March 3, 1910




William Henry Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)


In reference to the cancelling of the sale of the northeast 1 section of section 11, township 1, range 9, -which W. F. Crosbie bought at the school lands sale held at Manitou on the 30th May, 1907, has the S208 Mr. Crosbie

paid on this land been refunded to him or any portion of the $208? If so, what amount and when ?


Frank Oliver (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)



No, this money was not refunded. The sale was cancelled at Mr. Crosbie's. own request as he did not wash to complete the purchase at the price paid; and under the regulations of the department the money could not be refunded.





Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Were tenders called for the sale of the maple, beech, basswood, birch and hemlock timber of nine inches and upwards at the' stump on Giant's Tomb island, Georgian bay, in the year 1908?

2. If so called, in what newspapers was the advertisement published?

3. What was the date of the issue of the advertisement, and what time was allowed for tendering?

4. Was an estimate of the above different kinds of timber on the said island made prior to sale? If so, what was the date of the report, and by whom was the same made?

5. If a report was made, what quantities of timber of the above different kinds respectively was it estimated there were on the said island, and the value per thousand of same?

6. How many tenders were received, if any, the names of tenderers, amounts tendered, and name of successful tenderer?

7. If sold under said sale, has any cutting yet been done thereunder or payments made therefor ?

8. Is any time fixed under contract of sale for removal of timber?

9. Did any of the parties tendering receive reports from the department as to the estimate by the department of quantities of timber?

10. Did the Indians ask to have the sale effected? If so, when?


Mr. OLIVER: (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)


1. Yes.

2. Tile ' Globe,' Toronto, two insertions; the Collingwood ' Bulletin,' Collingwood, two insertions; the Hamilton ' Times,' Hamilton, two insertions; the Meaford ' Monitor,' Meaford, two insertions; the ' Free Press,' Midland, two insertions; the ' Era,' Newmarket, two insertions; the ' Sun,' Owen Sound, three insertions; the Penetanguishene ' Herald,' Penetanguishene, two insertions.

3. Date of advertisement, 4th September; tenders receivable up to 1st October, 1908, at noon.

4. Yes. The report was dated 1st of May, 1900, and was made by the timber inspector of the department.

5. Estimated quantities of timber, and value including dues-Beech, 2,457,000 feet board measure at $2, $4,915.20; Maple, 720,000 feet board measure at $3, $2,160; Basswood and birch, 259,200 feet board measure at $2, $518.40; Hemlock and other woods,

500,000 feet board measure at $2, $1,000. Total, $8,593.60.

6. Two tenders were, received, namely- D. S. Pratt, $3,600 bonus; The C. Beck Manufacturing Company, $3,750 bonus. The tender of the Beck Company, being the higher, was accepted. In addition to the bonus of $3,750, the company is to pay dues on timber cut according to tariff, which, on estimated quantities referred to in answer No. 5, should amount to $6,014.30, making a total of $9,764.30.

7. The bonus was duly paid and the ground rent and renewal fee have been paid to 30th April, 1909, but no returns of cutting have been received. It is assumed that no cutting has been done.

8. No time has been fixed for the removal of the timber.

9. No.

10. The Indians surrendered this island, along with others, for sale, on the 5th of June, 1856.




William Henry Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)


In reference .to the Weekly Report of February 28, 1910, in which it states that the agricultural products exported were as follows :

1906 $57,586,509

1907 45,298,791

1908 43,217,374

1909 44,908,119

What are the different products included in

this, and the amount of each exported in the four years named?


Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)



The information as published in the Weekly Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce referred to, is misquoted in the question put by the hon. member for Lisgar. The figures given in the question are the exports of animal produce, and not of agricultural products. In any ease the information is too voluminous to be given in the form of an answer; it should be asked for in a return.



House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.


James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. J. DONNELLY (South Bruce).

Mr. Speaker, it is now one month since the First Minister moved the second reading of this Bill, and during a very considerable portion of that month the time of the House has been taken up by hon. members who have dwelt at great length upon subjects which had very little, if any connection with the question before the House.

Indeed, at times it appeared to descend to a contest between hon. members to see who could fill up the most space in ' Hansard There are 221 members in this House, and if each availed himself of the privilege of speaking at length upon every important subject submitted for our consideration, the result would be that little or no progress would be made in the transaction of public business. I quite realize that an hon. member who introduces a Bill, and perhaps three or four others who know something about it should go fully into the subject, but subsequent speakers might show some consideration for their fellow members and for the public, and make an effort to condense their remarks. If there is not some improvement in this respect, I believe, Sir, we will find it necessary to introduce a third chamber; a sort of hot air chamber where the two and three hour men may have an opportunity of giving vent to their pent up feelings without causing loss of time and great expense to the country. In order to be consistent 1 shall make my remarks very brief. If the Navy Bill that we are now considering, should become law it will entail an initial expenditure of some $15,000,000 for the purchase or construction of the proposed navy, and it will also entail an annual expenditure of some $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 for its upkeep and maintenance. We will also have a naval college and a Navy Department, which, while they add to the already long patronage list of the government, will also introduce a non-producing element in our population. I am not one of those who are at all times disposed to carp at every expenditure, but I believe that before entering into such an enormous project as this, which will require such a great outlay of public money we should carefully consider what results we are likely to obtain. As well as I can gather from the hon. members who have spoken in support of this Bill, when this proposed navy comes into existence we will have two vessels of the Bristol type and two destroyers on the Pacific ocean, and two vessels of the Bristol type and four destroyers and the ' Niobe ' on the Atlantic ocean. The avowed object of these warships will be to give us some naval protection. Well, if the days of the buccaneers had not passed into history there might be some justification for such a navy to guard our shipping from the depredations of modern Captain Kidds, but as a fighting force intended to compete with any of the existing navies which may attack our merchantmen or ocean ports, these ships would be utterly useless. We are told by some of the leading Liberal organs that these vessels will be so constructed that they will have considerable speed and be capable of eluding pursuit. That is a very fortunate thing, because if the smoke of one hostile Dread-Mr. J. J. DONNELLY.

nought appeared on the horizon they would be obliged to exhibit their speed in beating a hasty retreat, and I submit, Air. Speaker, that a run away navy of that kind is a poor return for our money and not much of a credit to Canada. We have heard a good deal about the ' Niobe ' which we are told will head the Atlantic squadron, and perhaps it would be as well to let hon. gentlemen know what kind of ship the ' Niobe ' is, as described in yesterday's Montreal ' Star ' which says:

H.M.S. ' Niobe ' is Severely Criticised-Useless as a Fighting Ship, declares * Pall Mall Gazette ' To-day-Most of her class suffer badly from Boileritis, says same Au' thority.

(By Special Cable from our own Correspondent.)

London, March 2,-(Copyright.)-Some naval authorities speak with contempt of the cruiser ' Niobe,' which the Canadian government have })urehased from the admiralty. The ' Pall Mall Gazette ' says: ' The ' Niobe ' is one of the Belleville-boilered protected cruisers of the Diadem class. As fighting ships they are useless, and always were, being inadequately armed and armoured. Most of these cruisers have suffered badly from boileritis at one time or another, and have cost much in repairs.

She is now doing duty as the flagship of the third division of the home fleet at Devonport, but will shortly be sent to Canada, taking out with her officers and petty officers, who are to act as instructors to the Canadian navy.



We will, therefore, have at the head of our navy a vessel which on account of her defective boilers is unseaworthy, a vessel which was launched about eleven years ago and which is now of an obsolete type. Now, Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with those who feel that a proper consideration for the British taxpayer, as well as a proper sense of self-respect, should incite us to assist in some way in the maintenance and upkeep of the British navy. For the past 100 years our Canadian sea-borne commerce has depended for its protection entirely upon the British navy, and with all due respect to the proposed Canadian navy, I think Canadian shipping will, for many years to come, have to depend on the protection of the same historic navy. The argument is sometimes advanced that in the past our shipping has not required any protection; but, Air. Speaker, the undoubted fact is that if no protection were needed, it is because the sea-going commerce of Canada had behind it at all times the support and prestige of British men-of-war. Canada is a comparatively young country, a country of vast undeveloped resources. If any hon. members of this House believe that without the security which we enjoy as part of the British empire, we would be permitted to go on and develop this young country, I, for my part, do not share in that belief. For my part, I am most anxious that we should continue as part of the British empire. In this country all classes, all races, and I might say all creeds, enjoy a freedom and liberty such as they -would not get under any other conditions. Our continuation as a part of the British empire, the continuation of the British empire itself, depends upon the supremacy of ' the British navy being maintained. Of' the 400,000,000 people who make up the British empire only about 40,000,000 reside within the shores of the British Isles. The different portions of the empire are divided by vast stretches of ocean, and without the protection of the British navy, the ocean routes connecting the different parts of the British empire would be under the control of the enemy, and if the oversea supply of food were cut off from Great Britain, she would be brought under subjection in a very short time. In advocating the giving of assistance to the British navy, I am not doing so with the expectation that that navy will be used on the offensive. I do it rather in the belief that we cannot have a better guarantee for general peace than the supremacy of the British navy. During this debate a good deal of reference has been made to the rapid manner in which the German people are increasing their naval power. I do not see that wTe have very much ground for complaint on that score. So long as the present conditions exist and until that happy day arrives when the differences between nations will be settled by arbitration, I believe the German people are quite justified in increasing the strength of their navy as rapidly as their resources permit. But our interest lies in the maintenance of Great Britain in her present position of supremacy so far as naval power is concerned. We seek no war with Germany. Many of the residents of this country, particularly in western Ontario, are of German origin; and for my part, as one who has had many opportunities of mingling and dealing with the German people, I must say frankly that whether, as farmers or manufacturers, or in any other occupation, they are very desirable citizens. As a class in this country, they have no superior. As residents of_ Canada, I believe them to be loyal British subjects; and should Britain be attacked, no matter whence that attack may come, I believe they would be ready to do their share in the defence of the empire. They are an industrious and progressive people, possessed of keen business instincts, and these instincts, as nearly as I can gather, cause them to object to the expenditure of the resources of this country in the creation of such a hide and go seek navy as is provided for by this Bill. Briefly speaking, I do not consider that our present resources would enable us to build an efficient navy, and in my opinion a weak navy is still worse than none at all. Our resources, however, are rapidly increasing, and the time will come when wre shall be in a position to build an effective navy; but until that financial condition is reached, which will enable us to place a complete fleet unit on the Pacific and another on the Atlantic, such as we might look to, with some assurance, for naval defence, and such as would be capable of giving some assistance to Great Britain in time of stress, and further, until such time as the people ot this country have had an opportunity to consider this question, and give the government of the day some mandate with regard to it, I think we should not undertake to build the navy. I have always found it good doctrine to trust in the people and they will trust you. I think the government should consult the people in some way before imposing on them the heavy burden of a navy. In the meantime I believe we should give such voluntary assistance to the motherland as will sho-w that we are British citizens, not in name only, but in fact, and that, so Tong as we enjoy the privileges of British citizenship, rve are willing to accept the responsibility which attaches to that citizenship.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte


Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE (Nicolet).

(Translation.) Mr, Speaker, I wrould not venture to take up at this moment the valuable time of the House, of which others might make a better use, were it not for the constant feeling that I owe to my constituents, to my political associates, and to the country in general, some explanation as to the vote I intend to give on the question now engrossing to such a degree the Canadian public mind.

Last year, when the government submitted their resolution of March 29, a; regards the part Canada should take towards the defence of the empire, I was well aware of the responsibility incurred by those who would openly state their outspoken opinion under the circumstances.

I knew that the whole Canadian people were awaiting with anxiety the verdict of their representatives on this question of the navy, one of the most burning and momentous in its consequences. And above all, I knew that in opening my mouth in this House to express conscientiously and openly an opinion adverse to the resolution, at any rate as a matter of expediency,

I was running the risk of being made a [DOT] target for the protests and sharp criticisms of those whose minds are overheated bv imperialism. However, being anxious of fulfilling my duty and relying on the unalienable right of the man who under such solemn circumstances hies to the voice of his conscience, I stood up for the first time


in this Canadian parliament and stated that at the present juncture, in a young country such as ours, we should ajrply our energy to other purposes than the creation of a navy, that we had other struggles to enter into than those settled by means of powder and guns. For human activity, constantly developing, requires from civilized nations numerous and violent efforts towards higher destinies, great and further sacrifices towards attaining their full development.

Those statements have been construed as an expression of opinion adverse to the establishment of a war navy. Mow. sir, I repudiate that charge, and I say that never have I expressed such an opinion, neither in my speech of March 29, neither in private conversation; I merely questioned tiie desirability of creating such a navy at a time when our national expansion was only in its incipient stage and when so many gigantic undertakings, which cannot be dispensed with, were awaiting for their carrying out strenuous efforts on the part of the Canadian people. I believed and still believe that, the wave of feverish patriotism, swollen by chimerical fears within the empire, and which has swept over our peaceful country, would pass away and that very soon .the minds of the people, having recovered their composure, we would be at liberty to resume the race towards progress and development, without the burden of militarism which is weighing so heavily on the nations of Europe, and I might say on the whole world.

The imperial conference has taken place, and two Canadian ministers, whose high ability and attainments I have pleasure in recognizing, represented our country and vindicated the rights of the Dominion with a talent and energy worthy of admiration under circumstances so difficult and ticklish. As a result of that conference it was decided that Canada would build a navy to help in the defence of our coasts and the protection of our fisheries, that such navy, while autonomous and exclusively Canadian in its creation, armament and object, would co-operate with the British fleet whenever the people of this country deemed it desirable.

Mr. Speaker, I am in no way receding from the position that it would have been of more advantage to the country, and, in my humble opinion, more in harmony with the great principles of the Liberal party, to defer for some time yet the building of such a navy. I say in all seriousness that I would have felt a patriotic joy at seeing the people's money used foT some other purpose. I would have rejoiced at seeing the Liberal party continue favouring the marvellous power of expansion with which the Canadian nation is endowed, continue developing the im-Mr. TTFRCOTTE.

mense resources of the country, continue guiding and helping on the people on the safe way to moral and material progress, and maintaining harmony, concord and peace, sure pledges of prosperity and happiness.

However, since the question is to-day on the point of taking a new turn, and the proposal of a navy on the point of being carried out, the issue assumes still greater importance, and it is incumbent on us, representatives of the people, to take a decided and firm attitude and give or refuse our consent to the measure. In certain quarters, and from motives of de spicable party interests, it is loudly proclaimed that the province of Quebec is altogether opposed ,to the establishment of a navy, and our accusers even go so far as to charge us with disloyalty. I am bound to protest and to protest energetically against such vile and unfounded aspersions cast upon the French people of Canada. Do those who launch such charges ignore how deeply is rooted in the French heart those feelings of honour which manifest themselves when occasion requires by deeds of uprightness, bravery and loyalty? The loyalty of the French Canadians to the British Crown needs no further proof, and the heroic deeds which they accomplished in the service of the foster motherland fill the pages of our history. These words, I rest assured, will find an echo in the hearts of my fellow-citizens who occupy seats around me in this House, and those unfair and foolish clamours, intended as, an insult to the French Canadian name, will be met with universal scorn.

I. have then no hesitation in saying that the French Canadians are primarily loyal to the country they live in, to the land of their birth, and wherein they labour and earn their families' livelihood. More than anything else, they have at- heart the interests and greatness of their country; and I believe I am the faithful interpreter of the feelings of my fellow-citizens at this juncture, and that I am stating an actual fact when I say that this question of the navy interests them almost wholly from the view-point of Canada's interests and future. In agreeing to the proposal now before the House, they are desirous of protecting their own homes, safeguarding our rights, and the honour of the Canadian, flag. Who will say that is criminal? In loving and defending Canada, is it not a part of the empire that they are loving and defending?

I intend supporting the present policy of the government, because the more, in my humbe opinion, we assert our national existence, the more we approach the state of national perfection and the closer we get to the status of independence. And I trust that such a status will be conceded to us while we continue to enjoy the present

political system, the most perfect to my mind.

. Timorous or narrow-minded men, blinded by an unconquerable fanatacism will possibly take exception to such an expression of opinion; but to set their mind at ease,

I beg of them to listen to a few words of explanation, and, in the first place, .to remember that a rather small group of English-speaking people settled on this American continent one day wished to be free, gloriously shook off her yoke and broke by the force of arms the ties which united them to the mother country, England.

The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in one of his outpours of sarcasm, taunted the right hon. leader of the Liberal party for having in bygone days advocated independence for Canada. I fail to see there anything objectionable, anything which could justify the taunts of the deputy leader of the opposition. Is it not proper and fair to acknowledge that the Canadian people gravitates towards and aspires after a state of perfect development, complete maturity, which cannot be. after all, anything but independence, if not annexation. Has not that Dominion of Canada, with her great natural resources, her railways, her canals, her numerous manufactures and her traffic, her fine merchant navy, her intelligent population, sprung from the two finest races in the world, has not that Dominion, I say, enough reliance in the vitality, the energy of her people, in their intelligence and morality, in the strength of her judicial and parliamentary institutions, in her leaders to wish for and obtain a political status more perfect and more in harmony with the aspirations of her citizens?

Do we not read in the annals of the world that colonies of great nations, after attaining their perfect development have separated from the mother country, and become independent nations? Do we not see the same thing going on in the family, which is a complete social organism by itself. Nay, does not nature itself make it the law of being deprived of reason? The people of the United States, in an outburst of admirable philanthropy-a fact worthy of being inscribed in golden letters on the tablets of history-have given proof of their greatness and loftiness of mind, of their moral and intellectual progress, by conceding to the Spanish colonies their independence, thereby proclaming to the civilized world that independence is the supreme privilege of a nation.

Let me quote as regards that question of the independence of Canada, the opinion of men whose ability and experience in political matters compare favourably with those of the fiery tribune of the opposition, the hon. member or North Toronto:

The Montreal ' Post5 on independence.- There is no use in disguising the matter. The time has come, if not for Canadian independence, at least for full and free discussion on a subject fraught with so much that is important to Canada. It cannot be frowned down; its advocates must be heard, and heard with the same amount of attention bestowed on the statesmen, who, in their generation, were instrumental in bringing about such changes as those involved in the abolition of the seigniorial tenure, secularization of the clergy reserves, confederation and the national policy.

If leading journals such as the ' London. Times,' ' Daily News,' ' Standard,' and ' Pall Mall Gazette,' thought fit to discuss the question of Canadian independence, why should Canadian organs of public opinion who are much more interested in the matter-who are vitally interested in the matter-be debarred from following their example? And here may be the proper place to remark that -while not one public man in Canaa mat -we know of, and certainly not of any newspaper of any influence, has suggested the advisability of annexation to the United States-a great many of them favour independence. The late hon. Mr. Howe, of Nova Scotia, Sir A. T. Galt, the hon. Mr. Huntington, the hon. Wm. Mc-Dougall and many others of our most distinguished men have at different times pronounced themselves in favour of Canadian independence, but none of them ventured to pronounce the word annexation.

Canadian Emancipation 1880.

We know that Mr. Gladstone, in 1870, advocated the separation of the colonies from the empire, and at the same time the right hon. W. E. Foster said: 'The common belief is that Canada must some day become independent. This common idea will become one of those which realize themselves.' Now we do not believe that those men changed their sentiments since then.

Leading British statesmen favour Canadian independence.-Mr. Huskisson, colonial secretary, said: ' He thought the time had come

for the separation of Canada from the mother country, and an assumption of an independent state.'

Lord Howick said: ' There could be no

doubt that in time all our foreign colonies would become independent of the mother country. Such an event was certain, and we ought in time to prepare for the separation not by fortifying Canada, but by preparing her to become independent.'

Mr. Cobden said: ' There will be no repetition on our part of the policy of 1776 to prevent our North American colonies from pursuing interests in their own way. The Bari of Ellenborough said: ' He hoped the government would communicate with the North American colonies with the view to separation.'

Lord Brougham: ' He was one of those who desired a separation of Canada from the mother country. The idea was not novel; it had been entertained and pressed by many eminent men. It was an opinion shared in by Lord Ashburton and Lord St. Vincent.

A member of the House of Commons on a recent occasion declared: ' that the relation between Canada and Britain was rotten and

mutually deceptive/ A cabinet minister said: ' He looked forward without apprehension and without regret to the separation of Canada from England/ In 1864 Lord Derby, a former leader of the great Conservative party in England, said: * In British North America there is a strong movement in progress in favour of federation, or, rather, union of some shape. We know that these countries must before long, be independent states/

Mr. Gladstone, when leader of the British government, in 1870, in advocating the separation of these colonies from the empire said that: 'The present government do not claim the credit of adopting or introducing any new policy, and persons of authority of every shade of politics have adopted it.'

Mr. Lowe in a recent speech in parliament said: ' We should represent to Canada that it is perfectly open to her to establish herself as an independent republic; it is our duty, too, to represent to her that if, after well-weighed consideration, she thinks it more to her interests to join the great American republic itself, it is the duty of Canada to deliberate for her own interests and happiness.

Lord Grey in the House of Lords in 1870, said: ' The principles laid down by succesive colonial secretaries must necessarily lead to a dissolution of the British empire/

TIord Russell said: ' If the North American colonies felt themselves able to stand alone, and showed their anxiety either to form themselves into an independent country, or even to amalgamate with the United States, he did not think it would be wise to resist that desire/

Hon. Joseph Howe, when in England, heard a noble marquis say: ' Those British Americans may go and set up for themselves to the United States, and no power will be used to prevent them/ ' Not a man rose to contradict this statement/

Lord Monck, our late Governor General, said, from his place in the House of Lords: ' It is in the interests of the mother country that Canada should be taught to look forward to independence. He believed that the policy of the government tended towards such independence, and it was on that account that he gave the government his support/ He alleged that the tie which connects Canada with Britain was a mere sentimental one, that the connection had ceased its uses, and that the colonial relations to Britain were dissolved when the confederation was consummated, and that the true mission of Canada was to proclaim its independence.

Sir George Campbell said : ' Canada has grown to maturity. I would let it go free without more delay, and would relieve this country of the many embarrassments to which the connection may give rise. Canada, I believe to be, under present arrangements, a burden and a risk to us.'

Subtopic:   WINDERMERE.

The Right Hon. W. E.@

Foster said: ' The common belief is that Canada must some day become independent, and this common idea will become one of those which realize themselves/

Surely, these are weighty opinions and quite favourable to the idea of independence; they were given expression to by Englishmen occuying positions of Mr. TURCOTTE.

responsibility in the social and political world, and whose testimony should forestall the extravagant and flighty utterances of our fiery loyalists. The right hon. Prime Minister is, as a matter of fact, in complete harmony with representative and prominent men in the British empire, vand that circumstance, to my mind, should make up for the great sorrow he might feel at finding himself differing on. that question from the hon. member for North Toronto. The latter hid his face for shame in the course of his speech, and cried for scandal at thinking that a Canadian had been so bold as to express the hope that his country might some day become independent. He should now show a face reddening with anger, he should shrivel up with indignation at hearing or mediating over the propositions quoted above in connection with independence, and which have been advocated by the best men and the most brilliant statesmen of Great Britain.

Independence seems to be, in some quarters, a scarecrow, the nightmare of those in whose eyes the interests of Canada are of little account and who reserve their love and loyalty for the empire. But, I put the question to these hon. gentlemen: Will

not Canada sooner or later have to choose between annexation and independence? Are we destined to remain a colony forever, and should not the true Canadian, who really loves his country above all, have the rightful ambition of seeing it one day free and independent? It ill becomes politicians of many years experience, who have witnessed the succession of great events and political changes which are today consigned in the annals of the country, who have seen the nation grow, and are cognizant of its vigour and immense resources, it is not patriotic nor loyal, I say, on the part of these men to set obstacles in the way of the full development of our political organization, and to contend that we must remain forever under the protection of the British flag. But, thank God, I am satisfied it will not be so, and the establishment of a war navy will in my humble opinion, be the last step towards independence.

That is the view I take more particularly, and I might say exclusively, when giving mv support to the Liberal policy at this juncture. I speak from the Canadian point of view, and I think that my viewpoint is also that of the greater number of electors in my constituency, and I would even say of the majority of electors in the province of Quebec.

I mentioned a moment ago opinions which have been given expression to by representative Britishers, and it would be an easy matter to quote others in the same strain. Are these men all traitors to their country? They would be in the estimation

of the hon. deputy chief of the opposition, who, in a spirit of excessive and noisy loyalism, has in sharp and even insulting words taunted the Prime Minister of this country for being so bold as to wish independence for his country.

Young as we are as a people, we Canadians have a part, and a most important part, to play on this continent of America. We have as neighbours a people who under the folds of the flag of independence has made giant strides towards the topmost goal of modern, civilization, and we should, following in their footsteps, direct our activity and our national energies towards attaining the same object, and accordingly be ready to meet any emergency.

Fortunately, we shall not be confronted with such obstacles as slavery and the terrible conflict between the North and the South which confronted them on. the way to the full development of their civilization. Besides, there are in this country only two strong races, whose great morai, religious and intellectual characteristics have admirably prepared them for reaping the benefits of civilization. While in the United States various ethnical groups are to be found whose conflicting interests cannot be easily conciliated, with the result that progress is impeded through lack of unity in'matters language, religious beliefs, 'customs, manners and ideals.

My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Belaud) in his eloquent and truly masterful speech which the whole House has admired and applauded, seems to think that independence is autopy, a dream never to be realized, and _ even more, making for a political status which would be directly inimical to the interests of the province of Quebec. I very much regret differing from my hon. friend on that point. He contended that independence was a danger for the province of Quebec, inasmuch as it might imperil the educational and religious previleges of its people. Now, has independence brought about such results in the United States? Is there a country in the world where religion and education are freer? Have ever any complaints in that respect been voiced by our co-religionists living there? A rather restricted French community settled in the south of the United States, have succeeded in maintaining their form of speech their manners and their religious beliefs though living under social and political conditions quite different from ours. The same may be said of the French Canadians in the eastern States. We French Canadians, compose a homogeneous and extensive provincial group, showing great zeal for and attachment to their church and institutions.

Besides, my hon. friend's contention might be taken as impugning the spirit of tolerance of our English speaking fellow-citizens, and that I cannot agree to. That 147J

status of independence which its opponents always consider as necessarilly linked with violent separation from England, could to my mind be brought about in altogether different fashion, that is in a peaceable way and with the consent of the British authorities. There has existed in the mother country for several years past, a strong movement for the abandonment of Canada. The measure of independence which we have acquired up to date, we have secured without any clash or measures of violence, and I think we might succeed in attaining complete independence very peacefully and without any friction. Indeed, do we require much more than we have at present to be perfectly independent. All that is required is the consent of Great Britain. We are allowed to negotiate our own treaties, and the powers of the Governor General nowadays amount to very little. I shall quote from page 121 of a book entitled ' Canadian Emancipation,' wherein Sir A. Galt is made to speak as follows:

Sir Alexander states that the relations of Canada to the empire have been put on a new basis of semi-independency ; that we have entered on a new departure. The Governor General is no more a connecting link between Great Britain and the Dominion, he is simply the administrator of the confederation. Sir A. T. Galt has assumed, in his place, all the higher duties of representing the interests of Canada at the Court of St. James, of negotiating all arrangements between the two countries. In fact, our High Commissioner is the only person now authorized to address the imperial government, as well as to enter into relations with foreign nations, as the appointed representative of the Dominion of Canada. Our High Commissioner assumes at once the rank and duties of a diplomatic envoy, while the Governor General remains a simple employee of the colonial office, the official head of the government of Canada.

The various phases through which our political status has passed, leading providentially to independence, are, if I am not mistaken, as follows: The union of upper and lower Canada, confederation, the Militia Bill, the appointment of a high commissioner in London, the granting of the treaty-making privilege, and finally the Navy Bill.

The prospect of independence, is a matter of great rejoicing to me, as I perceive it will be for the happiness of my country, and I trust that in the near future England, whose generosity will expand with the progress of civilization and who will realize the desirability of lightening the task of watching over her immense dominions, will grant us our independence. The history of all great empires will repeat itself. Independence sums up the highest aspirations of a people who wishes to assert himself, to act


untrammelled and take its place under the sun in company with its fellow people.

There are any number of cases which go to prove that independence is the natural destiny of cblonies of great empire and powers ruling over great dominions outside the realm proper. At the close of the last century, the United States of America set the example of emancipation and proclaimed themselves independent on July 4, 1776. Then we have the emancipation of the Spanish colonies. Spain having been weakened through her wars with France, her colonies took occasion of it to proclaim themselves independent, Argentina in 1810, Bolivia in 1825, Chili in 1810, Columbia and Venezuela in 1819, Mexico and Peru in 1821, Uruguay in 1820. In the meantime, the small republics of Central America were constituting themselvss and the last emancipation was that of Cuba on December 10, 1898. [DOT]

Turkey has lost the greater number of her dominions in Europe, and among others Greece in 1821, and Bulgaria in 1909, not to speak of the other Balkan states. Crete has broken away and joined Greece; Egypt has become a British protectorate. At the time of the revolution, France lost the island of Hayti, which now comprises two republics very badly governed. The great republic of Brazil was once a Portuguese colony, but it was constituted into an empire in the interest of a branch of the royal family of Portugal. About ten years ago, the last Emperor, Pedro II, was dethroned and the republic proclaimed.

in ancient times Greece had a great number of colonies which the downfall of Athens caused to dwindle. Some of those colonies were powerful, and notably Carthage, a Phoenician colony which defied the Roman power. Rome in its turn had numerous colonies, and at the time of ihe great invasions, these colonies became independent. Even Great Britain was at one time nothing but a Roman colony. True the populations of those ancient colonies did not speak the same language as the inhabitants of the metropolis. An exception should he made for Gaul. In America, the settlers which have drifted away from their mother country still speak the language of the European countries whence they are sprung.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the question is sufficiently important and interesting just now to warrant at. least one member of the House to speak favourably of it, and I may assure my fellow members, and especially our staunch loyalists, that it is not through disrespect for or suspicions towards the English nation or its illustrious Sovereign, who plays such a brilliant part in the working out of its destinies, that I take this stand; it is solely through love of country and loyalty to Canada.

Subtopic:   WINDERMERE.

Gustave Adolphe Turcotte



The fears haunting the minds of the opponents of independence were in evidence at the time confederation was being discussed, and the influence of statesmen, particularly that wielded by Sir George Etienne Cartier, had to be exerted in order to dispel those fears. The latter expressed himself in the following terms:

As to the objection that we cannot form a great nation, because Rower Canada is mainly French and Catholic, while Upper Canada is English and Protestant, and the maritime provinces made up of both elements, it is to my mind most trifling. Then again: Let us take for example the United Kingdom peopled by three great races. . .

(Speech of Sir George Etienne Cartier on the Confederation bill, page 422.)

All that Sir George Etienne Cartier may have said on that chapter in favour of confederation, is applicable to independence bound with the same federal system which we are enjoying. It is not only because we are a colony within a kingdom ruled by a constitutional monarchy that our privileges are safeguarded; these privileges are linked with our very institutions, and these would be done away with under a status of independence.

Cartier in a speech to the people of Ottawa on May 25. 1867, spoke as follows:

People in England are satisfied that, being acquainted with our needs better than any others, we should he left at liberty to govern ourselves and that the sanction of the British parliament should be a mere matter of form.

I was proud and happy to hear my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson) though not entertaining the same views as myself in regard to independence, quote the remarkable utterances of his Grace Bishop Farthing, of Montreal, who solemnly asserts, and in no uncertain terms, the independence of the Anglican church of Canada. That illustrious prelate, speaking in tihe name of the churchmen of Canada stated that the Anglican church is and will remain independent of that of the United Kingdom. We are, he said, a daughter of the Church of England, but a daughter who wishes to be free in this Dominion and lead a separate existence; we are not to remain forever under ihe control and authority of the mother whose house we have left and for whom, nevertheless, we still have the greatest attachment. We are a national church, perfectly independent, and in the same way that the parliament of Canada speaks in the name of the nation, the general Synod of Canada speaks in the name and for the Anglican church of Canada, and I proclaim that church the most democratic in Christendom.

That statement has a great meaning iu the mouth of an Englishman, endowed with a sacred mission. The inference is

Subtopic:   WINDERMERE.


clearly that, if independence has become a matter of necessity in religious matters, it is or will soon be a necessity in matters of less exalted though just as important order, politics. Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of being called a nationalist, after my speech of last year in reference to the navy. Well, I am a nationalist, though not in the narrow sense ascribed to that word even in connection with politics. I intend working in the interests of the whole Canadian people without distinction of nationality. It does not behove a good and loyal citizen, under circumstances as momentous as these, to stump one particular province, with the view of boosting certain exclusive views, of working on the prejudices of the people, and of appealing to their racial feelings. That is doing most dangerous work, which is of a nature to mislead the people and set up race against race. All good citizens must know that the intimate union of the various races inhabiting the country, the maintenance of the best of feelings between them, constitute one of the surest pledges of the greatness^ and prosperity in any nation. I may m'ntion boundaries diverse races live in harmony, in close union, and wherein such absurd and revolutionary teachings as we sometimes hear are never given expression to. Belgium especially should be mentioned; it presents to the world the remarkable, I was going to- say. unique case of a nation weak" in numbers, but strong, and great through constant and intelligent labour, through its vitality and the high order of intelligence of its leaders, who in all channels of human activity safely direct national energy. Before letting the heart dictate what we are to do, we should let reason and intelligence have their say. We owe love and devotion to our fine province, but above all we should be loyal to our country, Canada. Let us meet our English-speaking fellow-citizens on every ground, and let us work hand in hand with them, in all things which duty dictates and circumstances require. If there ever was a time when we who belong t-o the fine French race should show ourselves in our tfue light, that is generous and conscious of the duties incumbent on us as citizens of this country, it is just now. I am quite willing to be a nationalist, that is, to champion the rights, and privileges of our race at all times and in all places, if those rights are imperilled or denied; but I do not intend being narrow and mean in my views, and thereby detract from the dignity of the French name, especially under circumstances such as these. One of the most sacred of those duties is surely to defend efficiently the country which is dear to us, since the nation's vitality and the state of our finances inspire us with sufficient confidence in our own resources. I may add that from an exclusively Canadian standpoint the providing of a war navy has become of absolute necessity if we wish to give some evidence of our aptness for a status of independence. At this stage of national. expansion and vigour which we have reached, provided with a merchant navy of great importance, I might say one of the largest- in the world, and navigating all seas, we should take the means to protect that fleet. For, being a nation within the empire, a title which we are proud to claim, it is incumbent on us to take the responsibility and assume the burden of safeguarding the integrity and liberty of our trade, by having a sufficient number of warships. I am of opinion that every Canadian who takes an interest in the welfare and future of his country, whatever his nationality may be, should support the government in the present juncture, and should endeavour to spread the idea that having reached maturity as a people, we should have a navy of battleships which will indirectly help the empire while defending Canada. It must be admitted that so long as we remain a British colony the most vital interest of our country as well as the most brilliant* prospect in days to come, will, as it were, be dependent on the success, the greatness and the glory of the British empire. But the day will come, and my most earnest desire is to see it reached when relying solely on bur own strength, our own energy and our own resources-, we will be at liberty, like the sister nations of free America, to proudly fulfil our destiny under the flag of independence. The deputy leader of the Conservative party, who has undertaken the burdensome task of taking liis friends out of the cold shades of the oposition in to the Eldorado of power, has endeavoured to throw as much discredit as he possibly could on the province of Quebec, through insinuations, reservations, false and malignant imputations. In long and impetuous sentences, wherein sarcasm and irony oftentimes were substitutes for weighty reasons; he made a mighty endeavour to minimize the effect of the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister, and palliate the prestige of his opinion and his name. He even tried to represent as a traitor to the British Crown the leader of this House, whose name is uttered with respect and admiration throughout the whole world, and whose talents, I might say, whose genius has impressed the most eminent men of Europe with it-s power of conception and its soundness of judgment. The great warhorse of our friends on the other side is loyalty, and one after the other these gentlemen get on their feet, and more or less openly charge the Canadians

March 3, 1910