MY LORD
1 have the honour to enclose for Your from the Debates of the House of Commons (unrevised Edition) containing the report of the debate upon a resolution moved by Mr. Foster in regard to Canada's assumption of a proper share of responsibility for her naval defences and the amendment to that
the Government, which Was accepted, the resolution as amended
I have, etc., (sd.) GREY.
The Rt Hon.
The Earl of Crewe, K.G.
Loi Navale—Déclarations des chefs de parti (2)
Le 15 novembre 1909, au cours du débat sur l'Adresse, le premier ministre interpelle M. Monk, député de Jacques-Cartier, au sujet de son discours à Lachine, avant la session :—
Sir Wilfrid LAURIER:....... My hon. friend also said that if we were tn butid A Navy we would be drawn thereby into European wars. Need I sey to my hon. friend that whether we have such a navy or not, we do not lose our right to self-government; that if we do have a Navy, that navy will go to no war unless the parHament of Canada, including the hon. gentleman, choose to send it.......... And if now we have
to organise a naval force it is because we are growing as a nation: it js the penalty of being a nation that we have to bear... (49)
(1) Votes and Proceedings, 1909, March 29th, page 494, (2) Sessional Paper, No. 170, 1909 (not printed).
(3) Extraits des Debates of the House of Commons. Le chiffre de la colonne est indiqué après chaque citation. |
ES
Le 12 janvier 1910, en présentant le projet de Loi Navale :—
Sir Wilfrid LAURIER:, exercise the power of calli Majesty,
Mr.
WAR EVERYWHERE. When Britain is at war, Canada is lon. If Great Britain, to wbich we are subject, is at war Canada becomes liable to invasion, and so C +-4n ls at war
excellent men no doubt, to ask us to assume ail
who will willingly bend lent rights of British sub-
Le 3 février, au cours du débat sur la deuxième lecture du projet de loi:—
Mr. MONK : — Lord Twecdmouth, Mr. Chamberlain, and other English public men, imbued with the brond principle that responsibilities of this kind carried representation, had stated, as Lord Twecdmouth did at the conference of 1907: We don't ask You to do this without inviting you to share in the representation. That proposal was in harmony vith British ideas. But on our side nothing was asked, nothing was claimed. 1 do not mean to say that if these things were in that shape before us, I would adhere to them. 1! think that ‘sufficient to the day is the evil thercof”. But I am im-
have been asked, and that we entered into
me of responsibility in such a manner as to distinguish us completely
from the British subject who lives in the British Isles, and who himself controls the foreign policy of the Empire )
Le 24 février, durant le même débat:—
Mr. DOHERTY : —,,.... The overshadowin intend to create a naval force is that cannot avoid participation in the wa the mother country, and, by that fo:
mother country exclusively — and has control of the foreign relations colonies. .....
The control of a navy force is a function of the policy — the policy that governs
emberking upon any permanent poliey that is an essential! condition tleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) he does not attach one whit - (4128)
1 am here to say that, when this duty is presented to us of our taking a share in the maintenance of the naval forces of this empire, there is necessarily presented to us at the same time another duty, the duty of our taking our share in the heavy burden
It seems clear to me that the measure, if put into execution under existing circumstances and without proper provision for the performance of the duty it carries with it, is destructive of wha* is most sacred and holy in the autonomy of this country, and, moreover, it seems to me that the measure is clearly useless as a measure for the defence of the empire. From any point of view I fail to see how any Canadian subject
of the King can realize that it is his duty to do otherwise than vote against that measure. .....(4149-50)
Le 2 mars, au cours du même débat, M. NANTEL, député de Terrebonne et futur ministre dans le cabinet Borden, se déclare également opposé au projet de loi et à la motion du leader conservateur :—
M NANTEL:—...,..Pour moi la défense nationale, c'est la défense du Canads. Je suis sujet britannique et j'en suis fier. Je suis Canadien et j'en suis doublement fier. Le Canada fait partie de l’Empire, mais dans l'Empire, chaque partie a son rôle spécialement assigné, et ce rôle, pour le Canada, c’est la défense du foyer, la défense de la patrie, pour la patrie et pour l'Empire; et la patrie, Pour moi, c’est le Canada.
ERRENOT ER RE de tee 6 És ane ve JR sd Se PETER RU ER OR VAT HS TR. 40 de en NÉ an
Je voterai contre le Projet de loi, parce qu'il comporte l'admission de l’impérialis 10 militaire, parce qu’il tend à en faire inscrire le principe dans nos statuts. Je voterai contre la proposition en amendement, parce qu'elle comporte le même principe, et que je n'admets pas que la circonstance présente soit un cas d’urgence......(1)
La deuxième lecture du projet de loi fut votée le 9 mars 1910. M. BORDEN avait proposé “en amendement” :—
“That no such proposals can safely be accepted unless they thoroughly ensure unity ®f organisation and of action without which there ean be no effective Co-operation in ny common scheme of Empire defence. x
“That the said proposals while necessitating heavy outlay for construction and maintenance will give no immediate or effective aid to the Empire, and no adequate er satisfactory results to Canada.
“That no permanent policy should be entered upon involving large future expenditare of this character until it has been submitted to the people and has received those approval.
“That in the meantime the immediate duty of Canada and the impending necessities ef the Empire can best be discharged and met by placing without delay at the dis- Dosal of the Imperial authorities as a free and loyal contribution from the people of Canada such an amount as may be sufficient to purchase or construct two battieships er armoured cruisers of the latest Dreadnought type, giving to the Admiralty full diseretion to expend the said sum at such time and fe: such purposes of naval defence as
in their judgment may best serve to increase the united strength of the Empire and thus assure its peace and security” (2).
(1) Débats de la Chambre des Communes (Version française), 1909-10, col. 4797. (2) Votes and Proceedings, 1910, March 9th, pages 618-19.
EN “es
M. MONK avait Proposé, en “sous-amendement” es “That this House, while declaring
Chishoïlm (Huron), Currie (Simcoe), *Lortie, ‘Monk, *Nantel, ‘Pâquet, Sharpe (Renfrew), Wilksz (Essex), Worthington.
Les députés dont le nom est précédé d’une astérique ont voté contre la motion Borden et contre la deuxième lecture du Bill. Les autres ont voté pour la motion Borden et contre la deuxième lecture.
Le 19 avril, en comité général :—
Le 20 avril, avant la troisième lecture :—
Mr. FIELDING.......... Under the measure we are pro)
service which is Canadian in time of peace, but which b
provided will unmistakably become imperia
for the defence of the Empire.
en the Empire needs rily for the defence of me of peace, and will
the war alarm is sounded,.....,
À la session suivante, au cours du débat sur l'Adresse, M. MONK proposa cette motion:—
The House regrets that the Speech from the Throne gives no indiestion whatevez the intention of the Government to consult the people on its Naval Seneral question of the contribution of Canad
M. BORDEN Proposa ‘en sous-amendement” :—
“We beg to essuge Your Excellency of the unalterable attachment and éevotion of the people of Canada to the British Crown, and of their desire and intention to fulfil all just responsibilities devolving upon this country as one of the nations of the Empire. We desire, however, to express our regret that Your Excelleney’s gracious Speech Sives no indication whatever of any intention on the part of Your Escelleney’s advisers to consult the people on the naval poliey of Canada” (2).
À l'appui de cette motion, le leader de l'opposition Prononça un long discours dont je détache ces Paragraphes : — =
possible to maintain the naval sndisunited navies, not under one central con.
(1) Votes and Proeeedinge, 1910, March 5th, Page 619. (2) Votes and Proceedings, 1910 December 1st, page 88.
és EE
the councils of the Empire touching the issues of peace or war throughout the Emvire ? 1 do not think that such would be a tolerable condition. 1 de not believe the
Shall members of this House, representative men, representing two hundred and twenty-one constituencies of this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, shall no one of them have the same voice with regard to those vast Imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British Isles has at this moment?
, every citizen in this country, then it would be the duty of any government to go to the people of Canada to receive their mandate, and accept and act upon their approval of or disapproval of that policy...... (227-228)
Ont voté pour la motion Monk et contre la motion Borden : MM. BLONDIN, LORTIE, MONK, NANTEL, PAQUET et VERVILLE. Aprés le rejet de la motion Borden, toute la députation conservatrice, M. Borden en tête, appuya la motion Monk.
, : 0 Contribution “ d’urgence” à la Flotte Impériale
BELL No 21, “AN ACT TO 4 “E }HIZE MEASURES FOR INCREASING THE EFFECTIVE NavAL FORCES OF THE EMP Ô
Le 13 février 1913, M. BORDEN propose, en deuxième lecture, la “résolution” suivante :—
That it is expedient in connection with the Bill now before this House intituled “An Aet to authorise measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire”, te : provide:—
(a) THAT FROM AND OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND OF CA- NADA THERE MAY BE PAID AND APPLIED A SUM NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMMEDIATELY INCREASING THE EF. FECTIVE NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE :—
(b) That the said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governer in Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers ef the most modern and powerful type:
(e) That the said ships when constructed and equipped shall be placed by the Governor in Council at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of the Empire; and
(4) That the said sum shall be paid, used and applied, and the said ships shall be constructed and placed at the disposal of His Majesty subject to such terms, conditions and arrangements as may be agreed upon between the Governer in Council and His Majesty’s Government (1).
Sir Wilfrid LAURIER propose “en amendement” :—
“This House declines to coneur in the said resolution and orders that the same be referred back to the Committee with instructions to amend the same in the following particulars, namely, to strike out all the words after clause (a) and substitute therefor the following:
(1) Votes and Proceedings, 1913, February 13th, page 536.
8 Eee SPoestr
“The memorandum prepared by the Board of Admir tuation of the Empire and communicated to this Hous Prime Minister on December 6t:, shows that several of the most im bowers have adopted a definite policy of rapidiy increasing their
“That this condition has compelled the United Kingdom to ec forces in home waters involving the withdrawal of ships from th the Empire,
“That such withdrawal renders it necessary that Canada without further delay should enter actively UPOR à permanent policy of naval defence.
“That any measure of Canadian aid to Imperial naval defence which does not embody a permanent policy of participation by ships owned, manned and maintained by Canada and contemplating construction as 500R as possible in Canada, is not an ade- Quate or satisfactory expression of the aspirations of the Canadian people in regard te naval defence, and is not an essumption by Canada of her fair share in the maintenance of the naval strength of the Empire.
“This House regrets to learn the intention of the Government te indefinitely post.
e outlying portions of
“This House is further of the opinion that to increase Imperial Navy by the addition by Canada under the abov stationed on the Atlantie and Pacific coasts of Canada, contribution of money or ships, is the policy best caleu United Kingdom in respect to the burthen of Imperial ef the Admiralty memeorandum, to ‘ restore greater fr British squadrons
M. VERVILLE Propose comme “sous-amendement” —
“That the following words be added at the end thereof :— “and the consent of Parliament should not be given te this Resol been submitted to and received the approval of the electors” (1).
ution until &t has
La deuxième lecture du Bill est votée à la Chambre le 27 février 1913, après rejet de “l'amendement” ci-dessous, proposé par M. TUR- RI.
eriea Act, immediately easure fer the readjustment ef the representation of the provinces in the House ef Commons, according te the population of the said Provinces as establisired by the Census of 1911, and that this House de not proceed further with this Bill until such readjustment has taken place, and th; people have been daily consulted on the said Bill” (2).
A ce texte, M. GUILBAULT avait proposé, en “so d'ajouter les mots :—
“by way a blebiscite’’,
us-amendement”,
Ont voté pour la motion Guilbault: MM. Achim, Barrette, Boulay, Cruise, Guilbault, Lamarche, Lapointe (Saint-Jacques Thomson et Turriff. Ont voté contr, : MM. Blondin,
Bellemare, ), Mondou, Coderre, Forget,
(1) Votes and Proceedings, 1913 February 18th, page 536. (2) Votes and Proceedings, 1913, February 27, page 638. ‘ Ë
ts
Gauthier (Gaspé), Lavallée, Lespérance, Nantel, Pâquet, Pelletier, Rainville, Sévigny, Verville et 175 députés libéraux et conservateurs.
Ont voté pour la deuxième lecture du Bill: MM. Blondin, Coderre, Forget, Gauthier, Lavallée, Lespérance, Nantel, Pelletier, Rainville, Sévigny et 104 députés conservateurs. M. Pâquet, de L'Islet, s'est absenté.
Le 27 mai 1913, sir George ROSS propose, appuyé par M. BOSTOCK, en opposition à la deuxième lecture du Bill:—
“That all the words after the first word “that” be btruck out and the following * substituted:
“ This House is not justified in giving its assent to this bill until it is submitted te “the judgment of the country ” (1).
Cette motion fut adoptée, le 29 mai 1913, par 51 voix contre 27. + + +
Le 5 décembre 1912, en présentait le projei de loi, M. BORDEN avait failles déclarat ons suivantes (2) :
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister):— ,,.....1t js not necessary to dwel upon the increasing power and influence 6f Canada within the Empire, due to its remarkable growth and expansion, and to the wonderful and rapid development of its
fluence there has necessarily come by sure and gradual steps a certain development in our relations with ‘ne United Kingdom and the other dominions. The evolution ef
seems most essential that there should be such Co-operation in defence and in trade as will give to the whole Empire an effectiv= organization in these matters of vital concern. On the other hand, each dominion must preserve in all important respects the autonomous government which it now Possesses. Responsibility for the Exnpire’s defence upon the high seas, in which is to be found the only effective guarantee of its existence, and which has hitherto been assumed by the United Kingdom, has necessarily carried with it responsibility for and control of foreign poliey..... .
When Great Britain no longer assumes sole responsibility for defence upon the high seas, she can no longer undertake to assume sole responsibility for and sole control ef
and have affirmed their conviction that the means by which it can be constitutionally accomplished must be sought, discovered and utilized without delay.
RE RRE PRE RTE RE NS RE FE VUE OCT VU EU Le 3 PR 06 Ve ve 50 ve vs 66 va Ér- ÈS
(1) “Debates of the Senate”, 1912-13, page 758. (2) Debates, House of Commons, 1912-13, col. 676-7.
ving d te
Rebuffades des Ministres Britanniques
4 la Conférence impériale de 1911, sir Joseph WARD, premier-ministre de la Nouvelle-Zélande, Propose : —
Le premier ministre britannique, M. ASQUITH, président de la Conférence, combat nettement la Proposition et la fait rejeter, avec l'appui de sir Wilfrid LAURIER, de M. FISHER, premier ministre d'Australie, de M. BUTHA, Premier ministre de l'Union Sud-Africaine, et de sir Edward MORRIS, premier ministre de Terreneuve, Ds brèves remarques de M. ASQUITH, je détache le Paragraphe suivant :
....What does Sir Joseph Ward’s Proposal come to? I might describe the effect of it, without going into detcile, tr, a couple of sentences. Il would impair if not altegether destroy the authority of the Government of the United Kiugdom In such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the declaration and maintenance of peace, or the declaration of war and, indeed, all those relations with Foreign Powers, necessarily of the most delicate Character, which are now in the hands of the Imperial Government, subject to its responsibility to tne Imperial Parliament. THAT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SHARED, and the coexistence Cabinet of the United Kingd »m of this proposed body — jt doe name you call it for the moment — clothed with the functions which Sir John Ward Proposed to invest it with
fatal to our present system of responsible government. . LE A la suite du discours de M. Borden, du 5 décembre 1912, cité à la pièce précédente, M. HARCOURT, ministre des Colonies, envoie les dépêches suivantes aux Jouverneurs des colonies autonomes (3) :— à No 1.
The Secretary of State to the Governor-General of Australia, the Union of South Africa, and the Governors of New My Lord,
Sir Downing Street, 10th December, 1912.
I am forwarding by post, for the confidential informati
the Governor-General of Zealand and Newfoundland.
This record deals solely with the question of the representation of the Dominions on the Committee of Imperial Defence.
LOmitted to New Zeaiand. Your Ministers, who Were present on will remember that] the matter arose out of a Resolution by Sir Joseph Ward on the Agenda of the Imperial Conference, asking that the High Commiss
(1) Minutes of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1911, (Cd. 5745), page 56.
(2) do Page 71.
(3) Cd. 6560 — 1913. Cette à
pe, 2, été déposée dans les archives du nains 3e * No 85, 1913 not printed). Elle n'a Î Le Flbuée : M Borden, Soc No 85 De où son Treo). de trop trs, té al À É LE
injons should be, summoned to the Committee of Imperial Defence when naval and military matters affecting the Oversea Dominions were under consideration. The vnanimous view of all those present on May 30th, 1911, was that the representation of the Dominions should be not by the High Commissioner but by Ministers who would be responsible to their own colleagues and Parliament, and at the same time it was decided that a Defence Committee should.be established in each Dominion which would be kept in close touch with the Committee of Imperial Defence at home. The Resolutions ultimately put forward by His Majesty's Government and accepted unanimously 1 the members of the Imperial Conference at the: Committee of Imperial Defence were as follows:—(1) That one or more representatives, appointed by the respective ments of the Dominions, should be invited to attend meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence when questions of naval oad military defence affecting the Oversen Dominions are under consideration. (2) The proposal that a Defence Committee should be established in each Dominion js accepted in principle. The constitution of these Defence Committees is a matter for each Dominion to decide.
The Canadian Government having chansed in the autumn of 1911 it was necessary, when Mr. Borden and his colleagues visit: England ‘his summer, to put these proposals before them, as they were of course unaware of the previous proceedings. Subdect to consultation with his colleagues in Canada, Mr. Borden provisionally accepted the resolutions as passed and stated that he saw no difficulty in one of his Ministers, either with or without portfolio, spending some months of every yeur in London in order to carry out this intention. Mr. Asquith and I had, subsequentiy, several private conversations with him, at which he expressed the desire that the Canadian and other Dominions Ministers who might be in London as members of the Committee of Imperial Defence should receive, in confidence, knowledge of the policy and proceedings of the Imperial Government in foreign and other affairs. We pointed out to him that the Committee of Imperial Defence is a purely advisory body and is not, and cannot under any cireumstances become, a body deciding on policy, which is and must remain the sole prerogative of the [British] Cabinet, subject to the support of the House of Commons [of the United Kingdom]. But at the same time we assured him that any Dominions Minister resident here would at all times have free and full access to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary for information on all questions of Imperial policy. In n publie speech which I made a short time ago I used the following words :—
“There is, on the part of Canadian Ministers and people, a natural and taudable desire for a greater measure of consultation and co-operation with us in the future than they have had in the past. This is not intended to, and it need not, open up those difficult problems of Imperial Federation which, seeming to entail questions of taxation and representation, have made that policy for many years a dead issue, But, speaking for myself, I see no abstacle, and certainly no objection, to the Governments of all the Dominions being given at once a larger share in the executive direction in matters of defence and in personal consultation and co-operation with individual British Ministers whose duty it is to frame policy here. 1 should welcome a more continuous representation of Dominions Ministers, if they wish it, upon the Committee of Imperial Defence; we should all be glad if a member or members of those Cabinets could be annually in London, The door of fellowship and friendship is always open to them and we require no formalities of an Imperial Conference for the continuity of Imperial confidence.”
The foregoing aceurately represents the views and intentions ef His Majesty’ * Government.
From M. Borden’s public speech in introdueing the Canadian Naval Bill, it appears that he accepts the proposals which we have made. The same offer is, of course, open to ali the other self-governing Dominions if and when they wish to adopt it, but the proposal is not one of necessary or strict uniformity and can be varied in the case of each or any Dominisn to suit their wishes or the special ciroumstances of their case.
cms us mont + X20®, at heir convenience, whether your linistors Committee of Done rrore, continuous connexion in naval and me °€ Imperial Defence in the United Kingdom.
1 have, &ec.,
His Majesty's Government Propose to time, an you will br :nformed of dete
publish this des atch here in à short when publication will take place.
(Sent 8.50 p.m., 10th December, :512.) Tolegram.
adürezsed following despateh by CET | Newfoundland, and have 1p-
M. Borden Communiqua ces deux dépêches à
la Chambre des Communes, le 17 janvier, 1913, sans aucun commentaire.
FIRTSSNRTRNITE RETENU RESTE Terels
LR LARMES:
to be grateful because es of the loyai colonies,
be grateful because throughout all our controversies with the sb diplomacy has been dominated (as Sir Charles Tupper has toi
which were clearly ours?
12 Ought we to be grateful for the treaty of Washington (1871) against which Sir John A. Macdonald protested s0 vigorously—grateful for the work of British negotiators who, as Sir John said, had “only one thing in their minds—that
RE AV SS-HE CS AS ve QU ES
