taking exception to the government's proposal to entrust forthwith, without consulting the people, the management of the proposed navy to the Department of Marine, he turns around and approves of the pi'oposal of the leader of the opposition to send to England forthwith and without consulting the people, two war-steps of the latest design, representing an expenditure of some $25,000,000.

I am now coming to the question which has been brought up for the fourth time in this House within a year. As might be expected, the data in relation, thereto have been pretty well sifted out. It has, moreover, been discussed at the last conference in London at which the Dominion government was ably represented by the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) and the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden).

The question is assumed to be entirely new. At page 3075 of the unrevised edition of Hansard, for the current session, my hon. friend from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Monk) is made to say:

There can be no doubt that the policy is entirely novel, and that the people have so far been kept in the dark as to its real meaning and import.

Then at page 3078:

Will my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or any of the gentleman who sit behind him, from the province of Quebec at any rate, state that even this has been laid before the people of our province? They have never heard of it, in that shape or in any shape, and have never had any occasion to pronounce their opinion upon so important a matter.

Nevertheless, the memorandum of 1902. quoted on a previous occasion by the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), is quite clear. Again, in the course of the debate which took place on March 13, 1903, previous to the two last general elections, and which was as usual widely distributed and discussed, I find that the following clean cut statements were made. At page 37 of

the French edition, Mr. R. L. Borden is thus made to speak:

Reference has been made, in the proceedings of the colonial conference, to a proposal by the Canadian government to establish a local naval force.

And the hon. Prime Minister, at page 51, is credited with the following utterances:

I confess that we owe it to ourselves as a nation-as we claim to he-to assume our own defence. And so far as that goes, if we have to spend more money upon military and naval service, I am sure that parliament and the Canadian people will not grudge any sum demanded for that purpose.

Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier at page 64:

Sir, I listened attentively to the right hon. leader of this House when he spoke in regard to the colonial conference.

One could not possibly acknowledge receipt of notice in more explicit terms.

With such statements before us, theTe is not much ground for contending that the question is an entirely new one. On the other hand, it would be a matter of surprise were a matter of such importance to be threshed out without developing a new departure of some kind.

Men who are interested in throwing cold water on propositions of all kinds, contend that the proposed navy cannot possibly be autonomous. Notwithstanding which, I take the responsibility of stating that the principle of leaving the management of the various navies to the various governments building them is inserted in the Bill, in the same way that it prevailed at the London conference in August last and in this House on March 29, 1909.

True, that settlement of the question is not an ideal one. Of course, merchantmen are preferable to men of war, and such ideal settlement of the question could be brought about only through an international conference which would put an end to warfare for all time. Unfortunately, mankind has not reached as yet that degree of perfection and the settlement proposed is to my mind for the time being that which is best in accord with our political status and present conditions.

However, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and the government should not expect us to-day, any more than when the matter was brought up for the first time, to welcome this proposal of an expenditure for military purposes with as much enthusiasm and earnestness as if it were destined to promote agriculture which supplies, or manufacturing which transforms, raw materials and adapts them to the uses of man, or else trade which acts as an intermediary between the two. It stands to reason that means of destruction

should not he viewed in such favourable light as those things which minister to our sustenance and our comforts. So it is not to be wondered at if members of this House or citizens of this country feel like approving of proposals of this kind only under circumstances when such expenditure cannot be dispensed with, and pending the adoption by the various powers of some more equitable means of settling their differences, than sheer force or luck, through the clashing of fleets or the hurling of explosives of all kinds.

We might, on the other hand, postpone actipn, as suggested by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and others. We have not been attacked for a long time past. There is no danger in sight. A fleet yet in its incipient stage will not enable us to face all emergencies for many years to come. Then our relationship to Great Britain and the neighbourhood of the United States may be considered either in the light of objection to the government proposals or of assurances of security for us. On the other hand, the landlord who has remained several years without feeling the need of carrying any insurance, may not always have the same luck. Then again, it will be acknowledged that there is some remissness in delaying armament until the attack is on. As regards the third objection, if Japan and the United States, whose organization and development were effected in recent years, had taken such a stand as is implied in that objection, fifty or sixty years ago, they would never have evolved into the great powers which they are to-day. Lastly, while recognizing the sterling qualities of the British people, while sympathising, as some of us may do, and as I for one do sympathize, with the neighbouring republic and its institutions, we cannot fail to perceive that neither the inhabitants of Great Britain nor those of the United States will be very prone to tax themselves to defend us as well as themselves. And should they be of any service to us in that respect, should they undertake to defend us at their own expense, we may rest assured that they will be expecting some remuneration for their services. That may take the shape of preferential duties, or may come through the settlement of boundary disputes, or be embodied in the clauses, of some treaty, or result in a direct call of funds to meet the cost, the amount of which would be in due proportion, as we may well expect, to the expenditure incurred, to the risk undergone. Or possibly such a kindly ally would not mind retaining for himself something worth while, some fine section lopped off our territory. That is exactly what Uncle Sam has done in retaining Porto Rico as compensation for having helped Cuba to fight Spain ten years ago. That is also

what France did, in retaining Savoy, as a compensation for the help tendered in 1860 to Italy in the fight against Austria. That is also what England has done in obtaining the transfer of the major part of the Suez Canal stock and practically getting the control over Egypt after taking a hand in righting the finances of the country rather upset through the bungling of some khedive or other.

Should such developments take place, you may be sure that Cape Breton, which is the most important vantage point on the whole Atlantic coast, from the North Pole to the South, on account if its coal mines, would be greatly coveted by the United States, and it will be readily understood to what extent the holding of the Gulf and River St. Lawrence would be made difficult, were Cape Breton to fall into the hands of a foreign power.

Whoever contends that any government, whether American, French, English or other, will exact sacrifices of money and of men from their peoples, towards protecting, without compensation therefoT, the interests, whatever they be, the trade, the welfare of a foreign country, is imposing on the good faith of his hearers or readers who take him seriously. No, Mr. Speaker, there never existed, and there does not exist today a country on the face of the earth that has not had to provide for its own defence, whether directly or through others, but always at its own expense.

I am not any more a spendthrift or a bravado than the most firmly convinced of the advocates of peace. I also, am opposed to militarism, and I trust that the idea of arbitration will prevail in the end. On the other hand, as long as international intercourse is carried on under the present system, I cannot agree that Canada should remain the only country in the world with coasts to protect, but without a single ship suitable for their defence.

The fair treatment which to this day is granted to those who are not in a position to defend themselves, is such an uncertain quantity, that not only a feeling of national pride, but one of self respect and the very instinct of self preservation should induce us to look for something better.

As we are aware that question was not at first a popular one in the province of Quebec. There are questions which it is advisable to take up first from the point of view of their drawbacks. Such is the proposal of undergoing a heavy expenditure for military purposes. Moreover our opponents took the lead. However, while such a policy has its drawbacks, its weak points, it has its strong points, its justification on the grounds of caution, dignity and the need of protection, and these will not be lost sight of any more in Quebec than in the other provinces of the Dominion. And when as the actual facts war-Mr. BEAUPARLANT

rant us to do, we inform the people of Quebec that their opposition members in this House-averse as they are to contributing anything - greeted with tumultuous applause the proposal of the leader of the opposition to contribute at once the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts, or about $25,-000,000-a foregone conclusion-and when we add that the major part of that opposition who advocate an immediate contribution, applauded in the same way the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and his few followers, the electorate of Quebec and other parts of Canada who do not like double dealing, will say, as they have said since 1896, that they prefer the outspoken attitude taken by the government who for all sections of the country declare that we have reached the state of manhood, that consequently we are bound to act as men and to see'to protecting ourselves, which is more satisfactory, and ultimately will be cheaper.

It has been contended that if the people were called upon to express an opinion, the answer would be against the proposed expenditure. If it were so, do you believe the leader of the opposition, after spending ten months in poising public opinion, would be willing to go even farther than he had decided to go in the footsteps of the government on March 24 last?

These hon. gentlemen are free to seek encouragement from audiences made up mainly of opponents of the government- which they have the right to be-and who have numerous other grievances against us. It is an easy matter to find flaws in a measure of such importance; but numerous queries remain unanswered after our opponents have stated their platform.

If through the courtesy of England and the United States we are to be dispensed with the burden of maintaining a navy, it is preferable to be a colony to being a sovereign state. In that case the inhabitant of the metropolis would be made to pay tribute to the colonist. That is certainly not in accordance with history, and the experience of all people the world over and from time immemorial upsets such a contention. There is no example of a nation having preferred the status of a colony to that of a sovereign state, as its ultimate condition. If a navy is an unnecessary thing, how is it that all countries of any standing in the world have provided themselves with one?

It is stated that there is no attack impending. As a matter of fact, there is no immediate danger, but Canada with its young and enterprising towns and its vast plains is the country which has the greatest attraction for immigrants from the old world; and if Japan has had the pluck to take exception to the management of schools in California with a view to protect-

ing Japanese children attending such schools, it is likely enough that this same power might be disposed to question the wisdom of our immigration laws. Now, Japan, which was very little known fifty years ago. has an already powerful fleet.

Only a few days ago, British diplomacy, seconded by the prestige of the British navy, secured for us from the government of Uruguay an amount of $50,000 as compensation for the illegal seizure of some of our fishing boats along the coasts of that -country.

In many cases a navy cannot be put to any use, and so much the better. It then has indirectly its usefulness in accordance with that rule, which though objectionable in practice, has some strong points in its favour: ' Si vis pacem, para helium.'

In his speech of February 3rd, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier recalled an incident of those troublous times of 1837: a British officer present at the trial before court martial of a patriot took pleasure in -sketching the prisoner as he would appear on the gallows. Now, there is not a member of this House, there is not a Canadian, whether of English or French lineage; but will repudiate such cruelty, such cynical insult to misfortune. The very perpetrator of such an offence must have been ashamed *of himself as soon as the first period of excitement was over. On the other hand, I fail to see what argument the member for Jacques-Cartier will draw from this incident either in favour or in condemnation of the government's proposal. Excesses of that kind cannot be charged against our forerunners, who were the victims and not the perpetrators of such deeds.

During that same debate of February 3rd. the hon. member for North Toronto depicted the former prime minister of Quebec, the late Honore Mercier, under rather unfavourable colours. He represented him as anti-British, and in so doing he was speaking of a man of whom he had a very imperfect knowledge. Mercier, who had a free hand in Quebec about 1888, was well disposed towards Ontario. We all remember how such disposition materialized in 1890, when unfortunately the university of Toronto was consumed by fire. I refer to this fact, not that it has a great meaning in itself, but as showing what were the real feelings of the man and how uncalled for are the aspersions cast on his memory by the member for North Toronto on February 10. If that hon. member only took the pains of ascertaining the facts in regard to Quebec's representative men. he would have to modify a good many of his utterances.

Now, as to those who would be disposed to contribute cash or the equivalent of two Dreadnoughts.

Mr. PAQUET. (Translation).

Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question?

Mr. BEAUPARLANT.

Certainly.

Mr. PAQUET. (Translation).

The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe asserts his willingness to defend Canada on land and on sea, but will he go so far as to say that he approves of the idea of our taking part, in case of emergency, as stated in clause 18 of the Bill, in all imperial warfare?

Mr. BEAUPARLANT. (Translation).

If the hon. member will take patience, he will see in the latter part of my remarks what position I take. I propose voting for the Bill and clause 18, subject to amendments: which may be made in committee.

Mr. PAQUET. (Translation).

Then you are in favour of the proposal of Canada participating in imperial wars?

Mr. BEAUPARLANT (Translation).

In so far as I am concerned, I do not wish to be debarred from the privilege of entering into an alliance with whomsoever I may deem it useful to make such an alliance in my country's interests. As a French Canadian I have just as much the right to enter into an alliance with England whenever I believe it in the interest of Canada, in the same way that the French people in France have themselves formed an alliance with England previous to the Crimean war in 1854. I take just as much pride in my French Canadian ancestry as the hon. member for l'Islet may take; and it is this very desire of doing my duty as such which enjoins me to take all means possible of promoting the interests of Canada according to circumstances, under the control and responsibility towards the representatives of the Canadian people of the Minister of Marine of Canada. I would not be doing my duty as a French Canadian, by laying down as a principle never to enter into such alliance or other, under any circumstances, even though should that alliance be useful to us.

Now, those who are willing to contribute purely and simply, forthwith and unconditionally $25,000,000, or any other amount, or who, in other words, would be disposed to hand over the whole outfit to be controlled exclusively by the home authorities, do not appear to Tealize that differences may arise between the mother country and the colonies, or else .should such differences arise, they would allow the matter to be settled at the sweet will of the adverse party. Now, that is not at all in accordance with the Anglo-Saxon's love of liberty, or desire of upholding his rights, nor with .his legitimate craving for managing his own affairs.

Differences of that nature do not arise solely between foreign nations. The Spanish colonies of South America, the peoples

who colonized North America, though homogeneous and of either Spanish or Anglo-Saxon undoubted origin, have not always had interests or views similar to those of their mother lands, neither have the northern- and southern sections of the United States, following the war of independence, always had similar views. And the Question of bi-metalism, while it did not bring about such grievous animosities between the East and West, was an occasion of serious differences.

Within the very bounds of the Dominion, British Columbia, has not always been in unison with the other provinces on the question of oriental immigration-as my eloquent friend from Nanimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) is aware- neither as regards its financial arrangements with the Dominion government. The Dominion government and the Ontario government have also been at loggerheads, especially regarding the license law, a difference which culminated in the carrying of the Hodge case, though unimportant as regards the amount involved, to the foot of the Throne. The province of Quebec has also occasionally differed from the other provinces. Finally, in England, a country wherein order and public opinion have a predominating influence, and make for stability to a remarkable degree, harmony has not always prevailed on important issues.

Some may object that these are questions of local government, and that when it ccmes to a question of national defence, the whole forces of the nation should be made to converge towards the attainment of one! same object. But, in such a case the least that could be done would be to provide representation in the same measure as new obligations are imposed. And the plan proposed by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) though I cannot approve of it, would be more in harmony with the principle ' no taxation without representation,' than the system which consists in handing over the control to a country over whose administration we have not the slightest control.

Now, if diversity of interests and differences of opinion have arisen within the bounds of a single Dominion, there is still greater reason to expect that such differences exist or will assert themselves oe-tween countries separated by oceans. And the diplomatic wording, the ominous expressions, wherein such an emergency is deftly passed over, is necessarily pregnant with concealments and reservations.

Whoever puts himself at the mercy of others might just as well at the outset give up all contention of his own. The proposal agreed to at the last conference, the principle of which has been retained in this Bill, is preferable to the former system, inasmuch as it provides for the protection of Canada's special interests, and if, as we Mr. BEAUPARLANT.

have reason to hope, the navy is to be built in Canada, it also ensures to the Canadian producer and worker the benefit of such contributions as we are called upon to make. That is why I approve of such proposal in preference to that of contributing without anything been granted in return, while we are ourselves deprived of all means of control.

It is that liberal policy of the home authorities which ensures to Great Britain the loyalty of its colonists and helps in maint-lining her in the forefront of the nations of the world. Of all the dependencies of Great Britain, Ireland alone has been deprived of its autonomy, of its self government, and that at the beginning of the last century. Now, if I am not entirely mistaken, there is not much sympathy towards England to be found in Ireland than there is in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or even South Africa, whose conquest is of such recent date.

Equal rights and mutual consideration are better cemen.ters of durable and true alliances than the mere exercise of force. However, it is frc.m another view point that I propose dealing with this question.

If the philathropic idea which inspired the Hague conference had been fully put into practice, the question which we are considering, as well as all questions of militarism, would have been solved in a thorough, final and world-wide manner. And if it were Canada's power, even through the expenditure of an amount equal to that necessitated for the establishment of a navy to take a hand in bringing about such a result, I do not say that I would oppose the government's proposal, for then there would be of course no occasion for the government introducing such a measure.

Of course, the great powers only are in a position to deal effectively with such a matter. The voice of a colony, whatever its importance, would not be heard. Sovereign countries, only had representatives at the Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907. On the other hand, conferences between the mother country and ourselves are of frequent occurrence; and that means is always open to us of reaching the international concert, should we be more fearful of assuming a status of complete sovereignty, an isolation which may be deemed alarm-ing,-than other colonies which though weaker at the time than we are to-day, have been bold enough to assume such a status.

. Universal peace is a dream of philanthropy, the carrying into effect of which may be permitted to wish for. Apart from heT own forces and those of her colonies, England may rely oh the help of the neighbouring republic a natural and powerful ally, and on the co-operation of her oldtime rival, France, a friend to-day; and we

have reason to believe that the combined influence of those three great powers and of ithose who naturally follow their 'lead, would bring about the acceptance of certain all important clauses in the treaty for universal peace. The United States, France and England after coming out victorious in war, would crown their achievements by a final victory in peace.

These humanitarian views have been given expression to by the official delegates of the British workingmen, Mr. Appleton, who at the International conference held at Paris last summer, deplored in bitter terms the fact that while England was spending two billions for the maintenance of the army and the navy, she was spending fifty millions only towards education and the development of arts and sciences. And bear in mind that England is one of the countries of the world wherein the illiterate are in the smallest numbers, and one of the countries of Europe, at any rate wherein military service is less exacting, inasmuch as it is not even compulsory.

The feeling in France in this respect has also already received semi-official expression. As the result of a competition bearing on the question as to who was the greatest Frenchman of the nineteenth century, a competition initiated by a great French newspaper, modestly designated ' Le petit Parisien/ militarism was relegated to the fourth place by a majority of subscribers to this paper, who represent practically French public opinion, and the first place was assigned to philanthropy, which commends itself to the human reason and to the good feelings of men, when not vitiated by circumstances. Through that plebiscite France proclaimed that her greatest citizen of the last century was Pasteur, the healer, the benefactor of humanity, and not Napoleon, the scourge of humanity.

French and German advocates of peace, forgetting their broils of recent occurrence, and their old-time grudges, extend a friendly hand and unite in denouncing those constantly recurring conflicts and armaments by their respective governments.

The president of the United States, Mr. Taft, and Canadian statesmen, among others the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), whom I now see at his seat- have also with marked satisfaction, during the recent festivities at Burlington, celebrated the centenary of peace maintained between Canada and the United States, and that along a frontier of 3,000 miles m length.

In this Dominion of Canada, in Toronto, that hot-bed of loyalty, there has been established a Canadian association for peace and arbitration, of which Mr. William Mulock is the president and Dr. C. S. Eby, the secretary. In the course of a sermon 1174

delivered at the Crescent street Presbyterian church of Montreal, an English preacher, the Rev. W. W. Dickie, has not hesitated in condemning before a numerous audience the policy of militarism as a disgrace to civilization.

Finally, the two conferences both held at the Hague in 1899 and 1907, may be pointed to as events of a novel character to this day, as regards their humanitarian inspiration, preciseness of their object, the plausibility of their methods and the evi dent good faith of their promoters. The human conscience, which for centuries past has not tolerated that differences between private owners as to property rights should be decided by handicuffs on the street, is beginning to be impatient at -witnessing the settlement through pitched battles of differences arising between sovereign countries of boundary disputes or other international conflicts.

Ethics should not be made to vary in accordance with the importance of the interests at stake. These are, amongst many others, indications of a desire to see universal peace firmly established, a result which the heads of the ten principal states of Europe and America should and might bring about through the making of an international code which would be finally and permanently accepted.

What the heads of the ten leading states of Europe and America have not had the courage or power of accomplishing, delegates of the working fraternity the world over who are to meet in London next summer, have decided to attempt at their conference. On that account they are entitled to universal gratitude.

The acceptance of an international code carries with it the establishment of tribunals. Tribunals are human institutions; as such, they are not always above reproach; but their decisions as a rule should be more equitable than the rule of the sword.

It has been objected that there exists no sheriff, no bailiff in international matters, to carry out the orders of a world-wide tribunal and ensure their observance. That would be the part assigned to the common international force to which the various nations would contribute units much smaller than their present armaments. And if a bailiff, single-handed can enforce on individuals the will of the nation, a few thousand men will be in a position to enforce the observance of international decrees. _'

These are facts, theories and hop s on which the advocates of universal peace rely for ultimate success; but, it should be admitted that the spirit of warfare is far from being yet extinct on the face of the earth. While making a pretense to peaceful intentions, the various powers are all verv self

asserting. At the Hague conference motions for postponing the settlement of various questions were more likely than any others to carry unanimously. Many are the reservations made in regard to the final conclusions. And if we are not willing to be content with what other nations despise, if we are desirous of being on a footing with other countries, at any rate on a par with a few of the 47 states who .weTe represented at the Hague, apart from Canada, we wiP have to make sacrifices somewhat similar to those made by mature nations, at any rate until the time comes when international conflicts aie settled through arbitration .

While adapting Canadian politics to meet the needs of the moment, we -should strenuously deprecate those doings -which are the main causes of international strife; the excessive ambition of nations, of institutions, and even of individuals, self conceit, prejudice, the coveting of riches, the spirit of domination, and above all possibly that false patriotism, the outcome of which is merely to set up each nation as the foe of all others.

Patriotism, as it- is oftentimes understood and advocated, is a deplorable evil which has done humanity more harm than all other covetings and wr-ong-doings of men We often hear people dilating on the ardent love men should have for their country. Now. that love of country, which in itself is worthy of admiration, ceases to be such as soon as it depends for its sustenance! on the hatred of the foreigner. If in France, the people are to be taught to love France jealously, exclusively, if in England the people are to be taught to love England jealously, exclusively; if in Germany, in the United States and in the various other countries of the world, the same policy is followed, then bloody wars will ensue and to horrible condition will humanity be brought.

A theory cannot be considered good, if the consequences it leads to are undeniably deplorable. If only we habitually viewed our fellowmen as human beings and not as fellow-citizens or foreigners, those in the majority, the great powers, and those in authority would lose nothing of their privileges, while minorities, small nations and weaklings would -obtain some improvement in their condition.

Let appeals to national prejudices be discarded, and grasping individuals, institutions or nations, who have existed under all climes and at all ages, will thus be deprived of the means of preying on the naive heroism -of the masses, and finding themselves unsupported, will lose all hope of attaining their object. Though it may be designated as patrotism, such exclusiveness is nothing more than egotism and selfishness extended to the nation is neither Mr. BEAUPARLANT.

more generous nor worthy of greater admiration, while the consequenecs are proportionately more disastrous as it extends from the individual to the nation.

No, Mr. Speaker, though suostantial progress has been made in that direction, the problem of universal peace has not yet been solved. And we have to choose between making sacrifices in proportion to those made by other nations, or else be content with what others will be willing to concede to us. Now, history and experience have long ago apprised each one of us that if we expect to get fair treatment when left at the good will of others, we will be sadly mistaken. As long as international intercourse is ruled by the customs now in force, it would he folly on our part to put ourselves in such position.

Our opponents entreat us in the name of what is dearest to us, to abstain even from providing the basis of a Canadian navy. That is pure rhetoric, which may appeal to an audience made up for the most part of opponents of the government, who have numerous other reasons for fighting us, but it is no answer to a question which requires to be solved by a growing people, who have reached the adult stage, and who unwilling to continue subsidizing others directly or indirectly for their defence, have resolved to undertake that task on their own account. We might as well and with better cause state that it is in the interest of those who are dearest to us that we consent to the necessary sacrifices being made with a view to laying the fouhdations of status superior to that of mere wards or dependents of other nations, and to ensuring to the Canadian people and to every one of our fellow-citizens security, consideration, greater independence and more comfort, either at home or elsewhere; to the merchant on the ocean, as well as to the farmers and manufacturers who supply his cargo. Whether powerful or not, whether rich or poor, for the stay-at-home as well as for the traveller, for the diplomat, the shipmaster or the crew of the fishing craft navigating in foreign seas, for the youthful emigrant seeking fortune' in neighbouring countries, as well as the hardy pioneer who winds his way to the mining regions of Alaska or the poor miner who goes down into the depths of a Pennsylvania colliery. It is better to belong to a nation esteemed and respected then to a nation enjoying no such considerate in.

In conclusion, the proposed expenditure is of a most undesirable character. It is not at all necessary to be in the ranks of the opposition eo recognize that. However, it cannot be avoided under present international conditions, unless we are willing to abide by whatever concessions foreign nations are willing to make in our favour. As long as other nations go to the length of

appropriating money for armaments, we cannot reasonably suppose that they will not be more exacting than ourselves as regards the shoring of powers, riches and other advantages.

And if we Canadians are obliged to make further sacrifices towards armaments, let us at any rate retain control, and not only in principle or in theory, but practically, effectively and permanently. We shall thereby occupy a better position in matters of international import, and obtain better treatment should we become a party to some treaty of alliance, or otherwise, with other nations.

However, let us hope that before these ships that we are about to build have become old, out-of-date, through the progress of aerial navigation and otherwise, the arbi-tiators of international peace1 will have accomplished long ago, that is they will have contributed to the settlement of that question the required quota of good will in the shape of mutual concessions, and that these ships instead of being used as a means of pnlonging such unreasonable rnd onerous conflicts, will have for the greater part been remodelled and made to develop international trade, that powerful agency for promoting international prosperity and welfare.

Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM (East Huron).

I am sorry I was not able to follow very closely the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beauparlant) who has just sat down. If I understood him correctly, however, he directed a good deal of his discourse towards the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and also the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). While I applaud his enthusiasm and the patriotic way in which he delivered himself, I detected however, a strain of selfishness in his address, for he seemed to confine his patriotism almost entirely to the province of Quebec. Now I will just say that the Dominion should be taken as a whole, we should have equal loyalty to every part of this Dominion. The province of Quebec is not the whole of Canada; and there seems to be in some quarters a feeling that the proposed fleet should lie in the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Again, I think we should take in the whole of the British empire into our consideration, just as we should take in the whole Dominion. We should look to the safety of the British empire, feeling that we are citizens of that empire. I am sure that if the province of Quebec were attacked, the other eight provinces would rise as one man to go to her defence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have followed this debate very carefully for a number of days, and I have tried to do so with an open mind. I feel that we should conduct this

discussion entirely above politics, and it is in that view that I desire to discuss it myself. In the first place when this question began to be discussed, I was under the impression that we should have a Canadian fleet built by Canadians, built in Canada, and of Canadian materials. However, ^ as the discussion has gone on, one question struck me continually, and I waited day after day and hour after hour to hear _ that question answered. That question is this: What are we going to do for Britain and the British empire if the British empire is attacked within the next five years? We have no guarantee that peace will be maintained for five years, that Germany will not attack Britain within the next five years. But we are told plainly that it will take us one year to enlarge our dry docks, and four years at least to build our little Bristols. Now what are we going to do in the meantime? Are seven and a half millions of King Edward's loyal subjects on this side of the Atlantic going to stand with folded hands and see the old land taken by an enemy, see her robbed of her wealth, see our beloved King Edward led oft a prisoner as Napoleon the Third was? Are we to stand idly by for five years without doing anything to ward off such a catastrophe?' Until that question is answered I feel that I cannot agree with the Bill that is now proposed for our consideration.

After listening to this discourse for a considerable time, I feel it my duty to speak out boldly and freely in regard to a question of such vital importance as the defence and preservation of Canada and of the British empire. I do this the more freely, because I have some suggestions to make which I think might be of use if they were properly considered, but which I fear will scarcely be in accord with the views of either the leader of the government or the leader of the opposition. I may say however, that some of my constituents and many others whose opinions I value very highly, seem to think that my views are. sound, safe, economical and businesslike. Of course I may be wrong, but I am open to conviction. Let me say, however, that there must be something more to convince me than mere bald assertions. That has been tried on me already, and it has failed. I must have logical arguments put up to me, arguments founded on known facts and founded on common sense. In the meantime I feel that I would not be doing my duty to my country and to my constituents if I sat silent in this House, and beheld one of the greatest and most far reaching follies that was ever perpetrated in a civilized country enacted before my eyes. My duty becomes doubly imperative when I find that some hon. gentlemen on my own side of the House are inclined

to advocate measures that I do not find quite satisfactory. You will, therefore, gather from what I have said that I do not think that either of the two great political parties in Canada exactly realize how they can most effectively assist Great Britain in the present emergency.

That there is an emergency, I make no doubt. No one has yet proved that there is not an emergency. The very fact that the Asquith government brought in a budget imposing extra taxes to meet an emergency, that they required so much more money, and that the budget was so unpopular, that the Asquith government was nearly defeated, shows that there is an emergency. Since that election was over they have ordered the building of four extra Dreadnoughts, showing that in Great Britain at least an emergency is believed to exist. Actions speak louder than words. Now, an emergency requires emergency measures, and these are generally of a temporary character. Therefore, it seems to me that all we have to do at present is to make some temporary arrangement that will enable Britain and the empire to tide over the present crisis. Now, in the old days when a great general met with a military emergency in the shape of a great river that impeded the onward march of his army, he did not stop to build a stone bridge with solid stone abutments, and erect thereon a steel structure; if he had done so, he and his army would have been taken at a great disadvantage, and would have been ruined. Instead of that, he built a bridge of boats over which he safely transferred his army. Similarly, by adopting the principle of a temporary arrangement, I am prepared to show how Canada can give to Britain seven extra Dreadnoughts until this crisis is over. Now, Sir, you may say that is a strong assertion, but I will ask you not to condemn it until you have heard my argument. Besides that, I think I can show you how -we can save millions and millions of dollars at the same time to the Canadian people without spending nearly as much money as either of the proposed plans -would entail, simply because it will be a temporary measure. Now, if I undertake to prove that big proposition, it will be necessary for me to examine thoroughly the ground and establish my arguments on a solid foundation, because there is no doubt that I will have the whole House against me.

In the first place, I will take up the question of dry-docks. I am in favour of the enlargement of our dry-docks, and I think the government in that respect are going in the right direction. It is absolutely necessary that we should enlarge our dry-docks. Our' trade and commerce require it. Take the dry-dock at Levis, Quebec, only 600 feet long and 62 feet wide. Suppose the ' Oceanic ' wished to come to that Mr. T. CHISHOLM.

port, she is 685 feet long and 68 feet wide, and if any accident should happen to that vessel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence she could not be repaired on this side of the water, she would have to cross the ocean before she could be repaired. Now, we know that a vessel, when injured, generally draws more water than she did before. Therefore, I say that the dry-dock at Levis should be enlarged. We have many other vessels plying to Quebec which the dry-dock is too small to accommodate. We have sailing the ocean such ships as the 1 Kaiser William II.,' the ' Deutschland,' the ' Cedric,' and the ' Baltic,' the great size of which renders it necessary that dry-docks must be made larger and larger. Why, not so long ago, the ' Empress of Ireland ' had to be taken across the ocean to be repaired. I say, Sir, that the require- -ments of our trade and commerce demand that these dry-docks should be enlarged. If we are to compete with an enlarged, and deepened, and improved, Erie canal, we must do everything in our power to keep up the good name of the St. Lawrence route, and to provide that insurance rates on that route shall be reduced. For my part, I would approve of the dry-dock at Halifax being enlarged, and I may say here that I am in favour of the establishment of a naval college in Halifax, or anywhere else, wdiere it may best be located.

I believe also that the dry-docks at St. John and Esquimalt should be enlarged. But, Sir, I object entirely to saying that such improvements are to be_ charged up to the motherland as something we have done for her or on her behalf. Why, to say that, would be acting on the principle that if a man had a fine residence in this city with beautiful grounds, and some tramp was to attack him in his garden, and a neighbour came across to assist him, and after the melee it was necessary to take that neighbour into his house, get a surgeon and have his wounds attended to, and then when he would be going away, instead of the man thanking him for coming to his assistance he would say: I built this big house and fixed up these grounds for your special accommodation and benefit. In a similar way, if a war vessel of Britain is ever injured in Canadian waters, it will be when she comes here to protect the cowardly Canadians who will not defend themselves, and surely we might give these British ships the benefit of our dry-docks until they get their wounds repaired. _ There is another matter which I think should be taken up by the government, and that is the encouragement of aviation.

I think this government should have done something for Messrs. McCurdy and Baldwin, when they attended the military camp at Petawawa last summer. We are told that the government gave them the use of some sheds on the grounds, but what the gov-

ernment ought to have done was, to pay their way there, maintain them properly when they were there, and pay their expenses back again at least. They are considering in other countries the question of the navigation of the air and Canada should not be behind. I notice that is the course of one experiment made in California a man had gone up in an airship and was able to drop 200 pounds of sand on to a piece of white paper ten feet square. If the science becomes so perfect as that it might be possible to destroy even Dreadnoughts by airships. We know what they are doing in Britain in this matter, we know what Zeppelin has done in Germany, we know what success they have had in France, and why should not Canadians be encouraged in the development of aviation. When we consider that Messrs. McCurdy and Baldwin had backing them a man of such genius as Dr. Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, surely this government should have accorded them some practical help. I notice that Mr. D'Almcida, in a lecture before the Engineers' Club, of Toronto, stated that he thought the time was near at hand when airships would be considered the safest, cheapest and best means of transportation, and added that the time may come when we will be able to go around the earth in seventy hours. Surely, there may be some wonderful developments in the future when such remarks are taken cognizance of by an intelligent and educated body like the members of the engineers club. Now, why are we neglecting this very important factor in the defence of our country? It is stated in the Toronto 'Globe' of the 14th instant-and no doubt it is true when the ' Globe ' prints it-that a military airship in Britain was launched for the use of the British army, and that she answered her helm perfectly on her trial trips, even when speeding in the teeth of a stiff breeze. Well, our Canadian people should be encouraged in the pursuit of this science and in the near future it may mean more than a fleet of little cruisers, or even Dreadnoughts. Indeed, the control of the navigation of the air may mean more to Canada than either of the propositions now before the House. This is an important day in the history of Canada; it is an important day in the history of the British empire and the world, because I believe that to-day the eyes of every nation on earth are turned towards Canada. It is known everywhere that a perilous time and fearful crisis in the affairs of the British empire is approaching, and the world is wondering what Canada will do. I would remind the House that the very moment it was known that this crisis was near our younger, smaller, and weaker sister nations did their duty and did it vigorously. They did not wait to write, they cabled assistance to the mother country, and Canada has been the only tardy child,

the only laggard in this great family of nations. It was known right here in Ottawa more than a year ago, that this danger was coming, and what have we done? Deliberately in the face of that knowledge we spent the whole of the year 1909 in passing, unanimously it is true, a very high sounding and loyal resolution. We made a noise but we did nothing. The session of 1910 is well advanced now, and still nothing practical has been done; we have had a great deal of talk, Grit talk and Tory talk, but we have done nothing. I think it is admitted that we will have to spend 1911 in enlarging our dry-docks, and then I suppose we will spend 1912 in building the slips on which, in 1913, we will begin to build our little cruisers. If we may judge by the progress that is usually made in erecting public buildings and the construction of government works in this country we may safely assume that the ships cannot be ready before 1920. The Prime Minister said it will take four years to build the cruisers and it is admitted it will take one year to enlarge the dry-docks; the leader of the opposition says the cruisers will not be ready for fifteen years, but I will take a happy medium between the two and say they will be ready in ten years.

Could the enemies of Britain wish anything better than to know that under these circumstances we are to have a Canadian-built navy composed of little vessels or cruisers that are sure to be obsolete and out of date before they are constructed? Why, if the government were in league with the enemies of Canada, it could not give them a better guarantee. It is simply a guarantee that even these little cruisers will not be ready for_ from seven to ten years, and will not be of any use when they are ready. Britain has a great many of these small vessels now, and has had them for a good many years, before Dreadnoughts were built. She could only use a few of them in a struggle in the North Sea, because these little vessels of the Apollo and Bristol type are used only as scouts; they are used to evade the enemy, to run away, not to fight. They would be worse than useless in a contest on the ocean unless there were a Dreadnought or super-Dreadnought in the neighbourhood behind which they could run for shelter. There is no doubt, however, that Great Britain can use all the little vessels she has to good account, without taking them into the North Sea, to guard her cotton raw material and food supplies. Those who are pretty well on in life remember well the great suffering that there was in Lancashire when the cotton supply was cut off at the time of the American war. If Britain's cotton supply were cut off tomorrow, there would be the greatest possible suffering, and if her food supply were

cut off, she could be surrounded like a beleaguered city and starved out in a month. We have recently heard a great deal in this House and out of it about the immense aggregate tonnage of Britain's warships. This is a very plausible argument, but it is just as deceptive and misleading as it is plausible, and it is unworthy of a great man and a clear thinker. We all know that the smaller ships are so far out-classed by Dreadnoughts that in a battle on the ocean they could not get near to a Dreadnought or .injure it in any way. Therefore, in future nothing but the tonnage of Dreadnoughts and super-Dreadnoughts will count. I often think that Canadians who live hundreds or it may be thousands of miles away from the ocean, have a small idea of what a fearful deathdealing monster a Dreadnought really is. We can only convey this idea to them by comparison and description. We cannot take them to see one. Some idea can be formed when I say that a Dreadnought has a displacement of 22,000 tons, whereas the little ship in which Jacques Cartier first crossed the ocean and landed in Canada had a displacement of only 60 tons. A Dreadnought is simply a death-dealing monster covered with nickel steel eleven inches thick and armed with ten 12-inch guns, any one of which, if discharged at close range, would send a ball through a solid mass of wrought iron three feet thick. It requires 200 pounds of cordite for a single .charge and it throws a shell weighing 750 pounds; so that if the ten guns were discharged all at once, they would hurl forth nearly four tons of metal bursting shells whch would be deadly at six miles. Now, Germany will have a great many of these Dreadnoughts by 1912 or 1913. We have heard so many different estimates here, and they are so confusing that I scarcely know how many she will have; but from what I can gather, she will have from 17 to 20 of thtse marine monsters in 1912 or 1913. Britain will have as many or a few more; but she cannot, like Germany, put all her Dreadnoughts in the North Sea at the same time, because she has many outlying points to guard, in the Mediterranean and elsewhere; and she will have to guard Quebec too. More, owing to her insular position, she must in every case guard the line of her food supply, and protect it perfectly. It is as important to guard that as it is to meet the German fleet in the North Sea. We would still have an adequate idea of the preparations which are being made to dismember the British empire if we had not some idea of the invincible land army with which Germany is now guarding the Dreadnoughts which she is building. A writer for McClure's magazine for November last, gave a very good description of that. He Mr. T. CHISHOLM

said that Germany could on 12 hours notice hurl 400,000 men, fully armed and equipped, and 800 guns upon either her eastern or western border; that in two days she could increase that number to a million, in two weeks to two millions, and finally to four millions, the greatest and best army on this earth. Germany has in her war office ready for use, plans for the invasion of every country in Europe. She has an intelligence system that seems to make known to her what is going on in every part of the world. She has accurate maps of every country on earth, and every officer and man in that vast army has secret mobilization orders that will enable him, when notified by telegram or telephone, to take his place immediately in the great German fighting machine. The railroads of Germany are mostly owned bv the state, and are part of her military machine. She has armoured trains ready. She has bridge-building materials lying at suitable places, and at the great fortress of Spandau, near Berlin, this writer says, she has many hundreds of sacks of gold, a part of the French war indemnity, which is carefully guarded, and which forms the nucleus of a war fund. I might also call your attention to the fact that Germany has a magnificent air fleet capable of thundering destruction from the skies. At Ehren-breitstein not long since that air fleet had military manoeuvres and a sham battle that lasted three hours. So that in every direction Germany is preparing for the conflict; even her air ships are ready for action; and I think we know what all these preparations are for. Germany has an immense population, rapidly increasing, of more than 60,000,000 people, cooped up in a little territory of 208,000 square miles, about four-fifths the size of our new province of Alberta. Her farmers are thoroughly protected, and therefore they are prosperous and numerous; and by means of her technical schools and the wonderful industry of her population she has become one of the leading manufacturing countries in the world. Germany wants more room and new markets, and there can be no doubt that is the origin of the trouble. This is no false alarm, because we find the Krenz Zeitung, a leading German paper recently said that for England to think that Germany was not building her Dreadnoughts for the purpose of opposing Britain, was simply to adopt the policy of the ostrich which sticks its head into the sand and then thinks it is safe.

During this debate, we have had the names of eminent statesmen quoted to us time and again-men who are leaders in both the great political parties in the old land, men who have the means of knowing and who do know, men whose word and wisdom are above suspicion-and

these men have told us that not only the integrity, but the very existence of the British empire is threatened. If Germany is not making those preparations to attack Britain, why is she building so many Dreadnoughts? She does not require them to attack France or Russia or any other land power. She is evidently building them for one purpose, and that is the destruction of the British empire. Her evident intention is to outclass and outnumber and defeat the British fleet on the North sea, seize the very heart of the empire, plunder the country, exact an enormous war indemnity, and perhaps carry away our beloved King, a prisoner, as she did the Emperor Napoleon III, and then proceed to crush and conquer the colonies at her leisure, and as a matter of detail. When the German Dreadnoughts are ready, she can choose her own time to make an attack; and there is no doubt at all, that when she does strike, she will follow her usual course of striking quickly, and when least expected. Just look at her strategical position. She has everything to gain if victorious, and if defeated she has nothing to lose, for all her fleet has to do is sail back to the protection of her invincible land forces; whereas should she win she can dismember the British empire, capture its immense wealth, control the ocean, and become the leading power in the world. That is something for Germany to fight for; and if we do not watch ourselves, there is little doubt that she will succeed. Judging by her past record I fear she would make a merciless conqueror and a hard taskmaster. We know what she has done to others. In 1864 she picked a quarrel with little Denmark, and despoiled that kingdom of two provinces. In 1866, owing to the discovery of her needle gun, she succeeded in crushing Austria in a single battle. In 1870, she overran France, seized two of that country's most favoured provinces, took the Emperor Napoleon away a prisoner as a hostage, and allowed him to die at Chiselhurst, and exacted the until then unheard of war indemnity of $1,000,000,000. Need we expect that this hitherto invincible power will spare Britain and her colonies if that unfortunate day should come when conquered Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen and oversea Britons would have to plead for mercy before their victorious and unrelenting masters. Germany, it is said, has spent thirty years in preparing for this. In the meantime she has consolidated her empire, she has enlarged and improved her old canals, and built many new ones. She has been increasing and perfecting her invincible land army, and also supported and encouraged the enterprising firm of the Krupps until it has become the greatest manufacturing establishment of military supplies in the world.

Germany has the advantage of being able to attack Britain by sea, whereas Britain cannot attack her by land; and I would just 3ay that should the day come when Germany shall have conquered Britain, and a German tax be put on our products going to the British market, our Canadian farmers will suffer very severely. Even that is something to look after. Should the day of peril ever come, those silly Canadians, who are willing to trust to our little unbuilt cruisers, would then find out* when too late, that their cjuisers, even if built and going out to meet the fleet of German Dreadnoughts, would simply be the laughing stock of the world. And what is still worse, if these cruisers were manned by loyal Canadian citizens and seamen, the poor fellows would be slaughtered before they could raise a finger to defend themselves. They would be simply butchered to make a German holiday.

As to those other foolish Canadians who depend on the Munroe doctrine, they would find, also when too late, that though the United States might not be willing, to allow a European country to take perma-ment possession of Canada, they would never think of going to war, especially with the conqueror of Britain, for the purpose of preventing Germany from levying on Canada a war indemnity of such astounding proportions that it would simply mean the ruin of this country.

In the face of all this, we are told there is no danger, that these preparations do not mean anything; and although one of the greatest military disasters that could befall a civilized country is almost upon us, our government is doing nothing but waving the old flag, shouting loyalty and marking time. I had a letter from one of my constituents the other day in which he said the people were becoming alarmed and suspicious. He said that they heard the ' hail master ' and the giving of the kiss, and were beginning to be afraid of what might follow. Britain requires Dreadnoughts in the North sea. She requires them without delay. Why then this policy on the part of our government of putting off, doing nothing, Hilly dallying? Is it any wonder that our 3ister colonies are beginning to suspect Canada's loyalty to the British Crown? In my opinion Canada is loyal, but the whole trouble is not a lack of loyalty on the part of the government, as some of our friends seem to think, but simply their want of promptness and business ability, because there is neither promptness nor business ability shown in their proposal to build those little cruisers. In the first place should the crisis come upon us, we have no time in which to build them, we have not the trained mechanics, we have no mills with facilities to roll plates of nickel and steel

CHISHOLM .

noughts. The original Dreadnought cost not qute $10,000,000. Therefore, $20,000,000 is the amount. We have not $20,000,000. If we pass a resolution to-day to give to Britain $20,000,000, or two Dreadnoughts, we have neither dollars nor Dreadnoughts to give. We will have to go to Great Britain to borrow the money, and if we gave the Dreadnoughts, we would have to go to Britain to get them built. We would be like a child going to his father in the Christmas holidays and saying: I want to get $100 to buy you a new watch, to make you a present. The father to please the child might give the $100, but he would know he was weakening himself financially, for if he kept the $100, he could certainly make a better bargain than the little boy.

Another objection to a money payment is that by it we would be paying for protection instead of fighting for our freedom. Canadians are not such cringing cowards that they are afraid to fight. They are ready to fight for the empire but here we are going to give them a few dollars and say: Let us away. That is the part the coward always plays, he does not want to meet the foe but hires a substitue, he gives a little money. In this connection I may say plainly that no nation that has long depended on hired protection has retained its liberty for any length of time. We have an example of this in the old days. At the close of the Persian war, the Athenians and the minor Greek states met together and arranged to raise a fleet for the protection of their common interests. It was arranged that three small states should have fleets of their own and that the others should pay an annual subsidy to Athens and she was to keep a fleet for their protection. This went on for a short time until after a while, some of the smaller states requested that Athens should account for the money she had received. Pericles told them: Oh this is a tribute, you have no right to ask for an accounting. He had command of the fleet they had paid for and they had to continue in subjection. What was the result? These hitherto invincible Greeks remained subjects and were enslaved for nearly 2,000 years, being mastered by the Macedonians and the Romans and the Turks in succession. But we have another example more easily understood by people in this country. After the Romans left Britain, the people of Britain who had been doing no fighting for about 400 years, were unable to protect themselves against the Piets and Scots. They hired the Germans under Hengist and Horsa who came over to assist them and it runs in my mind that the descendants of the Saxons who came there at that time are there yet, they took possession of the country. We have also an example in our own country. When Champlain came to our country the Algon-

quins, a powerful people, employed him to assist them in their wars against the Iroquois, and we see to-day that Champlain's friends have possession of this country and the once powerful Algonquins are simply subjects of charity, wards of the people of this country.

In the course of this debate the example was brought up that Britain at one time gave a great deal of money to Frederick the First) to assist him in his wars. Great Britain gave a great many million dollars to Frederick the First of Prussia. What is the result? That same Hohenzol-lern family that laid its foundation so solidly and deeply in British gold has today grown to such dimensions that it is threatening to take possession of the British throne. The old story of the Saxons repeated, hired assistants trying to take possession of the country that employed and paid them.

Another objection to a money contri-buton is that it proclaims to the world that Great Britain is financially weakening under the strain of the war-of ship-building which has been put upon her. It is, as it were, making a pauper of her. It is a case of telling Germany that Britain is in difficulties, that her colonies have to give her money, that she cannot continue this warship building which has been put upon her.

Another objection is that we do not keep control of the money which we raised. I know that there are examples of cases in which we have given away money; we gave $50,000 to the French in Paris, we gave money to Italy and to San Francisco in times of disaster,'but these are only small sums, no more to Canada than $5 or a $10 gift would be to a town council. When we come to give away millions of dollars, I do not consider that the peoples' representatives have any right to make any such valuable gifts of other peoples' money. It is contrary to the principles of responsible government, because it is a grand principle of the British constitution that those who pay the tax should have a voice in spending it.

Now I am ready to put my proposition before the House. I shall proceed to prove that we can give to Britain during this crisis the use of seven extra Dreadnoughts, and at the same time not spend more than one-third of the money that s called for by either of the other propositions. I must explain that Britain's food supply must be protected. She cannot get it from the Mediterranean, because Austria will have 13 large war vessels in the Adriatic by the time the crisis is expected in 1912 or 1913. She cannot get it from Australia, or India, or New Zealand, or South Africa, because the lines of food supply would be too long, .and it would take too many ships to protect them. You could not depend on a foreign nation like the United States. In the United States one man out of every four is either a German or of German origin. There are 20 millions of people in the United States of German origin, out of the 80 millions altogether. Then Britain has other enemies in the United States besides the Germans. I think, therfefore, that in time of war Britain could not depend upon the United States even if they did not actually declare war. Now then I come to this point, that Britain will be compelled to get her food supply from Canada. For that purpose it would be necessary for her to put all her spare small vessels and at least four Dreadnoughts on the line of that food supply, because that line would extend from the south of thei island of Newfoundland away into the centre of the Atlantic, and it would be difficult to guard. Now Britan must have many small vessels on that line, whether we do anything or not. It is only a matter of business for us, we are as much interested in giving her the food as she is in getting it, and it is only a business transaction that we should do something to protect her food supply while it is being conveyed from Canada to the shores of the motherland. I would propose that Canada lease a certain _ number of these small vessels from Britain until this crisis is oveT, lease as may of those vessels as she can get, say each year for $1,500,000. In the meantime we would have a few Canadians trained in our naval college to put on those vessels. Now $1,500,000 would pay the interest on $50,000,000. Britain can borrow money at 3 per cent; if we borrowed it we would have to pay 3J or 4 per cent. Britain can pay the interest on $50,000,000 and with the money that we will give her, she can pay the interest, and not a single extra dollar of taxes would be put on the British people. With the $50,000,000 Britain can build five Dreadnoughts, and when the crisis would be over Canada could negotiate with the motherland on the grand old British principle of the budget that if we have to pay and to fight we should have a voice in the expenditure of money and in the making of war and the declaration of peace otherwise we will take over $20,000,000 of the debt and two of the Dreadnoughts, one for the Pacific and one for the Atlantic. She can build a Dreadnought in from 20 to 24 months, and she can have these extra five Dreadnoughts in time for the crisis. Not a single extra cent would the British people have to pay, and the people of Canada, with that small amount of money, would accomplish that great work. Now I will show you how we could give her two more Dreadnoughts. The line of food supply from Canada would be a very long one, and a difficult one to guard. I would propose that we should open up the Hudson Bay route, that would shorten the line of

Britain's food supply, and would be so much safer and more easy to guard that she could take off two of the Dreadnoughts which she would otherwise be compelled to have on the long line, and then there would be seven extra Dreadnoughts for - the North Sea. I know I am undertaking a difficult job to open the Hudson bay. But as' I said in the beginning, I am speaking impartially. I would say to the government that their proposal to build the Hudson Bay Tailway may do more to aid Britain than both plans the two parties are offering to-day. I know that in proposing to open up the1 Hudson Bay route, I have to face powerful antagonisms. I know that the Hudson Bay Company succeeded in making us believe fori 274 years that we could raise no grain in our whole northwest. A British nobleman some years ago talked about the immense deserts of North America covered with ice; and we know that a French king signed away Canada with the remark that it was only a few acres of snow. I have here a little pamphlet published by the government dealing with this question, which says:

According to Dr. Saunders, the head of the Dominion Government's Experimental Farm system, and an authority second to none, if only one-fourth of the suitable land in Manitoba and the southern parts of the two other prairie provinces were annually under wheat, the yield would be more than 812,000,000 bushels, reckoned at the Manitoban average of 19 bushels per acre. This, he points out. would not only feed a population of 30,000,000 in Canada itself (at present there are only about 7,000,000), but would meet the present requirements of Great Britain three times over.

Now, Sir, there is just as much fallacy current about the navigation of the Hudson bay as there was about our wheat lands. There are certain powerful companies interested in keeping the shores of the Hudson bay as a fur preserve. There is another great obstacle in the way, and that is our transcontinental railways. They are very much opposed to opening up the Hudson Bay route, because it will take away their trade. I know that eastern Canada is opposed to it, but I am a big enough Canadian to give western Canada all her rights. I see no advantage in being so narrow minded. We have now four lines of railway running from Winnipeg to Fort William; we have the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and a double line of the Canadian Pacific railway, and these have all they can do. In the Agricultural Committee the other dav we were told that only six per cent of the available wheat lands in the west is under cultivation. Now it is only a calculation for a ten year old boy to figure out. If six per cent of the wheat land in the northwest requires four lines of railway to move Mr. T. CHISHOLM.

the product, how many lines will it require when the whole hundred per cent is under cultivation? It will require 64 lines. Then why should we dilly-dally about the opening^ up of the Hudson bay route?

Now I am going to deal with the climatic conditions of Hudson bay, and first I will read something that I find in ' The Dominion of Canada,' published by the Hon. Sydney Fisher, as part of our immigration literature. Here is what he says about the Hudson bay and about Lake Superior. We have only two ways of getting our food from the wheat fields of the west or our meat from the ranches, either by the Hudson bay route or by the Lake Superior and St. Lawrence route. Now here is what this book says:

The large bodies of water inland greatly modify the severity of the climate. Hudson bay is 1,000 miles long by 600 wide, with an a r#a of 444,000 square miles. Its temperature is 65 degrees F. during summer; in winter it is 3 degrees warmer than the waters of Lake Superior.

This is the point I want to make, that the waters of the Hudson bay in winter are warmer than those of Lake Superior. Why? Because the waters of the Hudson bay are on the level of the ocean, while the waters of Lake Superior are 600 feet above the level of the ocean. Take the mountain of ,Ben Nevis in -Scotland, 4,004 feet high, with sheep grazing at the foot of it and snow all the year around at the top; showing that if we could raise the water of Lake Superior six or seven times as high as it is now, it would be frozen all the year round. But there are other agents. The -water of Lake Superior is soft and the water of Hudson bay is salt. I have here a document published by the Marine Department which tells us that:

Immediately after its formation sea ice contains a noticeable quantity of salt, chlorides as well as sulphates, carbonates and other salts. Such ice is very different from freshwater ice in its physical properties. It melts below zero, and begins to show signs of melting by contraction of volume at temperatures far below zero.

Now then it takes 13 degrees more cold to freeze salt water than fresh water. I have shown that there are three degrees more cold in Lake Superior owing to the elevation, and there are 13 degrees more in favour of Hudson bay on account of the water being soft. Not only that, but the ice of the Hudson bay is more porous, and the ice is more easily smashed. There is another reason. It is a well known law of physics that large bodies cool much slower than small bodies. The Hudson bay, being a thousand miles one way and 600 miles the other, is a very large body of water, while Lake Superior is a smaller body and will cool more rapidly than the water of the

Hudson bay. We have not only to compare the large body of water at Hudson bay with Lake Superior, but we have to compare that with our shallow canals, and with our little shallow lakes that we meet with in the St. Lawrence route. Then there is another reason, which I would commend especially to our friends from the west. The climate of western Canada will improve very rapidly. I will undertake to show that the climate will be so much improved inside the next 50 or 100 years that we will be raising wheat further north than the mouth [DOT]of the Mackenzie river. I commend that idea to the government. Here is another point. Science tells us that black is the warmest of colours. We can prove that any time during the next month, when the suns rays are getting stiong, by taking a piece of black cloth and putting it on the snow and near by it a piece of white cloth. A little further away cover a piece of snow of the same size with a matting of grass or hay. After four or five days you will find that the suns rays have penetrated the black cloth, they have not been reflected, while the heat rays falling upon the white *cloth have been reflected, and consequently you will find that the black cloth has sunk into the snow, while the white cloth will not have sunk so far, because it has rejected a certain amount of the solar heat rays. But when you ' come to the spot that has been covered with hay or grass, what will you find? You will find that the snow has sunk away from it on all sides, because snow and grass are not a conductor of heat. If you wish to keep ice during the summer we will cover it with hay or straw. My good friend from Pinchex Creek (Mr. Herron) tells me that he went to that country first thirty years ago, and that at the end of July he dug down into the ground that was covered with hay and grass and found ice two feet from the surface. Now, that black is the warmest colour I have had frequent opportunities to prove in travelling through the country for 33 years.

I would have occasion in the spring of the year, after the sheep were sheared, to go *out through the country, during the night time, and as I drove along I would find flocks of sheep lying right on the black road. I would drive over them, and I had the greatest trouble in the world trying to avoid them. I wondered why the sheep lay on the black road, and I thought it was more reasonable that they should lie on the grass at the side, but, these sheep had been sheared, they were cold and they naturally got upon the black road, because the black road absorbed the heat by day and gave it out at night. Therefore, when our western country is all black, when it is all ploughed, it will absorb the heat through the summer day, give it off at night, and you will have no more summer frosts to

kill the wheat. All that we have to do is to wait a little. I think I have given' a scientific reason why the climate will change. Most men have read Caesar's De Bello Gallico-I read it when a boy-in which he described the climate of Germany, and from which it is evident that they have overcome the disadvantages of climate in the same way there. He talks about the fierce Germans, the rigour of their climate, and the Hyrcinian forest. That forest has been cleared up and drained, and it is now a vineyard, and it is there that the celebrated hock wine is made. The same can be said with regard to the climate of the whole of Europe to-day, the change being so great that it has made a difference of ten degrees of latitude. That means a difference of 695 miles, or, let us say, a difference of 600 miles. That being so, it means that we will be growing wheat as far north as the 73rd parallel of latitude. If you can go 600 miles north, our wheat district will extend to that limit just as soon as the whole country is blackened, or cultivated, and we will be raising wheat on the islands of the Arctic that Captain Bernier is going to look after. There is another reason why the Hudson Bay route will be the better one. It is not only that it is in a better position than Lake Superior, that it is open longer, but it will be benefited by this improvement in the climate much more than Lake Superior will, because that blackened and consequently warmer country will be nearer to Hudson bay. There is another reason why the Hudson Bay route will be preferable. We hear a great deal about drift ice coming down from Fox channel, and we have a great many reports about this drift ice. I had the old principle instilled into me when I was a boy that the whole is greater than its parts. The drift ice coming through Fox channel must come through the Fury and Hecla straits, and it occupies only about one-sixth of the width of Hudson straits. It is impossible that the drift ice coming through Fury and Hecla .straits can fill the whole of Hudson strait. All the reports we have about ice in Hudson strait are reports of ice along the south shore of the strait. The floe ice coming down Fox channel will naturally lodge on the southern shore of Hudson strait. At the same time it is quite evident that theTe cannot be enough ice to fill the whole of Hudson strait, and there must be clear water to the north. Wireless telegraphy, signal stations, &c., would remedy this by giving warning and information to passing ships. I will read to you what some people say of the navigability of Hudson bay and straits. I have a few authorities here. There was a committee appointed by the legislative assembly of Manitoba in 1884 to inquire into this subject. It was composed of Messrs. Harrison, Greenway, Killam, Lea-

cock, Wilson, Davidson, Cyr, the Hon. Mr. Brown and the Hon. Mr. Miller. On page 14 of the report of this committee we find the following: .

1. Captain James Ifackland has been employed by Hudson Bay Company 39 years. First navigated Hudson bay in 1843, and was in command of Hudson Bay Company s schooner for 16 years from that time.

He says, 'the straits are open all the year round, never freezes; there is no reason why steamships should not navigate the straits at any time. The navigation of Hudson bay is not considered dangerous. There are no shoals, there are few fogs. During that sixteen years, navigation was never impeded by fog/

Page 16:

2. Walter Dickson was twenty years in the employ of the Hudson Bay Company, from 1853 to 1873. I lived for thirteen years on the coast of Hudson bay, and for seven years in the interior between James bay and Lake Superior. I have had an opportunity of gaining information respecting Hudson straits from my long acquaintance with Esquimaux who reside about the straits, and from my personal observation of the bay itself. I have every reason to believe that the Hudson straits and a great body of the bay proper, are navigable at all seasons of tbe year and afford no peculiar difficulty to ordinary navigation.

To Manitoba and the Northwest, the route via Hudson bay is very important, giving them a shorter and cheaper route for both export and import than can possibly be had by any other route. I believe that Hudson straits are never frozen over in winter. My reasons are first, that the latitude is not too high; second, that the current and tide are too strong to allow of a general freezing over at any time.

Page 18:

3. That the Esquimaux make use of skin boats for ordinary hunting and travelling purposes in winter, and during a residence of thirteen years amongst them, I never heard of any Esquimaux crossing the straits on the ice. Icebergs, properly so-called, are not formed in Hudson hay and straits, nor can they get there so far as I am aware. The nature of the ice found in Hudson hay is shore ice, generally from 21 to 3 feet thick, and at many places along the coast is porous at all seasons.

To my knowledge, there have been fewer losses or disasters to shipping in Hudson bay and straits than any known route of travel during the past 250 years. I do not know the rate of insurance, hut believe it to be less than the average. I believe the Hudson Bay Company have ceased to insure their vessels, deeming the route so safe as not to call for it. Hudson hay is less subject to storms than the great lakes.

Page 19:

From what I have observed of the movements of ice in the Hudson hay during the summers I passed there, I am perfectly as-Mr. T. CHISHOLM.

sured that an ordinary iron screw steamer would never have any difficulty in getting through or around that which is usually met with in the bay and straits. The chief reason why the old sailing vessels of the Hudson Bay Company often met with detention in the ice was that at the season when floe ice is met with, there is generally very little wind, and sailing vessels are consequently as helpless amongst the ice as they would be in a dead calm in the centre of the Atlantic or elsewhere. Hudson bay has always been found of easy access to a good and careful navigator.

Page 27:

Dr. Bell obtained from the company's offices in London, a record, which, printed in his report, shows the date of arriving and sailing of their vessels at York Factory for ninety-three years, and at Moose Fort for 147 years. These lists show that in some years, several vessels were sent in charge of British-men-of-war, and there has been almost every year during the past two centuries, ships of various classes and sizes navigating the strait without loss, and it seems almost incredible that such a number of voyageseould be made, extending over 274 years without the loss of over one, or as is claimed by some writers, two small sailing vessels.

Page 28:

It is but a comparatively short time since it was claimed that it would be impossible to navigate the St. Lawrence with steamships.

Page 29:

The lower St. Lawrence, notwithstanding its comparative narrowness, is partly open even in the middle of the winter. But the difficulty, as in the case of Hudson bay, in tfye apparent impossibility of getting into the harbours. Harbours, such as Churchill or York on the Hudson bay, would have the advantage over Quebec or Montreal of connecting directly with the open sea, and hence, in autumn, vessels would not be so liable to be frozen in, as occasionally happens in the St. Lawrence, as for example, in the autumn of 1880, also in the autumn of 1870, when the outward bound shipping got frozen in below Quebec, occasioning a loss, it is said, of over a million dollars.

Page 46:

James Hargrave was at the Factory on Hudson bay from 1867 to 1871 in the employ of the Hudson Bay Company. Have heard the captains of vessels and sailors say that the Hudson straits are navigable all the year round.

Page 47:

President of the Northwest Navigation Company, Winnipeg, says, ' I am interested in the carrying out of the Hudson Bay scheme, and during the time I was in England in January last, I conversed with many persons in Liverpool and London as to the project. I also met in London, some gentlemen from Berlin and conversed with them. The opinion of all with whom I conversed was that the straits and hay were navigable for powerful steamers all the year round.

Page 52:

James Ward left Stromness on the 6th July, 1882, on the Hudson Bay Company's ship, ' Prince of Wales,' Captain Hard, who commanded the vessel, told me that was his forty-sixth trip through the straits. Hudson bay was clear of ice and as smooth as glass. The bay and straits are open all the year round.

Page 53:

I am surprised how people can doubt the navigation of the straits or bay on account of ice. Not one man that has come over the route but believes in its practicability. Mansfield island will be a good place for a lighthouse and station. There is a little lake of good water on that island.

In the annual report of the Department of Railways and Canals at page 22 I find the following reference to the Hudson Bay survey:

It might be mentioned here in passing, the greatly increased difficulty a hostile fleet would have on blockading the Atlantic coast of Canada were the Hudson Bay route opened. The fact that ships may enter and leave Port Nelson all the year round is a fact worth remembering when the possibilities of war are considered.

In a publication by the government called ' Canada's Fertile Northland' I quote from page 117:

Evidence of Robert Bell, M.D., C.M., F.R. G.S., C.E., &c., of the Geological Survey of Canada, given before the Select Committee. March 12, 1907.

Dr. Bell explained that he had been through Hudson strait nine times. The first time was in 1880 in a ship called the ' Ocean Nymph,' a small sailing vessel, and the last time was in 1897 with Commander Wakeham. His trips were distributed over those seventeen years between 1880 and 1897.

All his trips were between June 22 and about October 10.

In navigating the strait during the season between those dates, with a steamship, they never had any difficulty.

W it ness never heard that the strait was frozen across in winter.

Dr. Bell said he did not know any more desirable piece of navigation in the world, excepting the middle of the ocean and even then a common sailor who could not take an astronomical observation could sail through the straits with perfect safety. That is what Henry Hudson's men did after putting him and part of the crew into an open boat and leaving them behind.

Now, Sir, I think I have shown that Hudson bay is navigable and that it is open for ten months in the year, instead of being frozen for ten months, as some people allege. We have evidence that wheat can be raised at the 63rd degree of latitude, and do you mean to tell me that a salt water bay located in a latitude without fear of summer frost, is frozen up for ten months in the year.

Mr. CONMEE.

And where there is a fairly high tide.

Mr. CHISHOLM.

Yes. The Gulf of

the St. Lawrence has always been looked upon as somewhat dangerous for navigation, and before its coasts were equipped with wireless telegraphy and its waters charted and modern aid3 to navigation erected, it was difficult of navigation and the insurance rate on ships was high, and is still high, a thing which has handicapped us in competition with the Erie canal If we go back we will find that when John and Sebastien Cabot sailed along .the north coast of America in 1498 they did not venture into the inhospitable Gulf of the St. Lawrence. We are told that Verazano and Cortereal also sailed along the Atlantic coast, but there is no proof that either of them entered the gulf. The first man who had the courage to navigate the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, so far as history tells us, was Jacques Cartier, a native of Normandy, and he had in his viens the daring blood of the sea kings. He sailed from St. Malo on the 20th of April, 1534, and we find him in the Baie de Chaleurs in the latter part of July. We do not know the exact date, but we know that the weather was very hot, and 30 he christened that sheet of water ' Baie de Chaleur ' (Hot Bay). Then he went to Gaspe and erected a cross and took possession of the country in the name of his King, Francis the first. The Indians told him there was a great river , not far off, the source of which they did not know, and Jacques Cartier sailed for that river and arrived at the Island of Orleans, near Quebec, on the 7th of September, which shows that it was far on in the season before he entered the gulf. There he was met by Donacona. Cartier did not tarry long in these waters on that voyage because he feared being caught in the ice so late in the season. Next year he came back, but he took good care that he would not reach the St. Lawrence even in July, for we find that he landed on the 10th day of August, the feast day of St. Lawrence, after whom he named the bay and the river.

Then he sailed along and succeeded in reaching Hochelaga on the 2nd of October. But he made out to get back to the mouth of the river, but was there frozen in all winter, and could not get away. The next indication we have of the sailing conditions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is in the coming of Champlain. Did he come in January or February or March or April or May or even June? No. He landed on the third of July, and we have recently celebrated the tercentenary of his landing. All this shows that the Gulf of St. Lawrence was looked on as far more dangerous to navigation than Hudson bay. Now, I think I have shown that Hudson bay is open. The next thing is to show how to get out;

*because I have still these tw-o Dreadnoughts to put in the North Sea. I am trying to show how to shorten the route for the food supply and in that liberate two Dreadnoughts. Remember, it was the small vessels I proposed to rent, not the Dreadnoughts, which would be required to complete the fleet units on the longer line.

I can go to Mr. Gouin, at Quebec, and say to him: 11 see that not long

ago you were in Toronto, where you and Sir James Whitney were talking pretty loyally. We are go'ing to give you a dry-dock at Quebec, and we are going to give you something else. You want that great "territory of Ungava; there is in it a great deal of land and also timber, fish, minerals and water-powers. That territory does not belong to you; it belongs just as much to British Columbia, to Nova Scotia and to Ontario as it does to you. But we want to make a bargain with you. We will give you that, but you must do something for us. We want you to build a railway right away from the St. Lawrence river to the Gulf of Ungava. That will develop that country. You do not know what you may find on the road. It may contain great mineral deposits. The Ontario government have built a railway towards James bay, and in the process they discovered Cobalt, the royalties from which will pay for the whole road. You build a railway to Ungava bay; we will give you the land, and you can borrow on the land the necessary money to build the railway.' Then I go to Sir James Whitney and say to him:

You have been shouting loyalty a bit lately, and we want to give you a chance to do something to prove it. Your railway is now wdthin 129 miles of Moose Factory. You want a portion of the territory of Kee-watin. Finish the railway to Moose Factory, and we will give you a portion of that territory.' Then I go to Manitoba, and, as Mr. Roblin is away, I shall probably find there the Hon. Robert Rogers, who we know is pretty loyal, and I will say to him: ' Here is a bargain for you. You

want to get a piece of Keewatin; we will give you that, with the land, the minerals, the timber and everything, only you must build a railway from Winnipeg to the mouth of the Nelson river.' Then I go to Premier Scott of Saskatchewan and I say to him: ' You have no lands or timber or minerals; you should have had them long ago; but we will give you all these now if you build a railway from Regina to the extreme north of your province, with a branch to Fort Churchill.* I go with a similar proposal to Premier Rutherford of Alberta. In that way we shall have five railways built to Hudson bay by 1912 or 1913, like so many spokes of a big wheel, and the Dominion government will build Mr. T. CHISHOLM.

a sixth. We need them all. I have shown that the Hudson bay is navigable and how much safer and shorter the Hudson bay route will be for the products of the Northwest, and how quickly we can send the two Dreadnoughts to the North Sea, because we can spare them on the shorter line. My plan is a business plan. We rent Dreadnoughts from Britain in a business way, temporarily, paying for them $1,500,000 a year for four years, by which time the crisis will be over. That will only take \$6,000,000 altogether, and it will give Britain seven extra Dreadnoughts in the North Sea. Then look at the strategy of this arrangement. If our Atlantic sea-board were blockaded, Britain would send her fleet to Ungava bay, and convey an army to relieve Quebec. If Toronto were attacked ian army could be landed at Moose Factory. If Winnipeg or Regina or Edmonton were attacked, Britain could send an army of relief via Fort Nelson or Fort Churchill. By means of this plan we would develop our country to such an extent that instead of our population increasing by half a million a year, as it has done recently, it would increase by more than a million a year, and in twenty years from now we would have 30,000,000 people in this country; the country would be developed in width as well as in length; the farmers of the west would get ten cents a bushel more for their wheat and $10 a head more for their cattle, while the goods they used at home would be greatly reduced in cost because of reduced freight rates. We have an immense country to build up, and when we have a population of 30,000,000 I shall be in favour of a Canadian-built navy, and one equal to that of Great Britain. I have no doubt that there are men living to-day who will see the time when Canada will have a navy larger than that of the mother country. We shall have one of the greatest inland seas on the face of the earth for the manoeuvres of a military fleet. Look over the whole world and you can find no place equal to Hudson bay for the manoeuvres of a great military fleet, if the country around it were only properly settled and developed. I think I have shown that this is a business proposition and that it violates none of the principles that I have laid down. I think I have shown that by this means where we have to fight we must pay. We do not want to hire any one to go on fighting for us. Our French-Canad-ian fellow citizens can truly and proudly say that at one time the heroes of Chateau-guay saved Canada to the British Crown, and to-day Canada has the opportunity to have it said of her in the future that she saved Britain to the empire.

Mr. F. T. CONGDON (Yukon Territory).

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) will not

accuse me of any disrespect toward him if I confess myself as at present quite unable to answer him. Besides my inability to follow him in many of his learned disquisitions, I am under the misfortune of not having heard some portions of the horn gentleman's speech when he turned aside to address gentlemen behind him or lowered his voice. Therefore, if I attempted to answer his speech, I fear that I would make myself ridiculous by confusing banana belts with Hudson bay, hitching posts with Dreadnoughts, or committing similar confusions which might make it appear that I was ridiculing the hon. gentleman's effort. I have no doubt that upon that effort the hon. gentleman has bestowed a great deal of time and learning, and I think it would be impossible for me or any one else, merely from hearing such a speech, to make an appropriate answer to it. One thing stands out perfectly plain and clear from his speech, and that is, that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has in his ranks another gentleman who has: another policy to propound on this naval question. I regret that certain portions of this debate have assumed a tone which I think not quite worthy of this House. Let me begin with my hon. and learned friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I have always listened-as I think most men in this House have-with great respect to any speech made by the hon. gentleman. I know of no man in the House who has more dignity of bearing, a better parliamentary style, more learning, better reasoning faculty and greater eloquence, but I venture to say that the House will share my opinion, when I assert that he descended to a plane not worthy of him when he ventured to characterize hon. gentleman on this side as' having entered into the plan proposed by the right hon. the leader of the government, merely because, if they did not, they would be deprived of patronage. Sir, hon. gentlemen on this side are as high-minded and conscientious as is my hon. friend, and are no more influenced in the views they express and the positions they take by the lust of patronage than is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.

Another passage in the hon. gentleman's speech was, I think, unworthy of him; and for it I believe the hon. gentleman, if he were present, would, on his attention being called to it, express regret that he had so far forgotten himself as to accuse the right hon. the Prime Minister, of being a master of circumlocution and deceit. Such language does not raise the tone of the debate in this House. On the contrary, it lowers debate from that lofty plane on which every well wisher of Canada, every one solicitous for. Canada's fair fame and renutation, would desire to see it carried on.