tain the House at this time. I had no idea whatever when I learned of the illness of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that anything else would take place to-day than the introduction of the Bill by the Prime Minister; in fact this was announced by the newspapers. It was expected that the real discussion of this measure would be postponed. It involves a great many questions, Mr. Speaker, that I will not trouble you or the House with this evening. Are we in a position to build a navy? Are we able to build something that will count, that will be worth anything at the present time? Have we the money for it? Can we, at present, with the immense works which we must necessarily execute undertake to build a navy? Have we more essential work at the present time even in the interests of the empire, not in our own interests alone? After all we belong to the empire, we are of the empire, but I suppose that many of us were born, bred and brought up here and that we have some special object and some special task here to perform. As between ourselves and the Fiji Islands, for instance. I suppose that a divine providence has placed me here with an object expecting me to exercise my activities here in a particular way, for a particular purpose and for this particular country. But, that is another question. I do not intend at the present moment to touch upon these questions, but they will be referred to later on if I have the advantage of being present when these matters are brought up. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has stated that the idea that in case war we should summon parliament is an idea which does not commend itself to him or indeed to anybody. I think that is very true. There is no man who reflects for a moment who will advance the proposition that if war is waged against us, we must, before defending ourselves, summon parliament. But, he has emphasized in that respect a point which I wish to indicate for the consideration of the House, and that is the enormous consequences of the step we are taking to-day. I will do that and make no further observation at this preliminary stage of the Bill. I say that if Great Britain is involved in war, whether it be to suppress an insurrection in India, or against any foreign country, or in virtue of her numerous alliances or treaties, the moment that war breaks out -if we carry out this plan and the scheme generally laid down by the Imperial Defence Conference-we are into that war. It is said that that is absolutely necessary any way. I deny that. I am now speaking of war only, and, I deny that. I am not alone in that opinion, because it will be established here that statesmen of no mean repute, patriotic men who knew something about this country, have maintained that under our system as it has existed in the past, we were not necessarily drawn into the foreign wars of England. I will read to the House when the time comes a most able memorandum sent by the MacdonaldSicotte ministry to England in answer to a request of the Duke of Newcastle that we should raise 50,000 troops in this country, and in that document it is clearly demonstrated that the consequence of the adoption of the plan offered by the Duke of Newcastle was to make us in a sense responsible for every war into which the British Crown entered. But what I wish to point out is this: does it not strike the members of this House-indeed in this very discussion it has been alluded to-that if we are to carry out this policy we shall find ourselves in the position that we become responsible jointly and severally with the people of the British isles for the whole foreign policy of the empire, and mind you without having had a single voice in the formation of that policy. The very first words which the right hon. the Secretary of State addressed to the conference of 1907 were these: -and every representative of the Beitish government at this conference from the very beginning spoke in the same sense. He said: The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has spoken of our inviting you to our councils. We do. We cannot possibly ask you to take up with us the burden of defence; we cannot decently do so without inviting you to participate in the formation of our policy, in our diplomacy. Why is it that that most vital side imperial defence schemes has been left out? What Are we going to be i in the position that the whole foreign policy of the empire is going to be framed, and formed, and carried out by a cabinet of men in Downing street, men absolutely controlled and elected by the electorate of the British isles; that we, British subjects like themselves, are going to be placed upon a different footing, that we will not have a voice in the conduct of that policy, that we are to be responsible for everything while having no voice in the conduct of anything? That was not what on more than one occasionI have simply mentioned the principal one -was stated at the conference, and stated not by colonials but by men who knew that it would never work with Anglo-Saxon people to have in any sense taxation without representation. Sir, if there were no other, but there are many others, that alone is a vital defect in this policy. My right hon. friend has on more than one occasion spoken of Paul of Tarsus. Paul was a Roman citizen by special favour and in Paul's time that special favour was not by any means extended to everybody. But, Rome, falling as she was beginning to fall recruited her strength and her legions from adventure his political existence by saying that the people should not be heard from before they are taxed for ships of war which they and their sons must pay for and man; and a permanent policy of this nature is grafted on to the political economy of this country and that grafting-who will doubt it? will prove an expensive process. Plebiscites are not new to this government. They found the need for one in 1898. At that time the government did not desire to deal energetically with the question of the liquor traffic, without, as they said, securing the endorsation of the people. To be sure they never did deal energetically in that regard. There seemed to be some misapprehension between the people and the government respecting it. The majority of the people who voted, said that they voted for prohibition, and the government in effect said that might be, but it was not the right people who had voted for it; that when those who were opposed to prohibition demanded it the government would grant it to the country. However, the point I wish to make is that the government then subscribed to the doctrine of consulting the people before declaring their intentions with regard to a matter of great public importance. Is not the present question of naval defence equally worthy of being submitted to the people for their consideration and verdict? When the right hon. Prime Minister discussed this question in March last he said: It behooves us as freemen to look at our position calmly and deliberately, to review the situation as it is, to ascertain where we are, and to determine whether we should alter or whether we should persist in the course we have adopted long ago. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that the time had now come when the parliament and the people of Canada should sit down together and take stock of the position and come to some conclusion. What opportunity do the government intend to give to the people of Canada to sit down and take stock of the position and come to some conclusion'; and of what avail, if they do come to a conclusion, if they are not to be permitted to express themselves thereon before the government bind them to a line of policy that may be altogether foreign to their wishes? I propose to consider this question in its relation to the empire purely from the business standpoint as it presents itself to me. The government proposal is not one to meet an emergency, but is the beginning of a permanent policy. If the measure were one to meet a present pressing emergency that would not wait, the case would be different, and parliament would, I believe, be not only justified in providing, but would be required to provide, against that emer gency. If the government were proposing action under what may be termed the emergency clause of the resolution of the 29th of March last, which reads: that whenever the need arises the Canadian The House expresses its firm conviction people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities a most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire- The case would be entirely different. But recognized that an emergency exists. By the fact is that the government have not their policy to-day, they declare in effect that no danger threatens Britain's supreAs matters stand, it macy on the sea. Upon the sufficiency of that navy depends seems to me that is the large question. the safety of Canada. Under the operation of the government's proposed policy, no effective number or class of ships can be placed in commission within a long period of years. opinion of In view of this fact, to deny the seems the people the right to express their proposed policy in a manner constitutional be not only undemocratic but a usurpato me to tion of their prerogative. Nor do the proposals of the government contemplate the construction of ships of the class declared by naval experts to be the first essential in the case of a self-governing colony desiring to create a navy. Two members of the government, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the Minister of Militia and Defence, journeyed to England last year to consult the British naval authorities on this subject. The report of that conference which the government have given to the House and to the country is somewhat meagre. It will not be disputed in this House I think that British naval experts lead the world, always granting, of course, the qualification, in their own minds at least, of the Minister of Militia and Defence and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to review their opinions. In the report of the imperial conference of the representatives of the self-governing dominions on the naval and military defence of the empire, held in London in July and August last, at which the gentlemen I named were present, we find as paragraph 5 of the admiralty memorandum this statement: In the opinion of the admiralty, a Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable in time of peace, is capable of being used in its component parts in time of war. And as paragraph 11 of that memorandum: As the armoured cruiser is the essential part of the fleet unit, it is important that an 'Indomitable' of the Dreadnought' type should be the first vessel to be built in commencing the formation of a unit fleet. haste. is getting close to a war tax in time of peace of $1 per head of the population of Canada. But the government have someHere we find the large armoured parent thing to show for it. The Minister of Miliship spoken of as a necessity, the first es- tia stated to the House a short time ago in sential in the creation of a fleet unit. Aus- reply to a question by the hon. member tralia and New Zealand have adopted the for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that the plan of the naval experts, yet the govern- Kingston Battery of soldiers had recently ment of Canada deliberately ignore it and performed a stunt for certain manufacturers propose placing in the water ships, which of moving picture films. Thus, the people in the stern test of modern naval warfare, of Canada, on payment of the small addiwould be as helpless as a family of small tional sum of 5 cents a head, may be privichildren dumped down in a vacant tene- leged to witness the daring military manment and told to shift for themselves. Again, oeuvres of the forces of the first war lord the class of ships proposed to be built by of Canada. The average cost per unmounted the government would, in the event of war, man in the force is $564 per year, and of compel Canada to take a position inferior to a mounted man $674 per year, and since Australia and New Zealand, who are each 1895 $10,818,180 have been charged to capipreparing to provide ships capable of tak-tal account and added to the public debt of ing their place in the battle line. It was the country for this service. Burdens of the boast of the people of Canada, irre- this character are not lightly to be taken spective of race or creed, that when the on, and only in cases of emergency should Canadian volunteers went to South Africa, they be heaped on the people with indecent they took their place on the firing line, they fought shoulder to shoulder with the best troops which Great Britain or any of the colonies sent to the front, they won honour for themselves and reflected honour on their country. To-day Australia and New Zealand are each preparing to provide cruisers of the Dreadnought type. These vessels will not only be a deterrent to our common enemy, but in time of war would take their place in the battle line in defence as well of Canada as of every other part of the empire. Where would the proposed Canadian ships be if they built, or obsolete craft such as the government are considering the purchase of? Too light to withstand the fire of a powerful enemy and only from such would an attack come; if they went to war at all they would be forced into a position inferior to that of the ships of the other self-governing dominions, and would actually have to accept the protection of the larger ships of the younger and smaller colonies. The self-respect of the people of Canada, including, I believe, the descendants of the veterans of Montcalm and Wolfe, would cry out against the indignity to which the government proposes to subject this country. And there is no man, in this government or out of it, who can tell where, this naval scheme once entered upon, the cost will end. Like the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, when the government brought it down, they do not know within $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 what it will cost. The preliminary figures are small, just to accustom the people to the title so that they may not shy at it when they see it in its immensity hereafter. But we know this is the growing time. The expenditure of the Department of Militia and Defence, for instance, has increased from $1,574,013 in 1895 to $6,474,715 in 1908. This are The proposed naval programme is only calculated, in my judgment, to increase the burden of taxation in Canada without lessening the weight of taxation in Great Britain for the defence of the empire, Canada included. I am discussing only the business side of the question, the sentimental side has no part in it, at the moment. What useful purpose would be served by a navy of the proposed Canadian type aside from its use as training ships? It would not relieve the pressure on the British fleets on the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans for Great Britain has many ships of the Variety proposed to be built or acquired, which naval experts declare will be comparatively useless in the prospective sea fights of the future unless they are supported by powerful armoured cruisers. It would not relieve the pressure on the British fleet in any other part of the globe; it would not, be too light to take its place in the firing I venture to say, protect Canada; it would line with the ships of other colonies. Against who then is it to be used? If we starved every public service in this country and utilized every available dollar for this purpose, it would take at least 25 years to create a navy which of itself would be effective. Meantime the decisive battles may be waged not by fleets of the sea but by fleets of the air. The British navy protects us to-day; on that navy Canada must depend for her protection for many years to come. If it were destroyed, no navy which Canada might possess would be capable of protecting us against a power cap able of destroying the British fleet. There are those who at times prate of the Monroe doctrine as being the bulwark of Canada. It may be beyond the question to say that the United States largely nullified the effect of the Monroe doctrine by possessing themselves of territory in the far east. It may also be beyond the point to say that we might some day pray to be delivered from our friends. I have a high admiration for the people of the United States. They are a great and progressive people and their country reflects their greatness and progress; but the British navy is the bulwark of Canada. The people of the United States, with their great population bordering on 90,000,000, have serious problems of naval defence confronting themselves. In this connection I may be permitted to quote Congressman Richmond P. Hobson, the hero of Santiago, who in a speech at Washington on The Philosophy of Naval Policy for the United States,' is reported to have said: As things are going the United States will probably be in for defeat in the first stages of the conflict. And later on, speaking of the Japanese question on the Pacific coast: Being defenceless in the Pacific ocean we cannot even discuss the question with Japan. Japan has practically compelled us to surrender the right of local self-government. And the United States has been spending an average of almost one hundred million dollars yearly during the last ten years. It is well known that had the suggestions of President Roosevelt been carried out the naval programme for the United States would have been a more energetic one than it has been in the past few years. Let me state the cost of the navies of the great nations of the world during the past ten years as reported in Brassey's Naval Annual for 1909, the figures being reduced to Canadian currency: expenditures. Average 481,678,575 138,927,085 tain sections will receive the shipbuilding plants, and others, no doubt, will demand and receive a sop as compensation. It will not be forgotten that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), last summer spent some time in the west, and during the course of his triumphal tour, he radiated promises of public works estimated to cost $25,000,000 to $30,000,000. The Secreary of State (Mr. Murphy) last year also went avisiting, and when, like young Lochinvar, he came out of the west from his courting of Miss Canada, the modern gallant warbled the lay box cars, not battleships.' This sounded like a bid for the vote of the new American settlers who are naturally not expected to bubble over with enthusiasm at the idea of assisting to provide a navy, whose guns will look into the muzzles of those of their quondam countrymen. And the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) contributed his share to this policy of placation, by telling where the necessary money was to come from. stated to the House that on March 31 next the population of Canada was estimated to be 7,450,990. He also stated to the House the ease with which he contem He plated, next year, effecting the painless extraction of $100,000,000 from the pockets of the government's cornucopia. This would the Canadian taxpayer, with which to stock make the average tax per head of the people of Canada $13.42 in 1910; whereas in 1895, it was $7.05 per head. The minister also stated to the House during the course of his budget speech, that the cost of the naval service would next year be defrayed out of consolidated revenue account and not charged to capital. Then he paused for the applause which he evidently expected from his supporters; but none came. Even that declaration failed at that time yearly expenditure. to arouse their enthusiasm on this sub$164,029,303 ject. Like the cheers of the young gentle60,424,675 men students at Dotheboys Hall, when Mr. 99,102,210 Squeers made his famous speech, the re63,665,916 sponse of the minister's supporters, was 26,585,699 merely sighs of extra strength__with_the 53,519,842 chill on. The extravagance and recklessness of this government knows no bounds. Their system of patronage, I believe, is costing the country millions of dollars yearly. I do not think that voting more money to the government will make them more prudent, more capable or less anxious to benefit their friends at the public expense. If the government had recognized the existence of an emergency and were asking parliament for power to meet it, I would support any reasonable measure to that end. But they have, in effect, declared that no emergency exists. By their policy of to-day they propose to bind the people of this country, without asking their leave or opinion. They propose to spend the money of men who must man 34,731,771 Does not this contain a lesson for Canada which it would be well for us to take to heart? This measure will furthermore give without warrant from the people additional tremendous spending powers to an administration proved beyond a shadow of a doubt by the report of the Civil Service Commission and the report of Mr. Justice Cassels' investigation to have absolutely run mad in extravagance, patronage and waste. The subject should only be dealt with from the broadest possible viewpoint and after most careful investigation and consideration. Yet, if appearances indicate anything, it is liable to be embarrassed with sectionalism from the outset. Cer own for the purpose of its own defence, of. the ships and pay the bills without deign- ernment. of the arguments we have heard this afternoon, that we are a people prepared to lie down and allow ourselves to be killed.. We are not that kind of people. We are disand new responsibilities, and we pretend ussing the assumption of serious, unusual that we can discuss them freely. Well, what happened? It cannot have been my intimation surely which caused the delay of the presentation of that motion of my hon. friend from Toronto, for weeks. I have not the data here, I have not come here prepared to discuss this question fully, when I return I will have the data. I say the motion remained in abeyance. I say more than that, although my memory on that point is not fully clear, I think I was given to understand that the motion would not be pressed. If I were certain of that I would assert it here. But it remained in abeyance until nearly Mr. FOSTER. To make the question clear to my hon. friend, so far as I am concerned, no such promise was made by me. Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Carier). Everything, Sir, connected with the discussion of this all-important matter seene to be a surprise. For my own part, I little anticipated the turn which the discussion has taken this afternoon, and reasonably so, I think. It seems to me that, having taken the opportunity of expressing my view about this matter upon another occasion, I was entitled, in the ordinary courtesy which exists within the working of a party, to some indication that, upon this occasion, at the first reading of this measure, the party itself, as I understand it, would express its policy. I say that has been a surprise to me which, I think, I have not deserved. But, Sir, even under these circumstances, I would have been prepared to await the moment usually chosen for the discussion of the principle of a Bill to defend before the House, as I have defended outside of it-and intend defending in the future-my opinion in this matter. Unfortunately, expressions have been used which make it necessary for me to at once challenge certain statements that have been made. And let me say this further, Mr. Speaker: Although I have the misfortune to differ from many on this side of the House-and apparently from all on the other side-on this question, I consider that advantage gained in this country, where we enjoy those free institutions which we have been so earnestly invited to maintain and defend, in speaking of people who do not hold our own views as people without sense of honour, without self respect. If that course is carried too far, those who have initiated such a mode of attack will be the first to suffer from it. I deem it now, at this stage of the discus-on for political motives with which we have sion, necessary to point out how I and others like myself understood this resolution to which so much reference has been made and which was passed on the 29th of March last. The better to give the House my impression, I will relate the facts as I know them. At the opening of the session my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) gave notice of a motion, which is no doubt familiar to every member of this House, but the sense of which was, that it was time for Canada to have a navy of its Mr. MONK. No, it was not made by my hon. friend. But I did not say any promise was made. I said I had a distinct recollection of understanding that the motion would not be pressed, because many people in this country believed that the time was not ripe for Canada to build a navy. Some of those whom I have heard this afternoon are of that opinion still. I believe myself we are not fit at the present moment to build it. However, to return to the resolu tion of the 29th of March. On the 16th of March-I think that is the date-a very violent discussion took place in England upon the question of armaments. I have stated elsewhere, and I say it here, as my conviction that that discussion was brought no concern, which we do not understand, to which we are strangers. But it seems to have fired people all over the empire. I have the testimony of people who were in England at the time. It created a panic which lasted nearly a month, and it blew over. Recent statements by responsible men from England lead us to believe that these violent and exaggerated statements are not borne out by the facts. But at the time, the discussion produced on the minds of people within the empire the impression |