treaty, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, and the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, had to be authorized very minutely by England to speak to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of France, and had to be introduced to the latter by the British Ambassador, in Paris. Let me cite, as the only fact which gives to Canada, what may be styled a recognition by a foreign power, that clause of the FrancoCanadian treaty which allows an employee appointed by Canada to certify bills of lading, or certificates of origin of goods, which may have a legal value. That is about the limit of the action of our country in relation to foreign countries. colony outside of Canada. If we examine Our I apologize for reminding the House that but a few weeks ago, the Canadian agent in Antwerp had to haul down his sign marked Canadian Agency' at the request of the British consul in that city, under the pretense that such action on behalf of the Canadian agent would create possible confusion in the minds of the citizens of Belgium as to the political status of Canada. Canada has no flag, if we do not accept as such the emblem which our merchantmen were some years ago empowered The term colony' shall in this Act into unfurl at their mastheads. And I do not clude all of Her Majesty's possessions abroad need to argue very long to show that of in which there shall exist a legislature. international status Canada has none, be- The term legislature' and colonial legislacause the very name of our country' Do- ture' shall severally signify the authority minion,' which our French translators have other than the imperial parliament on His very proudly, but improperly, translated Majesty in Council, competent to make laws into the word puissance,' should remind for any colony. Any colonial law which is or us that we are but a domain of the Crown; shall lie in any respect repugnant to the proto use the language of the Act of 1834, de- visions of any Act of parliament extending to fining the powers of the Privy Council of the colony to which such law may relate, or repugnant to any law, order or regulation England, and giving to that final tribunal made under authority of such Act of parliaan unlimited jurisdiction over any judgment, or having in the colony the force and ment given by any court in any colony, 'Dominion,' or plantation of His Majesty. In a general way, I could point out many other cases of deception arising out of our political and administrative terminology. effect of such Act, shall be read subject to such Act, order or regulation, and shall to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely null and void. Let me quote section 15 of the British North America Act: The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. After reading this Bill and the Acts of 1867 and 1661, every one must admit that this extends rather than restricts the autonomy of Canada. The famous question about the meaning of 'shall' or 'may' in this legislative enactment is reduced to naught. If we examine now the status of Canada under the light of the public law of England, what do we discover? One finds that, though a delegation of powers, a federal legislative body, and nine provincial legislatures are supervising private intercourse between our citizens, the application of the civil laws of France, or the common law of England, the appointment of judges to decide litigations arising out of about 20 contracts, and finally looking over the administration of municipal affairs. No constitutional guarantee, in the constitutional Act of 1867, is to be found limiting the power of Great Britain to impose taxes upon its citizens in Canada. If we look at 18. In case of an emergency the Governor sections 91 and 92 of that Act, we find that even our power to naturalize British sub- in Council may place at the disposal of His jects is very limited, because our natural. Majesty, for general service in the Royal ized British subjects are considered as such navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and exclusively within the territory of Canada, the officers and seamen serving in such ships and they are not British subjects within or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging the British Isles, nor even in any British to the naval service. Let me quote also clause 18 of Bill (No. 95) in which the interpretation of the word may' has given rise to such debate: Should this Bill now before us be passed without clause 18 it would be repugnant to section 15 of that imperial statute, the British North America Act, 1867, conform- | ing to chapter 6, statute 1, Charles II, 1661, intituled, 'An Act declaring the sole right of the militia to be in the King and for the present ordering and disposing the same,' and also to the regulations made thereunder, and for that very reason our Bill would be null and void. It is not also the proper time to remind this House that nobody but a pirate, and with all the due consequences thereof, can run a warship unless her commander is the bearer of a state patent since the declaration of Paris in 1856. Bill (No. 95) without its clause 18 would be enacted in violation of international law. At six o'clock the House took recess. House resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. GERVAIS. Mr. Speaker, in continuing my remarks before recess, I may say that many other facts and Acts of parliament could be quoted to show that Canada, after all, and in spite of the Act of 1867, is still, in the eyes of England, one of its 80 provinces. I say this, although Canada has a responsible government, having the right to spend the money of its citizens for their benefit generally without too much interference on behalf of the sovereign authority. I say this although Canada is a British colony of the first class, and is not in consequence a Crown colony, which later is ruled by a governor and a council appointed by England. I say this, although Canada is not a privileged chartered colony, that is, a colony governed by a commercial company. I say all this, Sir, though I am ready to applaud our distinguished leader when he proclaims that Canada is a nation. While helping England, I prefer to see Canada doing so as a British dominion, realizing thoroughly her present status, than to see Canada rendering such service as a so-called member of an empire, composed of one state and a great number of conquered but statuteless provinces having no representatives in the imperial parliament. It is only by knowing what his present condition is that one may think of reaching a higher condition. I like the idea of Canada entering into a maritime league with England, such as would be in process of creation through this Bill, and which would tend to bring to Canada a larger amount of true autonomy, which would redound to the benefit of England and of Canada. By the passing of this Bill, Canada is promoting herself to a higher place in the eyes of the world, and that is a very good reason for me to give it my cordial support. I admit that the status of Canada as a British_colony is far better than that of any colony of France, Germany, Portugal, Holland, or even of the United States of America, for in the case of all of those colonies the sovereign state deals with their municipal or local affairs from its legislature without consulting the people of the colony. England alone allowed her colonists to tax her exported goods; to produce goods similar to her own; to sell goods to foreigners or buy from them; to ship them even in non-English bottoms; to be governed by the rules of metropolitan justice. But, it is true, just the same, that Canada is bound, whether it pleases her or not, to do what England may require her to do. Should England wish to tax Canada there is nothing in the public law of England to prevent her. I may be reminded that we have the precedent of the Boston merchants: but let me tell you, Sir, that those merchants, at that time, were probably equipped to accept the inevitable consequences of resisting the new tax on their tea. Such is not the condition of Canada to-day. Are we to follow the teaching of a certain portion of the press and the speeches of certain of our orators who have been preaching that Canada should have no army and no navy, but should remain as it has been for 150 years, completely without defence, and exclusively inhabited by farmers, merchants, lawyers, and ward heelers, depending solely for protection on the application, for the benefit, of that fiction hallucination known as the Munroe doctrine. or I know that Canada is not, to-dav, governed, as she was upon the arrival of Lord Durham at Quebec. It would be rather difficult for the colonial office of to-day to send to our Governor General instructions similar to those which they sent to Sir Poulett Thompson, and to tell him to govern his country against, or without the advice of his responsible ministers. I know that a radical change has taken place. I know that now the Prime Minister is much more than a sub-officer of Downing street. I know that Canada, since 1791, or to be more accurate, since 1840, has passed from the status of 'Crown' colony to that of responsibly governed colony. I admit, also, that this has been done in consequence of the new policy adopted by England, by which she feels herself in duty bound to grant her colonies autonomy in matters municipal. I am ready to proclaim, that England alone has stood the first, and perhaps will stand the last, in the history of the colonial regimes of the world, for the establishment of such colonial autonomy as our own, but on the other hand, if I scrutinize the text of our constitution, without taking into account our de facto position towards England, but exclusively our de jure relations with her, I venture to affirm that I make no misstatement of law when I declare that Canada is, legally, but a British colony, and not a nation, in the sense implied by the authors of international law. Sir, we know the meaning of the word 'race', of the word 'people', of the word 'nation', of the word 'state'. Too often, have we in this country lost sight of the true definition of each of those words. Let me define a nation: A nation, Sir, is the union into a society of the inhabitants of one country, having the same language, governed by the same laws, banded together by identity of origin, of physical conformation and of moral propensities, by a community of interests and of feelings and by a merger of existences brought about by the passing of centuries. tween England and any of the 48 foreign states of the world, composing the society of states, any inch of the British territory, whether within the British Isles, or in any of the British provinces, is on a war footing. Therefore Canada is at war whether she wishes to be at war or not. England's war is Canada's war, so much so that the minute war is declared all our goods and vessels and citizens become hostile in the estimation of the country at war with England, and all things Canadian become ipso facto seizable by the belligerents against England. Is it not by applying those well, known doctrines, that during the eighteenth century, England saw her way clear to destroy the colonial dominions of France in every part of the world, and to conquer even Nouvelle-France? Those same doctrines stand just as good to-day as in the past, Sir, and it is against the revival of this doctrine to our detriment, that I wish to have my Canadian fellow citizens keep themselves prepared. A state may be neuI am mentioning all this to show that tral; a British province cannot. More esthough England has not been pressing hard pecially do I not wish to see Canada standupon us to give her help, and has been trying neutral towards England for the sake of ing to veil the exercise of her rights upon Canada, she has without any question authority to command Canada to come to her rescue, willingly or unwillingly. But, Sir, not only our status forces us to build up a navy, but own own interests, both political and commercial, impel us to do so, as I will try to show later on. Sir, are there any real reasons for Canada not doing anything to comply with the wishes of England? A few of our citizens are trying to raise, or rather, to invoke the question of neutrality. Let me explain what is neutrality, as defined by Martens, Kluber, Heffter, Wheaton, Hubner, Hautefeuille and Ortolan. Neutrality is for a state the right or the duty not to take any part in a war. Under internationl law, neutrality is permissible in favour of any state. One of the most celebrated cases of neutrality was that urged by the United States of America in 1795 when, France being assailed by quite a number of European powers, the United States answering Mr. Genest, the French minister, told him that they were not bound to do anything for France, which had been very recently the most potent instrument in bringing them into the society of states. That resort to neutrality has been invoked, for 150 years, quite a number of times. But let me say, Mr Speaker, that behind the most of the instances of optional neutrality, you find national suicide, or national cowardice. If we look at the relations between Britain and one of her provinces, there cannot be any question of neutrality, and the reason for this statement is rather obvious. Every law student knows it. Every one knows that so soon as war is declared be not building a navy. Neutrality is a word which only states can use, but never a colony when addressing its metropolis. But if such a condition of affairs from the point of view of international law and of the public law of England exists, is it not better that Canada should willingly aid England, and do it in the happiest way? After all, what is asked from Canadians? If we take for granted that the total population of Canada is about 8,000,000 we figure that the contribution of each citizen for the maintenance of our fleet (an accomplishment which will satisfy our national pride, and at the same time please England), will not exceed 60 cents per head annually, plus one dollar and a half per head for the building of the same. If we take into consideration the population of the province of Quebec, and make certain allowances for contributions made more especially for creating banks, insurance companies, loan companies, railway companies, all of them mostly organized and kept in existence by British capital, we have to conclude that, estimating the population of that province at about 2,000,000, each inhabitant of Que bec would not pay more than one shilling per year for the maintenance of that fleet, though so useful both to Canada and England, as well for defence as for commercial purposes. But, some one may say that this creation of a war fleet will tend to diminish our rank both amongst the colonies of Great Britain, and in the esteem of foreign countries. Nothing can be more fallacious. I do not see in what way the status of Canada will suffer depreciation because she enters into somewhat of a maritime lea British protection which it has enjoyed for years; the protection which is called by those who are not farsighted, the Monroe doctrine, and which is in a concrete form the recognition of the United States of America as the protector, the tutor, and the guardian of the twenty-one states of North, Central, and South America. The establishment of that Monroe doctrine, as a settled fact is contrary to the best interests of the world, as well as to the teaching of the society of states. There is but one, there can be but one, universal society of states. The Monroe doctrine has not proved itself, as you know, Sir, very useful to the lesser states of America. Mexico, which sought for the application of the Monroe doctrine to dethrone the Emperor Maximilian, lost through it, the best part Monroe doctrine too, in the case of Cuba, has proved very detrimental to the richest island of the West Indies. The secret conspiracy to destroy the sugar crops and the tobacco crops of Cuba and to create revolution against Spain, all things inspired as its natural consequence the reduction of Cuba to a state of humiliating protection, and Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands to a still more inferior condition. gue with other colonies, and the parent state. No one can imagine for a moment that Canada can alone protect her vast seashores. Let me give you an illustration. I will once more go to the ancient world to get my example. You know that it was the fundamental maxim of Athens that she should remain the ruler of the seas. Athens was the greatest sea power of the 300 cities of Greece. Sparta was the largest military power on land. Nevertheless, Athens, with its 30,000 soldiers, its 30,000 mariners, and its total male and female population of 200,000 inhabitants, managed to form a confederation which was called the confederation of Delos, composed of 300 cities, each one of them sending its delegates, furnishing ships, money or men, and later on paying a fixed sum of money, the whole to equip and main-of its territory. The application of the tain a fleet strong enough to secure the supremacy of Greece over all other powers, at any time. The federal treasury which was established first, at Delos, where the delegates met, was later on transferred to Athens, and set up in the Temple of the Acropolis. This is, I think, a shining ex-by Monroe doctrine advocates, has brought, ample to our citizens. Imagine a city like Athens, with a total population of but 200,000 citizens, having its two ports of Piraeus and Phalerum, and its shipbuilding yard of Munychia, and contributing half of the thousand talents, that is $5,000,000 for the equipment and manning of the confederation fleet. And, you know, Athens did the right thing in regard to that; as long as the maritime league was maintained, her glory was unbounded, as soon as it was disrupted all her power vanished. Neither Athens nor Lacedaemon felt depreciated by going into the confederation of Delos. For Athens had not then forgotten the teaching of Themistocles and Aristides, realizing that their country needed not only magistrates and leaders, but also, instruments of defence such as an army, a fleet of war, and a revenue. Athens has given to the world of to-day the most vivid example of national energy. With a small territory, and a limited budget, through the efforts and ability of its public spirited citizens (the greatest lovers of liberty known to history) Athens was able to make first class harbours, build the strongest navy of the day, erect the most marvellous temples and palaces that art can inspire and architecture construct, and through its fleet, and its naval defence demonstrate her capabilities in repulsing invasions much more terrible for her than would be an invasion to-day of England by the Germans. After this short glimpse of the past, let us come to the question of the protection of our thousands of miles of seashore and territorial boundary. First of all, we have to consider the proposal of those who wish a Canada unarmed, both on sea and land, but who hope to substitute for them the The intervention of our neighbours in the private affairs of the states of both central and south America, is not of a nature to encourage our country to place its future national aspirations under the protection of the Monroe doctrine. We are suffering enough just now, from the use by our neighbours of a name, though chosen by them at a Paris banquet, given in the honour of Franklin, which goes to show that our friends of the United States of America are arrogating to themselves the sole right to the name of Americans which should really designate all the groups of inhabitants of the whole continent. American invasion under a peaceful name has already set in, I regret to say. Very fortunately the other states have not yet recognized that abusive use of a name by the United States of America, which after all is but one of the forty-eight states of the world. Surely it is a most absurd dream to believe in the protection of the Monroe doctrine rather than in British protection. Anything which will tend to loosen or to destroy our ties with the parent state is, in my opinion, an act of high treason towards our country, because it would mean for her a Diminutio Capitis, that is to say, a reduction of rank in the eyes of the world. Canada left to herself, without any more British protection, would be open to be annexed to our neighbours, or to be sold to them, by her sovereign. We have to speak plainly; do you imagine, for a moment, that England, not receiving even pamphleteers, and self-styled newspaper- too thoroughly convinced that our citizens of which the moral support or any co-operation in its defence from Canada, would do anything to protect the latter from an AmeriI have can or other foreign invasion? taken for granted, at this moment, that England would not try to coerce its colI pray my fellow-citizens, not to trust But it is within, as we ony of Canada. our great hustings trumpeters, our pamphhave said, the power of England to resort to such coercion by way of taxation, threats leteers, or our self-constituted editorial of sale or exchange of territory, as in the peers, for either defence or diplomacy. I refrain from dwelling upon the possible case of Heligoland for Samoa, and the pur-realization of such a nightmare, for I am chase of our territory would have an easy job to get possession of it. For, if those who do not wish our parliament to put up any defence should succeed in convincing our people of the correctness of their foolish opinions, Canada would be utterly unprotected both on sea and on land, and liable to be conquered by a border invasion. What are words of mouth worth against the bullet of the fusileer or the baton of the constable? I beg some of my Quebec friends to remember the days of 1837, when words, newspaper articles, and epistles from those having brought about the resort to arms, and who were keeping themselves in hiding in foreign lands, proved unequal to prevent my fellow-men from dying either on the battlefield or on the scaffold. Sir, I do not like to speak of those dire possibilities, should the opinion of those in my province who want an undefended Canada, prevail. Suppose that should England inflicting chastisement, disinterest herself of Canada; then in the case of annexation, for example, what would be the result for our church, our Has any one laws, and our language. thought of such a possibility? The treaty guarantees of 1763 would exist no more with regard to the use of our language, or the enjoyment of our civil laws, or with regard to the Catholic church, which would surely lose the privileges so long enjoyed by her. Surely, those institutions of ours, which are so dear to us all, would be in imminent danger, since say two senators, and would four congressmen represent the province of Quebec, provided-which is not would certain-that the American states accord the dignity of statehood to each of the provinces of Canada. However, it is quite possible that no such recognition of would take existing political divisions place, and that Canada would be governed by laws passed in Washington, without our having adequate representation there. do not see why, if Canada, being either abandoned, or even sold or exchanged by England to the United States, the latter should not consider our country in the very same light as Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands. Would the United States of America give any consideration to a deSir, fenceless, and a friendless Canada? to a no power would give consideration country defended by hustling trumpeters, Let us now examine the question Britain's neglect of our interests, was raised the other night, by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He charges England with having given away to the United States a strip of land which is equal to the territory of many states; he also charges England with havI will not dising sacrificed our interests in the Alaska boundary arbitration case. length, the correctcuss, at any great ness of the statement of the hon. member. There is, no doubt, a great deal of truth in it, but I must remind the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, that Canada has in this, a great deal of blame to take upon her own shoulders. Even in the case of the Ashburton treaty negotiations, Canada did not say much, when she should at least have raised her voice to keep her own territory. In the Alaska arbitration dispute, perhaps Canada could have better looked to the settlement of that through the channel of diplomacy. must also admit that in 1834, and later on, in 1852, Canada did not do much to preIvent Newfoundland from taking possesand treaties; sion, in spite of statutes case We and the possessory rights of the province |