I would be unjust if I stated that the prime minister bows gracefully to this necessity. On the contrary he complies with a very bad grace and I believe that he is acting against his better judgment. He may be doing so unwillingly, but he is complying none the less. He is an imperialist, albeit an unwilling one and while denouncing imperialism Mr. LAPOINTE. (Translation.) Will the hon. member allow me to put him a question? Mr. NANTEL. pleasure. (Translation.) (Translation.) On the 17th January, 1901, at the New Reform Club of London, the Hon. LloydGeorge said: The Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in a public speech, the other day, stated that Canada was an independent nation, and yet, that colony pretending to be independent has sent troops in South Africa to crush down the independence of men who have an equal right to the independence that Canada claims for herself.' Later on I have heard the right hon. Prime Minister eulogize that campaign and With state that the Boer war was a just one. I did not suppose then, and I do not suppose to-day that he was in earnest; his mental tendency does not lean that way. If he became convinced, it is by persistent efforts and under the strain of circumstances. The right hon. gentleman, it is my sincere con Mr. LAPOINTE. The opponents of the navy bill in the province of Quebec contend that there is an understanding between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition on this ques-viction, is an imperialist against his will, tion. I would like to have my hon. friend's opinion on the question. Mr. NANTEL. (Translation.) My answer to my hon. friend is that on this side of the House, we are allowed to entertain different views from those of our chief. I do not know if they enjoy the same privilege on the other side, but we have it here. Mr. LAPOINTE. (Translation.) That is not an answer to my question: in your opinion does an understanding exist or not? Mr. NANTEL. (Translation.) I know nothing about it; I was not there. Mr. LAPOINTE. (Translation). Mr. Bourassa was the only one present, I suppose. Mr. PAQUETTE. (Translation.) My hon. friend could ask that question from the right hon. getnleman. and what is more astonishing, is that he speaks against the imperialists. But I say without the least hesitation that the most dangerous of all imperiapeople are not on their guard, because they lists are the disguised imperialists, because do not show their hand, because they instill their doctrine drop by drop, as a deadly poison. Unhappily, the province of Quebec has sent here to many adepts of that doctrine, imperialists against their will, disguised imperialists, ever ready to bow passively at the command of the big chief, and not enough, on this side of the House, of antiimperialists to check effectively the tendencies of the ultra-imperialists. Mr. Jules Edouard Prévost, editor of 'L'Avenir du Nord' of Saint Jerôme, Mr. Prévost, the recipient of numerous whose liberal orthodoxy cannot be doubted, favours from both Liberal governments, the bestower of patronage in the county of Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Translation.) Terrebonne . . . : There is none. Mr. NANTEL. (Translation.) There is two kinds of imperialists; those who profess imperialism openly, avowedly; they stand erect and are moved by their convictions; they are entitled to our respect. Others wear masks and disguises; they think that they are obliged to preach imperialism in a spirit of conciliation, not to say of weakness; they are to be pittied, to say the least. I am inclined to think that on the present occasion, the right hon. Prime Minister is an imperialist against his will, as he has been in 1899, when he sent volunteers to South Africa. We all know that he sent volunteers to South Africa, after having solemnly declared that he would not send any. He had to let them go grudgingly. In the bottom of his heart, he cursed that war, but he took part in it because he was compelled to do so. Mr. LEMIEUX. (Translation.) And who is to-day a member of the Council of Public Instruction. Mr. NANTEL. (Translation.) . . and who in that capacity, sits with the bishops of the province. Mr. Prévost has been appointed lately to the Council of Public Instruction, by the Hon. L. Gouin, Prime Minister of the province of Quebec. Mr. Prévost is a good Liberal, a descendant of the Lions of the North,' who have fought the battles of the party in that part of the country since 1854. That same Mr. Prévost has conscientious scruples about that naval service Bill. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to quote what that gentleman wrote on the question, and my hon. friends from the other side will not complain that I quote only Conservative papers. The following editorial was published on the 21st January last: NAVAL SERVICE BILL.-A DESIRABLE AMENDMENT. Mr. Prévost begins by a comparison between sections 69 and 71 of the Militia Act, and sections 18 and 19 of the Naval Service Act, and says: The Militia Act is intended for the defence of Canada, the Naval Service Act is intended for the wars of the empire generally. Since we are not admitted in the councils where the wars of Great Britain are decided, since we are not represented in the British diplomatic service where international conflicts originate, we think that it should be left to the Canadian Parliament to decide the opportunity of our participation in the wars of the empire, before the government can dispose of our ships and our men. We base our theory on the old english saying No taxation without representation.' The help that Canada might decide to give to the mother country will never be so necessary and urgent that the Governor in Council will not be in a position to foresee the situation early enough to call Parliament together before interfering. It would be quite different if the defence of our territory was in question, and we see no objection to section 69 of the Militia Act, nor to section 17 of the Naval Service Act, where the power granted to the Governor General in Council affects exclusively the defence of Canada. In our opinion the order in which sections 18 and 19 are given, should be charged so as to give parliament the undeniable right, before engaging Canada to decide upon the opportunity of our participation to a war of the empire declared without and perhaps, against our parliament's consent. In that way we should preserve our autonomy without disowning our obligations. And further: Our rights and our obligations would be more in accord. That is all. So much so, that the Bill, so drafted, would be more in conformity with the national policy so ably and so energetically pursued by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. You will please note that the question here is not as to the principle of the Bill, but as to its application. Just as we have openly and firmly recognized our obligations towards Canada and our ally Great Britain, we proclaim with the same energy, the same frankness, our sacred rights, as a self-governed country. We do not retract a single word of what we have published on the question of a Canadian navy. As a citizen of Canada, as an ally of Great Britain, we see in that proposition a necessary obligation which Laurier will make as light as possible for the country. The government, it is true, are responsible to parliament who will approve or disapprove their decision taken in 'critical circumstances.' We concede that. We also admit that the Bil, as drafted, does not completely fail to recognize the legitimate exigencies of our autonomy. But, if parliament must be consulted, why not consult it before the country is involved in an imperial war, rather than after? We say it again it is not possible to suppose a case... Here is the conclusion: This objection is a serious one, but not without a resolution. Let parliament be called together before all participation from our port, in a war of the empire, and let it decide by a division taken 24 hours later, if yes or no, Canada ought to participate in that war. were In asking that the Naval Service Bill be so amended, we are inspired by the broad British principles upon which rest our constitution and our autonomy, and we greatly surprised to read in the speech delivered in the House of Commons by the leader of the oposition, Mr. Borden, on the 12th January last, the following sentence: J'ai été un peu surpris de la déclaration que le très honorable premier ministre a faite dans les premiers jours de cette session lorsqu'il a dit que si nous créons une marine canadienne, que cette marine ne prendrait pas part à aucune guerre de la Grande-Bretagne avant que ce parlement y donne son consentement. Je suis heureux de voir que mon honorable ami abandonne cette attitude aujourd'hui, si je le comprends bien. Contrary to the views entertained by Mr. Borden, we deplore that change of front. We believe that all Canadians subjects, be they English, French, Irish or Scotch, would be unanimous to approve a law reserving to its consent before saddling the country with the Canadian parliament, the right to give the burden of a war, and the most painful of all contributions-the contribution in blood. Once more we say: No taxation without representation. I am free to admit that the situation is a difficult one, that the right hon. gentlestand that he thinks it proper for him to man stands between two fires. I can underas said Mr. be more or less nebulous Bourassa, to conceal, to dissemble his thoughts. It is not an easy task to build a navy which Canada does not need and will not need before twenty or twenty-five years; to build a navy for Great Britain, to comply to Great Britain's exigencies, to Great Britain's injunctions, given in the form of suggestions, and to say in the same breath that this navy will or will not participate to the wars of the empire, as the parliament sees fit. Surely it is very hard for one to preach military imperialism, to lay down its most fundamental principle, and to say and make believe that one is fighting military imperialism. On such occasions, one must accomplish wonderful feats and display a prodigious suppleness; one must have recourse to biblical language and indulge in parables. One must even go to the length of borrowing the words of Jesus of Nazareth who, knowing that the end was near at hand, was weeping over Jerusalem. But instead of going to Jerusalem, the right hon. gentleman went to Toronto, and there he exclaimed: Oh, Toronto! oh, Toronto! thou that killeth the prophets, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings! Cannot you see the scene from here, Mr. Speaker? The good people of Toronto, sticking to the sides of the leader of the government, and the right hon. gentleman, trying to warm them up under his wings. During the process, he gives them a lecture on feudality in the Middle Ages; he explains the meaning of sovereignty and suzerainty. But the good people of Toronto, were not satisfied, and did not understand him. And now, it is the prophets of St. Jérôme, represented by Mr. Prévost, which do not understand him, and threaten to disregard his teachings. Sir, the war fleet is established and created as a help for the wars of the empire, and evidently to be placed in the hands of the imperial authorities, in time of war, although this may not be mentioned in clause 18. And when parliament will have a chance to approve or blame the government, the fleet will be far away, wrecked and in the bottom of the sea perhaps. In order to keep the power of Quebec in her illusive hope and pay her with words; for the purpose of giving a chance to the Prime Minister to go and tell his good Quebec friends: My old friends, I built a war fleet, because I could not help it. But I did not forget you, just listen to me; that fleet is yours, she will not be called to help England except on your consent, when you will be willing to allow her to go, when your parliament will be willing to let her go.' necessary to change the policy followed so far in this country as regards the question of defence, and that England really needs another participation different from that which Canada has given so far for the defence of the empire, and that she has a right to have it, let it be openly known; let us work effectively and endorse the responsibility of our action. Would it be given through irony of fate, to the right hon. Prime Minister, he an imperialist in spite of his own will, to crown his work not with a national railway, but with a war legislation; with the institution of militarism, which he is to establish under the great principle of conciliation, a principle which he has adopted and wishes to follow to the end, and which will cause him to sanction a compulsory conscription, a compulsory military service in this country, if he would be called to do so by that government beyond the sea. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Hear, hear! NANTEL. (Translation.) Sir, the German peril? I find there are two German mercial German peril, the most dangerous perils. There is the industrial and comfor England. Canada is powerless against that peril. If England is not sound in that point, let her strengthen herself, and apply a suitable remedy. As for the other, the military peril, I do not believe in it. I am in good company, because I am with the Prime Minister. The latter German peril sounds to me Lords do not believe so much in the Geras an imperialist attempt. The noble man peril as the endeavour to make others But why speaking, what is the use of would not have opposed the Budget in a believe in it, because if they did so, they those texts which can be differently inter-critical time, because such an opposition preted? Why, sir? might have brought about a disaster, and fatal consequences for England. The return to power of the Hon. Lloyd-George has decidedly convinced me that the people of England are not so strong believers in the German peril as we are in Canada. I am positive that at least the majority of the English people does not believe in it, and that same majority of the people of England is not so fond of imperialism and militarism as we seem to be in Canada. And I cannot but help to come to this conclusion, when I think of that Lloyd-George, whom the English people have returned to power, that Lloyd-George who never missed a chance to protest with his eloquent voice, against the South African war, and who was, they say, so cynical as to scoff the British troops' defeat. Since that time, the English people was kind enough to give him his confidence and maintain him in power, as a consequent reward. I do not believe in the German peril, because France will not consent to the desertion of England, although England closed her arms in And in Ontario, to the people of Toronto, who kill the prophets, he will say: 'My friends, you know me, you understand better than that, I had this fleet built for the defence of the empire. It is the raison d'être of that war fleet. The fleet is England's property as well as my heart, my own being and my whole person, I am "British to the core." Why not playing the cards on the table, why not tell frankly what is the aim in view? If it were believed that it may be found his way to Ste. Héliène through Waterloo. The grouping of colonies around England with their Dreadnoughts will defy other nations. I believe that the imperialists who wrote a lot of things besides their appeal to the colonies, and in so saying could lead peo-` ple to the belief that there is some weakness about England, and such being only in their own imagination, do a very bad turn to the mother country. There is no worse enemy than an imprudent friend to a nation or a policy. face of France's disaster in 1870; because long time European supremacy, he at last I believe in the European equilibrium which is worth something better for national peace than the school of peace; because, those who are the opponents of ancient and modern butchery are gaining ground. Imperialism is the enemy, and is called to do more harm than profit to England; it might hasten the German or any other similar peril. Sir, shouting again and again, with all means, here and there, everywhere: Let England rule the waves, let her hold her supremacy on the seas; she must have it, it must be her own against all comers; supremacy is her right! And for such a maintenance of supremacy, let her group all her colonies around her and be furnished with fleets and invincible armies.' All that noise is, in my opinion, wrong diplomacy. The principle is lovable, but it was useless to blare it out so loudly. If they had maintained it quietly, I mean that supremacy on the seas, and had taken the necessary means for its maintenance, without awakening up all echos, I believe the result would have been better. All that noise has contributed to the fast building of Dreadnoughts by the rich and powerful nations, and that state of things may finally weary the two countries, if they keep on so sturdily. Moreover, if, at the present time, those untimely roarings, those appeals to the colonies, would be put to an end if we showed more calmness and self-control, it could likewise stop. On this subject Mr. J. A. Macdonald, editor of the Toronto Globe,' chief organ of this government, one of the delegates to the imperial conference of the press in London last June, relating his voyage impressions and his visits in the streets and suburbs of London and other English cities, has been one of these imprudents in making following picture: most, the thing that stands out as the backThe thing, he says, that impressed me ground of every reminiscence, was the bloodless, mirthless, hopeless face of the common crowd. He declares that the pale, sunken faces of the nameless city crowd haunt one like a weird. He says: We could not shut our eyes or steel our hearts to that Britain want to work, and which has long forgotten which is out of work, which may not even how to play. The social problem in England, Mr. Macdonald says, everywhere is appalling almost A wise and loyal Englishman. who of- to the point of despair. Wherever we went, fers no ground for suspicion-I speak of it forced itself upon us. The least dangerthe editor of the Witness,' of Montreal-ous aspect of it was that hollow-eyed procession of the homeless of London kept moving wrote what follows:along the pavements by the police in the early dawn, waiting for the opening of the soup kitchens. London, Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh-each had its distinctive features, but everywhere the marks were deep of disease and degeneracy in body and mind and morals. Those who use this argument surely fail to see that there is in it a challenge to all the other nations, that it call for hostilities at their address, individually, a provocation to dispute Great Britain's supremacy if possible. There is in it a claim which is impossble to keep up if the nations, including the United States decided to set against it. It is impossible to make, without proof any statement of a more dangerous or injurious nature than this to Great Britain. Justice and fair play do more honour and give more credit to a nation than the armaments and Dreadnoughts. It is this justice and this British fair play that gives Great Britain its force more than would do its men of war. Let England keep and firmly hold its supremacy on sea, but it must not be boasted of too much. On the contrary, let her be seemingly ignorant of the fact and conduct herself with other nations as though she was not superior, or as if she was ignorant of that supremacy. By this means she may keep it longer. As soon as this justice and this fair play become an object of suspicion to other nations, there could be no possible supremIn life, a man who defies everybody finds his superior. Napoleon had for a acy. In some of the smaller places where the industrial percentage is large, Mr. Macdonald continues, or the occupation unhealthy-as in the black country or the pottery-making communities-the blood-noisoned workers present an appearance that to unaccustomed eyes is simply ghastly. In places like Portsmouth, where we drove through the streets after viewing the greatest array, of warships ever presented in the whole tered the doorways and lanes crowded out of world's history, the human sediment that litmind all thought of Britain's glory. It was hard to exult over the spectacular realism of the sham-fight on the shore with those haggard skeletons of lifes real conflict shuffling before our eyes uncheered and uncheering on the street. the delegates. Its residental districts and its Mr. Macdonald adds: Sheffield staggered all neighbouring hills are good to see. It is a hive of industry. Its name the world over is a warrant for good steel. But its human specimens! The conditions of the poor may, perhaps, be worse in other industrial centers in England, but certainly no delegate to the im perial press conference had ever seen the like in any white country overseas or even imagined it possible within the limits of human nature. He says again: What struck every observant delegate was the utter blankness of the faces that looked up at us from the pavement, or down on us from the windows, with scarcely enough capacity for human interest to wonder who we were or what we wanted. Block after block it was the same. Never a sign of humor. Never even a flash of human envy. Stooped shoulders, hollow chests, ashcoloured faces, lightless eyes, and ghastliest of all, loose-set mouths with bloodless gums, and only here and there a useful tooth. Literally hundreds of women between seventeen and seventy crowded close to our motor cars that day, and the marks were on them all. Those toothless mouths of men and women and children told the story. One touch of disease made the whole crowd kin. 'What do you think of it?' asked a London reporter of a Canadian editor. 'It's hell,' said the Canadian. And his companion from Australia could not suggest any other fitting word.' Finally Mr. Macdonald says: How long will a great nation go on breeding weaklings? How long will such a nation remain great? And how long will it be counted safe for Canada to admit the human output of Britain's drink-cursed slums?' Mr. Speaker, to my mind, such statements cannot be justified. I rejoice that their author is not a French Canadian from the province of Canada. If they are without foundation, their author is guilty; if they are founded on fact, he is indiscreet. If that description corresponds to reality, the inference is that an economic and social reform is of greater urgency in England than armaments or the building of Dreadnoughts. Because, after all, such specimens of the human race are not likely to spread terror in the enemy's ranks, even with the help of any number of Dreadnoughts. And that reform, it is the British authorities who are in a position to effect it, not the colonies. There are numbers of landlords in England holding large areas, in some cases extending over 175,000 acres, while swarms of human beings fill the suburbs and slums of London and other British cities. If only those great landowners would dispose of those lands in favour of the people and workers, recruits would be forthcoming as by magic from all parts of England. It is in the ranks of the ploughman who tills the land at the sweat of their brow, that soldiers are to be obtained ready to fight like lions for the defence of the territory in time of war. As for us in Canada, who have nothing to do either with pauperism or militarism in England, let us endeavour to keep aloof from both these scourges. I oppose with all my might such legislation; I openly expres my opinion, I would express it in the same manner in Ontario and in western Canada, as well as in the province of Quebec. In doing so, I do not consider myself disloyal to the British Crown, neither am I appealing to race prejudice. I shall now read an extract from the Daily News,' of Peterborough, dated the 27th December last: The French Canadian newspapers, without exception, are decidely viewing this question from a narrow race standpoint. They are repugnant more than ever to the idea of closer relations with the empire. French Canadians are breaking party ties to subin connection with this issue to go on the serve race interests. Should it be necessary battlefield, we are ready. Canada is part of that state of things, will terminate in war. the British empire; any attempt to change I shall not express any opinion regarding the author, as I do not wish to say anything disagreeable. I shall be content with stating for the information of the Daily News' and other papers, which had taken the lead in that kind of thing, that such writings are not likely to improve matters and forward their view of the case. The French Canadian Conservatives of the province of Quebec are not breaking away from their party; they remain faithful to the policy followed by Macdonald, Cartier and Sir Charles Tupper when the latter lived in Canada. The French Canadian Conservatives of Quebec are not changing their policy; those who are open to the charge of so abandoning the old policy are imperialists of to-day, who no longer follow in the footsetps of the statesmen I have mentioned. The views I have expressed have partisans and advocates outside of the province of Quebec, and why should not the people of the province of Quebec have the liberty of making known their opinions on a question of such importance. Why, who would expect us to put up with the denial of such a right? The French Canadians of Quebec have never spoken nor written on the subject in stronger language than some Ontario people, for instance, contributors to the Weekly Sun,' of Toronto, the Farmer's Advocate,'' Farm and Dairy,' 'The Grain Grower's Guide,' Prof. Marshall of Queen's University, Prof. McCurdy of Toronto. The latter is not a resident of the province of Quebec, and his opinion cannot be lightly set aside, holding as he does professorship in a university of the standing of that of Toronto. The same may be said of Prof. Marshall of Queen's. I shall read a letter which Prof. McCurdy wrote to the Right Hon. Prime Minister on November 11 last. It is rather long, but I am anxious it should apear in Hansard ': |