Mr. E. PAQUET (L'Islet).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, agriculture is the corner stone of our national fabric. On its prosperity depend the welfare and happiness of the various classes of society. Indeed it is incumbent on me to thank my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) for having once more drawn the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to the need of establishing experimental farms in the province of Quebec.

The establishement of an experimental farm in our region is necessary to ensure agricultural progress. I firmly hope that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will ask parliament to grant in the course of this session a vote sufficient to provide our province with those agricultural establishments which are necessary to its development.

Last session, I requested the government to appoint a French-speaking commissioner from the province of Quebec to the board of management of the Intercolonial. I do not see the necessity of repeating the arguments set forth in my request of January 14. That request is a fair one and in accord with the spirit of the constitution. Therefore I beg insistently of the right hon. gentleman that he bring about that reform in the near future.

Allow me, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, to request the right hon. gentleman and the hon. Minister of Agriculture to appoint a French-speaking commissioner to the census board in view of the work which is to he carried on next summer. I submit these requests in the name of equity and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I take the floor to support the amendment introduced by the hon. 7i

member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and which reads as follows:

The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.

That request, Mr. Speaker, not to ignore the verdict which has been rendered a few days ago in the Drummond and Arthabaska election, has also been put forward by my hon. friend the member for Quebec county (Mr. Turcotte), who had the honour, at the close of yesterday's sitting, to address the House and whom I regret not to see in his place just now.

With your permission I shall read the words of the telegram which he sent to the 'Montreal Star' on November 4, 1910:

It is impossible to say what appeals made to the electorate most influenced it or what effect the result will have on the country at large. The people have spoken, however, and the government cannot ignore their verdict. It may well be that the ministerial navy policy may have to be modified. At the same time it must be remembered that the two candidates are both liberals.

(Sienedf J. P. TURCOTTE.

I read this message, Mr. speaker, in order to fully satisfy the House that, not only on your left, but on your right as well, there are representatives of the people who are desirous that the government should not ignore the verdict of November 3, 1910. I did not think last session that I would be doing my duty if I approved of the naval policy of the government without beforehand receiving a mandate from the people to that effect. Neither would I think that I was fulfilling my duty if in the course of this session, without such a mandate, I voted the amounts required to carry out that policy. _

In view of the charges of a -most malignant character aimed at the sincerity, the patriotism and the loyalty of the advocates of autonomist ideas, I think it necessary to assert with the greatest energy that on the hustings, as well as in this House, I am guided by the spirit of our constitution, our traditions, and the rights of the people. In discussing this important question of the war navy, i bear in mind a principle inscribed in the works of the fathers of confederation: ' Canadians for Canada

under the aegis of the British flag.'

In the course of the election in Drummond and Arthabaska, I refrained from considering and discussing the question of the war navy from the viewpoint of provincial, racial or sectional interests of any kind: I discussed that important question solely from the viewpoint of Canadian interests. In the hope of hiding from the country the true causes of their defeat of No-

vember 3, the advocates of a war navy *charge us with having secured that brilliant victory in Arthabaska by appeals to prejudices which Quebec would entertain against 'the other provinces and against Great Britain. In the latter part of this great contest, I was proud to do my utmost in favour of the people's rights, defended with such patriotism by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mt. Monk). I would not appeal to the feelings of the people; I have a higher conception of my duties as a member of parliament. I appealed to the good sense, the intelligence, the reason and judgment of the electors.

On Novemebr 3, the right hon. gentleman consulted the electors of the great constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska. He had expertly chosen the battle ground. Moreover, the voters of that constituency belong to either of the two great races which are working together to further the progress of Canada. The people have given an eloquent reply, in a Liberal stronghold, wherein the Prime Minister enjoys the personal friendship of a large number of electors. My eloquent friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) made yesterday a complaint which must have had a disagreeable effect on the right hon. gentleman. They had not, he said, had time to fight it out. I am at one with my hon. friend from Beauce in protesting against the shortness of the time assigned for the contest. My friend from Beauce had a bitter pill to administer and he forgot the sugar-coating. He may be pardoned for it, being a physician. The Liberal candidate, Mr. Perreault, is highly considered in that constituency. The most eloquent and courageous fighters in the Liberal ranks went into the fray with much vim and confidence of victory. The hon. Minister of Marine was on the spot, and was not, the Liberal army under the command of an eloquent and strenuous fighter, the hon. Solicitor General? Did we not meet there the hon. members for Temis-couta, Kamouraska, Dorchester, Beauce, Saint-Jean-Iberville, Hochelaga, Maskin-onge, St. Mary's, Berthier, Prescott, L'As-somption, Megantic, Richmond, Bagot, Joli-ette, Richelieu, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Montcalm, Yamaska and St. Hyacinthe. It would be insulting these men to suspect them of not having done their duty. They have preached the gospel of the Liberal party from the beginning to the end of the campaign. That army of Dominion parliamentarians was surely capable of crushing the members for Jacques Cartier, Terrebonne, Champlain, Soulanges and L'Islet. Certainly, however, the people would not consent to it. Did not the right hon. gentleman do his duty at the Liberal convention? He has done his duty, and so also have the people. Defeat has been the result of the efforts of our ministerial friends, be-Mr. PAQTTET.

cause they had refused to consult the people. And to-day instead of abiding by the result as courageous men should do, they can only utter words inspired for spite.

For six years past I have been the victim of appeals to race feeling in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. At large popular meetings electors were warned not to vote for me, seeing that the leader of the Conservative party is an English-speaking Protestant. I have not mentioned the fact until to-day for fear of putting in a bad plight fellow-citizens who worked on poplar feeling for the sake of votes. How can ministers of the Crown decently charge us with being demagogues and of appealing to race prejudices when one of their organs, ' Le Soir,' published the following on June 18, 1896:-

Why should we be required to fight for England ? Electors should bear in mind that the conservative leaders who purchase these rifles are not those among the Canadians who will be sent out to fight; no, it is your children who will be enrolled and sent out to Africa or Asia, whence they will never return. . Vote for Laurier and his candidates, if you wish the country to continue enjoying its present state of peace, and if you do not wish to be shipped abroad some fine day, torn away from your wives, your children and all that is dear to you.

Did not the hon. Minister of Marine speak in the following terms in the House of Commons in April, 1896:-

We have over and again been told that in the event of a war taking or Canada being invalid, we could rely on Great Britain's protection, and that the only ground for not severing the colonial tie was, that should international difficulties arise, we might rely on England's strong arm. Now, sir, I am sorry to hear under the circumstances, that the government, for the purpose of arming the Canadian militia have made their purchases not from private contractors, but from the War Office in Great Britain, and that we are asked now to foot the bills. Is that the protection we have been promised by Great Britain? Is that the position in which we stand as a colony?

Has the hon. minister the right to denounce appeals to race feelings? I find fault with the advocates of the war navy in my province for not giving due credit to our forefathers as regards the acquirement of the privileges which we enjoy nowadays under the constitution. Speakers have been abused for expressing the belief that Canadians had taken a hand in conquering the franchises which we enjoy. 'Ire they not as justifiable for doing so the right hon. gentleman?

In 1907, did not the right hon. gentleman speak as follows in the city of Ottawa?

If we look over the treaties, from that concluded in 1783 to that concluded in 1903,

we have no reason to be particularly satisfied of the treatment received by Canada at the hands of the British plenipotentiaries. We are obliged to own that John Bull has not always done his duty towards his Canadian children.' In the month of September, 1907, at the manufacturers' banquet, did not the right hon. gentleman sneak as follows : ' We consider what

British diplomacy has done for Canada, and we find that it amounts to a succession of sacrifices of Canadian interests.'

In the course of the election campaign in Drunnnond-Arthabaska, the advocates of the autonomist views took their inspiration from the St. Eustache resolutions; resolutions full of feelings of the noblest loyalty towards His Majesty George V. towards the British crown and the British flag; resolutions pregnant also with feelings of respect for the rights of the people. Such are the noble resolutions which have been adopted, not in the course of tumultuous assemblies, but at meetings wherein the people realized the greatness of their rights and responsibilities.

For the benefit of those who believe, or who pretend to believe, that we scored a victory on November 3, by means of appeals to race feelings, I may read the following from ' La Presse,' of Montreal. 'The opposition which is asserting itself on the part of a considerable portion of the province of Quebec to the establishment of a war navy, may be more or less warranted, but it is a mistake to say that it is based cn race feeling. We find in our province, and in the other provinces as well, a number of Canadians of British ori-. gin who show still greater hostility to that same proposal.'

These words taken from a newspaper which has just been the recipient of special communications from the right hon. gentleman, are absolutely true.

Before taking up another matter, I may be allowed to quote the following extract from the 'Weekly Sun,' of Toronto, at the date of November 9, 1910. It will be seen that the advocates of the autonomist view cannot be accused of isolating Quebec; it will be seen that the obloquy aimed at us by the advocates of the fleet is not warranted: *

There can be no mistaking the meaning of the vote so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. What Drummond and Arthabaska' did on Thursday the whole province of Quebec would do to-morrow if opportunity offered. Nor is Quebec isolating itself from the other provinces in so doing. A few weeks ago, E. M. Thompson, formerly chief editorial writer of the ' Globe,' made a personal canvas of the feeling among farmers in a typical section of rural Ontario and his report on his return confirmed to the full what the ' Sun has said from the beginning-that agricultural Ontario is overwhelmingly against the

Naval Bill and the whole military movement. With the Naval Bill as the one question submitted the result in Drummond and Arthabaska could be repeated in any rural riding in Ontario. This is not, as the ' Globe ' and the government appear to believe, because of lack of understanding on the part of electors -because the situation has not been explained to them. It is because the electors do understand, because they are utterly and unalterably opposed to the introduction here of the burdens and hates which are cursing the old world that the masses of the Canadian people feel as they do.

It is not with a view to vindicating myself that I take the floor: I am not guilty.

I would consider myself so, had I voted in favour of an Act which will cost enormous sums to Canada, without knowing beforehand what was the opinion of my constituents.

I blamed and I blame once more the advocates of a war navy for having stated that the cost of such a fleet would be 15 millions when they are very well aware that such an amount would be barely sufficient to build 11 warships. They are well aware that there is never any stop in the expenditure for building or repairing warships; they know that the life of any of these ships, like our own, is very short, and liable to suffer in many emergencies; they know that our naval expenditure will be (calculated not upon our numbers, our riches or our trade, but in such a way as to meet the needs of the empire. They are well aware of the persistent increasing rate of military and naval expenditures.

Were the liberals sincere in 1896 when they took exception to an expenditure of $2,i36,000 on militia? What have they been doing? Have they not themselves in the course of last session asked for a vote of $6,898,000 towards the militia? We have just learned from a British officer that it is to be re-organized. How much shall we spend in the future for militia purposes? I have spoken the language of sincerity and truth when I stated to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska that our naval expenditure would increase in the same way and in the same proportion.' I have taken lessons from history. The British naval expenditure in 1870, amounted to $48,000,000, while in 1910 it aggregates $200,000,000. The naval expenditure of the United States in 1900, amounted to $55,000,000, while in 1909, it reached $121,000,000, and in 1910, $133,000,000.

All great countries have carried to completion their works of public utility before engaging into these military and naval expenditures which are ruinous to them. Was it disloyal to repeat to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska the following wo~rds uttered by the distinguished representative of the Yukon, on March 29, 1909:

If we start at present into any vast naval or military outlay, we shall so impede our growth that in the course of a very short time we will be of much less assistance to the empire than if we permitted our country to advance and prosper as she is doing now.

We are a young country; we have immense resources to develop. Is it fair to adopt a policy which will hold us responsible towards foreign nations for any pledges given by Great Britain? Was it a crime to recall to the electors of Drummond-Artha-baska the following words of Sir Charles Tupper:

I for one think that no contribution towards the maintenance of the British navy and army forthcoming from Canada will accomplish more for the defence of the empire than the way in which public funds have been applied with that object in view in Canada.

I have blamed the government in the course of the electoral campaign for setting aside our constitution when disposing without the consent of the people of our earnings, of our ships, of our seamen, in connection with the wars of the empire. Under the constitution of 1867, we have the right to establish a naval service for the defence of Canada. The British North America Act is the sacred arch of our liberties, our rights and our responsibilities. It was granted by the imperial parliament, sanctioned by Her Majesty Queen Victoria. As long as the pages of the constitution are left entire I remain loyal to His Majesty Geoige V., I remain loyal to the British crown, while defending Canada, while conserving it for Great Britain as my forerunners have done at the cost of their life; but, at the same time I remain loyal to the constitution and to the British flag when refusing to mix up Canada with Great Britain's foreign policy without the people having consented to it.

I stated to the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska that it would be deceiving oneself to believe that we shall be free to keep aloof from Great Britain's wars at large. Let us bear in mind the words of Mr. McKenna, first lord of the British Admiralty: ' It has been recognized by the colonial government that in time of war the local naval forces should be under the general control of thj Admiralty.'

I pray my good friends on the other side of the House, who have been skirmishing with me in the course of the recent election whether they actually stated to the electors of Drummond that our fleet would inevitably be part of the Imperial navy in times of war, according to the very words of Mr. Fielding. Have they contradicted the utterances of the minister?

(Translation.) We read the terms of the statute

Mr. PAQUET.

Mr. PAQUET.

(Translation.) Have you contradicted the utterances of the minister of Finance?

Mr. ROY.

(Translation.) We did not stop at that, wre had the statute in hand.

Mr. PAQUET.

(Translation.) I appeal to my hon. colleagues on the other side who have loyally fought in Drummond and Arthabaska, who like myself have placed their courage, and moreover their eloquence, to forward their cause, and I challenge them to say that they found fault with the utterances of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. ROY.

(Translation.) Does the hon. member wish for an answer? We have given out not only extracts of the speeches of the minister but the whole of his speech, and that is the justification of the stand which we took.

Mr. PAQUET.

(Translation.) I expected that answer from my hon. friend the member for Dorchester.

Mr. TALBOT. (Bellechasse).

(Translation.) Less blarney, if you please.

Mr. PAQUET.

(Translation.) I pray my

hon. friend from Bellechasse to repeat what he has just said.

Mr. TALBOT.

(Translation.) I said: Less blarney, if you please.

Mr. PAQUET.

(Translation.) I expected from the member for Dorchester the answer he had just given. I admit it, the hon. Minister of Finance may very likely have stated in this House that our fleet would be Canadian; but he did not forget to say that it would be Canadian in times of peace and imperial in times of war. Neither did he omit saying that we should participate in Great Britain's wars abroad, whether just or unjust. He did not forget mentioning that, and nobody will deny it.

Have the advocates of the Canadian fleet been courageous enough to declare in accordance with Mr. Fielding's utterances: in wars whether just or unjust? I for one have encountered, not the lions of the north, but the lion from Beauce, and on no occasion did he attempt to question the statement of the Minister of Finance, knowing full well that his word is respected throughout the House and the country.

Mr. BELAND (Beauce).

(Translation.) Will my hon. friend allow me to make a remark? I do not wish to interrupt him, but since he refers to the part we took in that election, and particularly to myself,

I may say there is a passage of the speech of the hon. Mr. Fielding, which may be summed as follows: I admit that the Canadian government has the power to decide whether or not the navy shall participate in a war of Great Britain. That is the conclusion of the remarks of the hon.

Mr. Fielding. He asserts the thorough control of the Canadian government over the navy's participation in a British war. If the hon. member for l'lslet will quote Mr. Fielding's speech from beginning to end, he will meet with these expressions. Besides, whatever the Minister of Finance may state, the statute is there and it vests the government with the full power to say what the fleet will do in times of war.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Hear, hear.

Mr. PAQUET.

(Translation.) The hon. Minister of Finance uttered the words which I shall now quote. I well remember the circumstance and the Prime Minister was by his side. Had the Minister of Finance spoken incorrectly, I trust the hon. Prime Minister would have been anxious of safe-guarding Canada's good name to contradict him right there. Here are his very words, which are to be found at page 7553 of ' Hansard ' for 1910:

The naval service, then, is to be a service primarily for the defence of Canada, but not only for the defence of Canada. Under the measure we are proposing wre shall have a naval service which is Canadian in time of peace, but which by the very machinery we have provided will unmistakably become imperial whenever the help of Canada is needed for the defence of the empire. I accept the view that when the empire is at war Canada is at war; Canada will never need defence except when the empire needs defence; and so I say the Canadian navy, while supplied primarily for the defence of our shores, is after all but a branch to the Royal navy in time of peace, and will become an integral part of the Royal navy whenever tKe war alarm is sounded. I

I do not blame Mr. Fielding for what he said; but I blame my hon. friends for not having told the people of Drummond and Arthabaska that the Finance Minister had declared that our navy would inevitably be imperial in time of war; that it would be engaged in the wars of England, without regard as to their being just or unjust, and that our navy was, in fact, a branch of the English navy.

I frankly declared to the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska that the naval service was not an obligation as a result of the legislation passed during the last session. But we can and must take advantage of the teachings offered in history. Those who stand for the Canada-Imperial navy have also forgotten to repeat the words of M. Roper, an English officer: ' England is in greater want of men than of money,' says this distinguished gentleman.

The men who are in favour of the navy spoke very little about the movement taking place in England, in order to make naval service compulsory. Lately, Lord Milner was giving a conference in England with the object of proving the urgence of compulsory service.

Australia, a self-governing English colony, established a naval service.

The 17th of August, 1910, the federal parliament of that confederation amended the Bill making naval service compulsory. The only men who are not subject to this compulsory service are sick, the judges, the members of parliament, the jailers and the hospital doctors.

I did my duty in imparting these facts to the electors, in giving them the opportunity to declare themselves in favour of what the Canadians desire. .

In the course of the campaign carried in Drummond-Arthabaska, I stood loyally by Canadian traditions.

When I refused my assent regarding the naval law, and to agree, without consulting the people to the principle of participation in the wars of the empire, when I refused to entangle Canada in the world-wide English policy, I worked in accordance with the traditions of the fathers of confederation, in accordance with the Conservative and Liberal traditions. .

I acted in accordance with the traditions of the great English Liberal school whose teachings during the last century was the consolidation of the empire by means of liberty, independence and self-government granted to its colonies.

In the Drummond-Arthabaska campaign, I accused the government of trampling on the rights of the people who shai 1 have to pay the enormous sums needed to carry our naval policy.

The deputys being entrusted by the people with sacred interests must have the same views.

The deputys should, we might say, have in them a spark of the soul and intelligence of their electors in order to understand thoroughly their wishes and aims.

My friend of the Quebec county (Mr. Tur-cotte) was saying last night that the representatives of the people had given the government an imperative command. But, I state that this Nfivy Bill has been passed by a parliament who had not the due authority to accept the principle of contribution to the naval defence of the empire. In our young democracy, the government and the parliament have no right to impose on the people an important change in their constitutional and social rule without their consent. The English laws axe founded on the principle which tends to make sure what the voice of the people is before taking new steps in the ruling of the country.

It is the great English principle that I proudly defended in the electoral campaign of Drummond-Arthabaska. It is the great English principle that was victorious in the electoral campaign of Drummond-ATtha-baska; the respect due to the rights of the people. .

I stated there and do likewise in this House: the right of putting a question he-

fore the people is one of the privileges contested in English law. As was saying one of our greatest Canadians, Mr. Henri Bou-rassa, ' The self-governing victory means that the people want to be called to give their opinion before being engaged in a new policy of imperial militarism.'

When I protested against the violation of the most sacred privileges of electorship, I was acting in concert with the working classes who, bv means of their representations, on September 23, 1909, expressed the wish of being consulted by the government before being made responsible for militarism.

Was it unloyal to ask the Drummond-Arthabaska electors to join with the large English agricultural associations? Was it unloyal to ask our farmers to join the Ontario farmers and those of the western provinces in their protestations against war navy? In closing I repeat it. We are no cowards, as hinted the hon. Minister of Marine!

We are ready to shed our blood in order to keep Canada to England. I say more. We are ready to go to war for the defence of the empire if the bulk of the Canadian people is willing to do so.

In the county of Drummond-Arthabaska 1 loyally fought the promoters of the war navy, the British Crown and the empire. I further add, supposing the accusations made against the persons who stand for the self-governing policy were true, is it wise for the hon. Minister of Marine to wilfully accuse his countrymen of raising race animosity? The hon. minister knows it, in many circumstances, I proved my sympathy towards him. But Tuesday night last I felt most sorry to see his English colleagues proudly giving him cheers when he was slandering his fellow countrymen of Quebec.

I understand this differently. If I had the honour to occupy as high a position as the hon. Minister of Marine, I would forgive my opponents in the silence of the cabinet, and I would not indulge, even should it cost me my position, in slandering my fellow countrymen in the presence of a House of English majority. I would exalt my country folks, show their honour, ability and would try to make them share my views by pursuing for Canada a policy in accordance with the Canadian people's views. An

it being such an eminent position. In this pretty county of Arthabaska, in the pretty parish of Stanfold, I saw some old men shedding tears because they felt it their duty, for once since twenty-five years, to vote for your opponent, Mr. Gilbert. Why not forgive them willingly that act of heroism? Why, by your side let somebody say that these fellow countrymen, these friends of your youth, these noble old men, so kind, so generous for you, have obeyed to race animosity, did not understand the Navy Bill; when these electors were discussing it calmly and intelligently as would do great citizens formed at the school of patriotism, of duty and of loyalty to the English institutions?

Mr. L. A. RIVET (Hochelaga).

Mr. Speaker, I desire to discuss some questions which have been referred to in the speech from the Throne, and, if I do so in the English language, I hope that to-morrow, in my native province, I shall not be charged with neglecting my mother tongue; and, on the other hand, I trust that I shall be spared some of the sneers indulged in by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), when my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) stood up and made his speech in English and in good English. I have listened with a good deal of attention to the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet), and at times I could not help being moved by the very touching declarations made by him as to his fealty and loyalty to the British Crown. But, I could not help thinking that loyalty, though' a very good thing when expressed in such nice terms as those used by the hon. member, is a far better thing when it is expressed in good deeds. I wish, Sir, in the first place, to allude very briefly to some of the paragraphs contained in the speech from the Throne, one of which mentions that this session has been opened under the shadow of a cloud, and that since last session the empire has had to lament the death of its illustrious King. Edward VII was, indeed, a noble king, and when the grave closed upon him his subjects were able to glory in the fact that while his reign might not be associated with victories won on the battlefield, the triumphs which he had achieved in peace well entitled him to the name ' Edward the Peacemaker.' Sir, the members of this House have also welcomed with joy and gratitude the announcement in the speech from the Throne that His Excellency the Governor General is to preside over the destinies of this country for another year. His Excellency Earl Grey has been in all Tespects a good and popular Governor General. He has travelled extensively and thus evidenced his strong desire to become acquainted with our country and to identify himself with the material, the intellectual and the social welfare of Can-

ada. I trust that the address in reply to which this House will vote will express the gratitude of the Canadian people, so that we may efface from his memory the campaign of abuse, of calumny, and of vituperation to which he has been subjected in certain quarters by certain people, whose names will pass on in history as ' little Canadians.' Sir, the different paragraphs in the speech from the Throne may be divided into two classes: one class referring to past achievements and the other to legislation to come in the future. The past achievements of this government have been marked by those principles of liberty and progress which have guided the Liberal administration for the last 15 years, and I trust that the legislation which this government may initiate during the course of this session shall be discussed in the same spirit that has guided our deliberations in the past, namely, with a desire to legislate in the best interests of our country.

For the last two days we have devoted our time to the consideration of the naval service, and upon this subject we have been considering the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), which readg:-

The House regrets that the speech from the Throne gives no indication whatever of the intention of the government to consult the people on its naval policy and the general question of the contribution of Canada to imperial armaments.

Now, Sir, the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) has expressed his intention to support this amendment by his vote. I am not surprised at the attitude he takes; I am not surprised either at the attitude taken bv the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in moving this amendment, but at the same time, I say that when they come before this House and say that in propounding such a policy they are guided by the traditions of the Conservative party, it is our right and duty to recall what were on similar questions the traditions, the ideas, and the principles which governed this party. I shall cite certain declarations which were made by one of the greatest statesmen Canada has produced, a man whom the Conservatives claim as one of their most illustrious leaders of the past: Sir George Etienne Cartier. I shall refer to the stand he took on the Militia Bill introduced in 1862 by the then Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Everybody remembers probably that the government of the day was defeated on that Bill, and that one of the reasons why the Bill was defeated was because }t provided for conscription, and proposed to organize a militia force which was certainly too large for the needs of the time. However, after the defeat of the government and when "the ministerial explanations were given in the House of

Commons, Sir George Etienne Cartier pronounced these words

When, Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by the opposition, J. was saying that I feared the vote given on the Militia Bill might hereafter be invoked as an instance of the hostility to the institutions of the lower Canadians, and particularly of the French Canadians. But I hope that the noble conduct of our clergy and of our worthy bishop, and the manifestation of the population of Lower Canada, last fall, will mitigate any aspersion which unprincipled men may be disposed to cast upon us. With regard to ourselves, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in our fall there were other interests involved besides our own. We must consider the importance of the question which was then at stake. The vote was recorded, as we know, against a measure which was to provide in a better and more efficient manner for the defence of the country. We feel, therefore, that we fell in defence of a measure, the passing of which we considered necessary to secure to us the full enjoyment of our free political institutions, under the protection of the glorious flag of old England.

Such were then the principles of the Conservative party led by Sir George Etienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald. In 1864, prior to confederation, Sir George E. Cartier had occasion to visit Halifax and St. John and in his speech delivered in Halifax on the 12th September, 1864, he said

One of the principal reasons for the# establishment of confederation is the necessity for organizing the army and navy so as to allow the maritime provinces to defend themselves and to help England to defend herself.

Speaking at St. John, N.B., on the 14th September, 1864, two days later, he used these words; he said:-

He was in favour of confederation because he wanted to organize the military and naval forces adequately, for the mutual protection of Canada and England.

Such were the declarations of Sir George E. Cartier, and in the face of these declarations the member for Jacques Cartier and the member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) have no right to claim that they are to-day applying to their party the principles of these illustrious leaders. Sir John A. Macdonald said in the elections of 1891, and he made it the battle-cry of that election: A British subject I was born, a British subject I have lived, a British subject I will die. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, if in the recent election in Drummond-Arthabaska, such were the ideas expressed and such the principles advocated on the hustings by the so-called autonomists, the Nationalist-Conservative party of Canada, who were supporting the candidature of Mr. Gilbert.

Sir, one of the reasons given in support of that amount is that since the last session a new condition of affairs has arisen by the

fact of the election of Mr. Gilbert, an opponent of the government, and that on account of that fact this House is bound to reconsider the attitude taken during the last session and to submit the whole question of the establishment of a naval service to the Canadian people. Now, Sir, we always claimed during the debate that occurred upon that question, that we were opposed to the submitting of that question to the people, because it would give an opportunity to our opponents in the province of Quebec to carry on a campaign based on racial appeals and on prejudices. I say, Sir, that time has fully borne out the position we took last year on that question and that what we then predicted has taken place in that election. This cannot be denied by our opponents since the statements we charged them with have been published in their own paper in Montreal and were yesterday quoted by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). To such an extent have these utterances gone that every one of the members of this House who took part in that election on behalf of our opponents, who has addressed the House, felt himself obliged to repudiate from the first to the last every one of these unpatriotic and disloyal statements made during the course of that campaign.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) the other day said that we of the Liberal party wanted to stifle the opportunity of discussion in this country, that we did not want the Canadian people to hear the free and complete discussion of that important question of the establishment of a naval service. Well, Sir, we, the Liberal party stand and have always stood for free and complete discussion of all questions referring to public interests and the administration of public affairs, and if there is a party to-day, if there is a party in past history which has made sacrifices in order to have free and open discussion prevail, whether in England, in France, or in this country, it is assuredly the Liberal party. What the Liberal party disclaim and repudiate and try to efface from public affairs, is the discussion of public questions not according to the principles and the ideas applicable to all citizens, but the discussion of public questions along the line of appeals such as those made in the course of the last campaign. I think the Canadian people have everything to gain by hearing the discussion of every question enunciated by this government, but what I claim is that the facts, all the facts, must be laid before the people, that the truth, the whole truth must be explained to them. I contend that during the course of the last election everything was done, every attempt was resorted to, in order to hide the true situation of affairs from the eyes of the electors in Drummond and Arthabaska, that the whole condition of affairs has been misrepresented Mr. RIVET.

and that tactics were resorted to of which the member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet) and the member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) are ashamed. I say that every attempt has been made by their followers and even by themselves to present the situation in a false light in order to get a verdict not according to true principles, not according to the true_ situation. I need not refer to some declarations which have been made by our opponents in the course of that election campaign. It is admitted to-day that very regrettable appeals have been made, that our French Canadian compatriots have been invited to vote against the naval law because it provided for conscription, because, it involved direct taxation, because it provided for the establishment of a navy which was to be used only in imperial wars. We answered all these declarations by explaining the whole situation in reference to the navy, and it is indisputable that the only charge that has been made against the Liberal party in the way of making regrettable statements was the declaration made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that one of the followers of the Liberal party, Mr. Begin, a notary, had declared that that navy was to be built in case difficulty should arise between the mother country and Canada. This declaration has been contradicted through Mr. Tobin on the floor of the House, and this is the only accusation, the only charge that has been made by our opponents against us. But, Sir, the hon. member for L'lslet (Mr. Paquet) has disclaimed any statement during the course of that campaign of which he has any reason to be ashamed. I had no opportunity myself to hear the speeches delivered by the hon. member for L'lslet and I am not in a position to say whether he made any declarations whose character might be impugned in this House, but I know that-Some of his friends made appeals along racial lines that are all very regrettable. But this discussion, Mr. Speaker, will have at least one good effect in evincing from the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) a declaration which expresses the real motive of the opposition made to the naval service, by our opponents in Quebec. The hon. member for Terrebonne has said in so many words that the opposition against the government was based upon the desire to defeat Sir Wilfrid Laurier who has been in power too long and whom they have sought in vain for the last fourteen years to defeat. No matter what the reason, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to be defeated. Why? Is it because the Prime Minister of this" country has for the last fifteen years given to Canada the best and.most progressive administration that we ever had? Is it because, for the last fifteen years he has imbued the people with the noble idea of establishing between all sections and races in this country religious and national

peace? Is it because with measures inspired by the love of his country he has been able to establish progress and prosperity in a country in which, previous to 1896, complete stagnation of affairs prevailed in all branches of human activity? Is it because the Prime Minister of this country has shed lustre upon his nation, upon his province, and upon his race? What crime has he committed? No matter, Mr. Speaker, Laurier has got to be put down from the pedestal which the confidence, love and admiration of his own country have made for him-no matter, crucify him [DOT]-this is the repetition of that word, which was pronounced 2,000 years ago on a solemn occasion.

Let him be destroyed. This was the declaration made by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), and this was the only reason for the opposition made during the election in Drummond andt Arthabaska against the naval policy ofl the government. During that campaign every kind of appeal was made to becloud the real issue. We, who took part in that campaign, hoped that our opponents would be courageous enough to continue the same campaign and keep the same attitude they did then. But what have we seen? A few days after that election there1 was a meeting in Montreal. At that meeting the hon. member for Jacques Cartierf (Mr. Monk) and Mr. Bourassa-the would be leader of the new party-made speeches and resolutions were adopted, and in those' resolutions the principle of contributing to maintain the supremacy of the British Empire was laid down and endorsed. A few days later another leader of that party, Mr. Armand Lavergne, went to Toronto and gave an address before the Toronto university, in ithe course of which he declared that he was a loyal subject1 of the empire and ready to make every sacrifice for the glory of the British flag. I have here, in the Toronto ' Telegram ') a report of the speech made by him. What does that report say :-

Captain Lavergne emphasized the claim of his party that nationalism stands for British connection. The first and main object of nationalism is to bring together in a political way the two great races which divide our country between them.

Just fancy, Mr. Speaker, the object of nationalism is to bring together the two races! What effrontery was required to make such an assertion in face of the ap-* peals to racial prejudice made in the province of Quebec by these men, in face of their appeal that we had nothing to dq with the English people of the other prof vinces, that their' desires should not be taken into consideration, but that this country should be governed according to

the wishes and dictates of the province of Quebec and the French race. Let me read' further:-

The first main object of nationalism is to bring together in a political way the two great races which divide our country between them. Our campaign is not to get power or to take office, but to build up the country.

We should equip and fortify our own ports, and before building cruisers we should have a fleet of submarines and torpedo boats, a defence of submarine mines and other naval defences.

You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that no such language was uttered by these gentlemen in Drummond and Arthabaska. Our opponents were there careful to avoid any kind of declaration which might lead the people to believe that they! were in favour of contributing to the defence of Canada or the British Empire.

These men, not content with attacking, all the leaders, of the Liberal party, not1 content with doing everything to becloud the issue submitted to the people, not content with making all kinds of appeals to racial prejudices, went so far as to show want of respect for the dead. Yesterday on the floor of this House one of them referred to a Canadian statesman, who is now in the grave, in words of which I am sure every true Canadian will be ashamed. Speaking of the alliance which took place previous to 1896 between the leader of the Liberal party and the man who became afterwards one of his devoted colleagues and held a cabinet portfolio during six years, he referred to him in these words :-

Tarte of sinister memory.

Who said that ?

Mr. RIVET.

The hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel), whom I am now glad to see in his seat. That hon. gentleman referred to the late Mr. Tarte as a man of sinister memory. Well, there is one thing which we in this country, whether we belong to the Liberal or the Con-i servative party are accustomed to respect. However we may differ in our ideas in, public matters, we agree to respect the memory of those who have joined the great majority. For six years the hon. Mr. Tarte was a member of the Canadian government, and I think it my duty to pay to his memory a deserved tribute for the work he did for the good of his country. Great men, as well as ordinary men, have their weaknesses and their imperfections, and Mr. Tarte was, not, more than any other man, absolutely perfect. Faults he may have committed, errors he may have fallen into, but he has gone from us; and if he did make mistakes, he also accomplished for his country work

which will live as long as. the country remembers what has been done for it by its public men. For the term of six years, Mr. Tarte presided over one of the most, if not the most important at the time, departments of the administration. For six years he was Minister of Public Works, and every one knows, that in that capacity he initiated a policy and accomplished things which will leave their permanent mark upon the progress and prosperity of our country. On behalf of my colleagues', on behalf of every Canadan worthy of the1 name, I deem it my duty to raise my voice in this parliament and protest most emphatically and energetically against the words pronounced by the hon. member for Terrebonne. Why did the hon. gentle-1 man find it necessary to refer to the late Mr. Tarte in such miserable terms-. The only reason I can find is that in 1896 Mr. Tarte felt compelled by his duty to thei public to abandon the ranks of the Conservative party and, with many other patriotic citizens, many other patriotic Conservatives., join the -ranks of the Liberal party. You may rest assured, Sir, that if he had not done so, the words which have fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Terrebonne would never have been uttered. But what was the reason given by Mr. Tarte for joining the Liberals. It was that at the time the Conservative party was rotten to the core, it was that in almost every department of the administration, particularly in the Department of Public Works, there existed a condition of affairs disgraceful to our public life. He went before his electors in the county of ITslet and he said to them : If you will give me -a mandate, if you will elect me as your representative, I will go to Ottawa and ask the government to hold an investigation into the administration of the Department of Public Works.

Mr. Tarte made his word good. The government was bound to yield to the clamour of public opinion and give that investigation. And the result of which was to send to jail one of the principal contractors of the. government of that time and to compel one of the leaders of the Conservative party to retire from public life so that he ended his life in the most complete onlivion. Is there anything dishonourable in one joining the Liberal party for such reasons as this? But consider, by comparison, the alliance between the Conservative party of the province of Quebec and the Nationalists. There is no such reason for refusing to support this government as there was for refusing to support the other. An attempt was made yesterday to show that Mr. Bourassa had left the Liberal party because of corruption existing in the administration of public affairs. Mr. Speaker, Mr. RIVET.

no such reason exists. I challenge any one to show that Mr. Bourassa has ever declared that such was his reason for leaving the Liberal party. On the contrary he has declared that on the school question of the Northwest and on the question of the French language Sir Wilfrid Laurier betrayed his compatriots of the province of Quebec. These are the only reasons given by Mr. Bourassa for leaving his party to join the remnants of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec.

The hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) made some statements to which I wish briefly to reply. He said that in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska we had never quoted to the electors the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the naval service, that we had carefully refrained from quoting that hon. gentleman's declaration -according to which he is supposed to have said that the Canadian navy would be Canadian m time of peace and imperial in time of war. Sir, many times this quotation was made by our opponents in that election. But they were careful to quote only a portion of the statement made by the Minister of Finance. If they had read the whole declaration, if they had -quoted all the words of the Minister of Finance on the Naval Bill, they would have shown more accurately that hon. gentleman's position on the subject. Let me read the words of the Minister of Finance spoken in this House when the Bill was in committee:

Now, as to the question of whether a war is just or unjust, I have already said that while I think we should insist upon the right of the people of Canada who pay the money-and I hope my hon. friend from British Columbia will not find fault if I refer to money, a Minister of Finance must think of such things-I say the people of Canada who have to pay the money are the proper persons to decide, through their competent authority, the Governor General in Council and later through parliament, through the voices of the people, whether their ships should engage in that war.

That means, as we always declared before the electors of Drummond and Arthabaska, that the Canadian navy would be imperial in time of war, but it was only to be when this government and parliament should decide to put the Canadian fleet at the disposal of the British government.

Our opponents have also complained of the cost of the fleet. Well, I do not believe that the hon. member for L'Islet, any more than any of our opponents in that last election, has the right to raise this objection of expense. Both the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and Mr. Bourassa have accepted the principle of a Canadian navy, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask every hon. member on either side of the House whether it can be pre-

tended that the fact of the navy being Canadian or being imperial makes any difference in the cost.

Another cry was used extensively in the election in Drummond and Arthabaska. Attempts were made to raise the prejudices of the electorate against our candidate because he happened to belong to a professional class instead of being a farmer. I heard these appeals being made by many of our opponents, that it was better for a farmer of Drummond and Arthabaska to vote for Mr. Gilbert, a farmer, than to vote for a lawyer like Mr. Perreault.

Therefore, I conclude that the verdict given by Drummond and Arthabaska is not one that would justify the government in submitting the question of the creation of a navy to the electors, for the appeals made in that county would be. renewed with greater activity and aggressiveness in all the counties, and if these appeals were listened to, the result would be, beyond doubt, to segregate our province from the rest of the Dominion. Against that policy of segregation the Liberal party has always stood and stands to-day.

The question naturally arises, how will hon. members on the other side vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)? Will the leader of the opposition, (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the opposition as a whole support the amendment? I do not believe they will. If they do, it will be a most conclusive evidence of the alliance that is alleged to have been entered into_ between the Conservatives of other provinces and of the province of Quebec, under which alliance it would be agreed to oppose the Laurier government by arguments absolutely contradictory in their nature. If the Conservatives generally do not vote for this amendment, if the hon. mover, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), is supported only by the handful of French speaking Conservative members from the province of Quebec, we shall have another evidence of the state of disunion which exists in the ranks of His Majesty's loyal opposition in this House.

Mr. Speaker, to-day as yesterday, we on this side stand united on the policy of the establishment of a Canadian navy. We stand for a navy which is Canadian, a navy which is not compulsory, a navy which will not involve, as it cannot involve under the constitution direct taxation, a navy which will be under the direct control of the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament. And I repeat the hope expressed yesterday in more eloquent words than mine that this policy, when it becomes better understood by the people, when it has been more fully explained to the electors of the province of Quebec, will be supported by a huge majority of the people in all the provinces of Canada.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. [DOT] Speaker, I have already addressed the House on the debate on the address to His Excellency, and I would not have trespassed upon the attention of the House again, but for the reason that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has offered an amendment to the address as proposed. I shall have something to say about that in a moment or two; but in the meantime, if I may be permitted,. I would like to make one or two observations regarding certain remarks of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who made a very interesting speech, as he always does, and who spoke in a very eloquent and lucid manner. I am not at this moment undertaking to make any particular reply to that hon. gentleman except to point out to him that I think that, in two or three respects which are not unimportant, he has fallen into very serious error.

My hon. friend, in referring to the advantages of the fiscal policy carried out by the present administration, speaking of the days before 1896, said :

We imported $11,000,000 of goods from Great Britain in those days, but to-day without (hi t duty which was proposed by the Conservative party, Great Britain sells us $270,000,000 worth of goods more than five times what she sold us in 1892.