Are We Equal to the Occasion?

Mr. President and Gentlemen,

I shall endeavour not to detain you in trying to find out what I meant by asking the question "Are we equal to the occasion?" The occasion I refer to, as most of you have probably supposed, is that of forming ourselves into an Empire. Are the people composing or inhabiting the various parts of what has heretofore been called the British Empire equal to the occasion of forming themselves into a body, especially for defence and for whatever other matters of regulation they see fit, or not? In speaking of this country you will understand that I am not at any time speaking in a partisan way. It is necessary of course to make references, and names perhaps are mentioned which might strike you as political, but I do not intend it in that way.

My opinion is that at the present time the great point of conflict in this country is, Shall we do something towards making ourselves into an Empire, or shall we do nothing? One policy certainly is for the taking of steps; the other is certainly for waiting, and allowing ourselves to drift further. In support of my idea I will endeavour to make quotations which will satisfy you, I think, that I have some ground for so doing.

There is growing up in this country undoubtedly a disposition among people who should know better, to forsake their duties and responsibilities as men and as members of this great Empire, whose privileges have come down to them and have enabled them to enjoy the freedom and civilization which they have today. But I regret to say that there is one man enjoying the Senatorial dignity and this is his conception of the duties of citizenship, and after I read it to you I will leave you to form your opinion of him, and to say what type of Canadianism you propose to call his. In the Senate Debates on Thursday, November 28th, 1912, on page 64 will be found these words spoken by the Honourable Senator Cloran, who all through his speech deprecated taking any action whatever in connection with Imperial co-operation or federation of any description, and who also says, "No European power can place a soldier on our shores or fire a shot at sea against us without the United States saying, 'No, it won't be done.' There would be our protection." Then he goes on, "As long as we are tied up with Downing Street and the other interests in England, the United States has nothing to do but -permit us to be attacked by Russia, Japan, or China, one of which, probably in a hundred years from now, will be among the mightiest nations on earth." That is his conception of the development of a loyal Canadian, pro-British, pro-Imperial spirit. It is not necessary to say that the man is a traitor. (Hear, hear) He occupies a position which might enable him to thwart the will of the people; he is a Senator and might assist in throwing out some measure adopted by us. He avowedly says he is in favour of the United States protecting us, rather than having us tying ourselves up to Downing Street in any way. I say the man should be stripped of his senatorial dignity, and I think we are recreant to our duties and aspirations if we allow such things as that to go unchallenged. The first time I read the report I was so disgusted I could hardly be patient about it; at the present time I am not less impatient about it, and therefore I read it to you. (Applause)

The point I indicated to you, that is whether Canada shall continue to float along under the protection of the British flag without incurring any expense or any risk, or whether we shall have some strength and some pride -at least enough to enable us to say: "Let us proceed in the proper way to a solution of what may have seemed in the past a difficult problem." Look at Palestine. Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity; there is no liquor drunk in Palestine; the positive and negative conditions are there in perfection, and yet Palestine is the most God-forsaken desolate hole on the face of the earth. Why? Because the people have no spirit; and the people who would continue to brag and boast of being a nation, as some of our people are forever doing, haven't got the first spark of nationality or nationhood, namely, a pride in themselves and a desire to pay their way like honest men. What would you think of us as individuals if we proceeded to hang to the coat-tails of some great man, and occasionally relieved our gnawing stomachs by sitting at his table or picking up the crumbs on the floor? What would you think if we went out and boasted of our pride and manhood? What would you say? Rotten manhood, nothing in it. Neither is there in that alleged Canadian spirit which can allow matters to go on thus any longer.

It seems to me that the lesson that we should learn and take to heart and preach and exemplify, is that which was preached by the Honourable George Brown at the time of Confederation. You will remember at that time when all these difficulties arose in the country, Sir John Macdonald wished to bring about a legislative union, but the Honourable George Brown said, "No, let there be provincial autonomy, at any rate in all matters of the character that have been outlined in the British North America Act since." This was agreed to; Honourable George Brown was the chairman of the committee which dealt with the matter. To him really belongs the credit of being the Father of Confederation in Canada. There is a disposition sometimes to deprive him of that right, but it does not matter; the records speak for themselves; he was the great heroic figure at the basis of Canadian Confederation. It has worked out to perfection; we find that leaving ratters of trade and commerce--(which we do not require to deal with in an Imperial way at all)--matters of the criminal law and so on, to the Federal House, all the things that the provincial people wish to deal with are incorporated in the Act and specially delegated to the provinces chiefly interested, so that they have the utmost liberty with regard to their provincial or domestic concerns. Now this has worked out perfectly satisfactorily. Of course we have a row occasionally, but we cannot get along without some system of binding ourselves together, unless of course we are a lot of wild Indians or anarchists, in which event we are incapable of subjecting ourselves to a proper measure of law or administration. But since that has worked out so perfectly, why does it not suggest itself to us that we apply it to Imperial concerns? (Applause) Since it is responsible government we want, why let us have it as we have it now. The Imperial Conference, the Colonial Conference, the Imperial Defence Committee, or whatever you choose to call it--let that be a body advisory or otherwise, but let it be understood that we are not shirking our duty, and that we are prepared to make an arrangement; and believe me, there's the pith of the present struggle. Are you prepared to make an arrangement with Great Britain, with Australia, with New Zealand, and the other Dominions beyond the Seas, or are you not? If you are not prepared, you cannot convince me that you have got any Imperial spirit or any desire to co-operate. (Applause) If you want to co-operate, say that you are going to cooperate. Look at marriage. Marriage is a sentiment, we trust the purest and noblest of sentiments. How long would living together be permitted or how long would it last without the introduction of the contractual relation? We have a contract that is signed, sealed, and delivered. Because sentiment cannot be trusted, sentiment varies, but if you have sentiment you have that which sentiment prompts, that is the desire to come to an understanding; and if you have the real Imperial sentiment, a desire to co-operate, you will say, "Let us form a contract for a certain length of time, revocable if you will, but make a contract." Do not say responsible government when it is not a case of responsible government. All I have got to say is if I were England I would leave Canada to its fate. People that talk like that do not deserve decent treatment; they are not fair; they are not honest, if I must say it. Anybody who treated me like that would be treated in a very peculiar way in return if they kept it up very long. There has got to be some fair play shown in the matter. Now I have here the minutes of the Colonial Conference; they are the official minutes which I took the trouble to bring with me because copies sometimes do not satisfy people. Here is where I think the trouble began; the cloven hoof appears here. In the discussion of naval defence on May 8, 1907, Mr. Brodeur who spoke for Canada at the request and by the announcement of the Prime Minister of Canada, and of course Canada is the country that speaks here-I am not saying that any political party spoke it, Canada spoke it,--and you will see presently what Tupper said, and I entirely disagree with what he said. Mr. Brodeur said

"Lord Elgin and Gentlemen,--I have nothing to say except to thank heartily Lord Tweedmouth for having been good enough to recognize what Canada has been doing in regard to its defence." And then he goes on to say, "There was a discussion in previous years to the effect that we should contribute something directly to the British Navy. I may say with regard to that there is only one mind in Canada on that question, and if it was necessary I should be able to quote the remarks made lately in an article published by Sir Charles Tupper, who is certainly one of the men best qualified to speak in Canada upon the question. I think, perhaps, I might mention what he said in regard to this. He said, 'It is known that from the outset I have felt the cause of Canada and the true interests of the Empire to be opposed to the demand for colonial contributions to the Imperial Navy,' and 'I maintain that Canada has discharged that duty in the manner most conducive to Imperial interests.'"

That is, gentlemen of the Empire Club, by doing nothing and pretending to protect her fisheries. So it shows that both sides of politics in Canada agree with the policy that has been going on for some time there. This is in 1907, the announcement to the Conference of what we are prepared to do, that is, we are not prepared to do anything. And how absurd, in my opinion, it is to talk about our sincerity in refusing the creation of an Empire, when we consider that the whole theory of cooperation is involved. Any man who declines to co-operate with another in the interests of peace, is open to the suspicion that he has an arriere pensee of some sort. The people in civilized countries co-operate for what purpose? Not for the purposes of rivalry and conflict, but for the purpose of producing peaceful conditions. Do we not want that one country in this world should co-operate with another in order that misunderstandings may be done away with and that these countries may come together from time to time to devise means for quieting and allaying feelings that arise and that might ultimately produce conflict? Isn't that what we want? If it is not what we want, then I am very seriously mistaken. If people decline therefore to come forward and to co-operate on a definite understanding, it is because they want to be by themselves; they want to establish a separate individuality, and the more separate individualities you have in the world the greater the likelihood of conflict and war. It is only by cooperation towards a proper end that peace can possibly be maintained, either in the world at large or in our domestic concerns. (Applause)

Now I wish to quote something further. At the Naval Defence discussion continued on May 9th, 1907, Dr. Smartt said, "Would I be in order in moving this naval resolution after the discussion yesterday? I do not think it would take any time because it is a resolution which requires no remarks to make it acceptable -to the Conference." This is the resolution: "That this Conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the Navy in the defence of the Empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the Navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the Dominions beyond the Seas to make such contributions towards the upkeep of the Navy as may be determined by their local legislatures,-a contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other service in such manner as may be decided after consultation with the Admiralty, and as will best accord with their varying circumstances."

You would think that would, to a large extent, meet the requirements of the occasion; it is indefinite enough to suit anybody, although it expresses a desire to come to closer quarters. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, "I am sorry to say so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in that respect in our country before committing ourselves to a general claim." Dr. Smartt then says, "Still it is developing and opening up the country to an enormous extent. All the colonies are building themselves up. I understand Canada suggested strongly the other day that some of their other services were in the nature of local defence." But Sir Wilfrid goes on to say, "The resolution can be passed if there is a majority. For my part I must vote against it." And further on he says, "We of the different Dominions beyond the Seas have tried to be unanimous up to the present time. I am sorry to say that this is a question upon which we could not be unanimous. Therefore Dr. Smartt can move it if he choose, or withdraw it. But if he presses it, I shall have to vote against it."

There spoke the Prime Minister of Canada, and from what he said I fancy that is the way Sir Charles Tupper would have spoken. But is that the way the people of Canada want their opinions in this matter to be voiced? I should hope not; I should think not. Whether it be a matter of local defence, as Dr. Smartt says in his resolution, or any other scheme, or whether it be under the control of the Imperial Conference or a Colonial Conference or an Imperial Defence Committee, or anything you like, let us reach the one point that is necessary for us, namely, to agree now to co-operate the very instant the defence of the Empire is required and the Empire is in danger. Let us agree on that. I do riot care; I say let Borden's policy go to the winds tomorrow if we can come to a compromise so that we can get that most important of all steps taken, and that step is

"Yes, yes, we agree that when it is said that war is declared or is about to be declared or that we are upon our defence, that we must spring to each other's assistance; all our resources are at your command." But to say as the Act of 1910 says, the Act upon which one party in Canada,that is the do-nothing party, the standstill party-wish to act, "The Governor-in-Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof on active service at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency." Now that is explained by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who is quoted in Hansard of 1909-1910 Vol. 1, page 1734, where he is introducing Bill No. 95, that "the Act provides that at any time when the Governor-in-Council deems it advisable in case of war, invasion, or insurrection, the force may be called into active service." What sort of an agreement is that? If the Governor-in-Council deems it advisable! The war might be over. What sort of an agreement for co-operation is that? What sort of co-operation in business would it be if a man said, "Well, you go on and I may help you; I will see about it, I won't bind myself, I will see about it." And when the time comes and you are in danger, he says, "Well, let me see, I' think I have about all I can do myself, I don't think I will go into this thing." What bank is there that would loan a dollar on such an understanding? What people is there that would contend for one moment that that is any sort of co-operation or any sort of agreement or any sort of federation, confederation, or otherwise? That is my view of it. Other people may think differently, but that is my view of it, and I earnestly hope that before this thing is threshed out, whether it be the Borden policy or somebody else's policy that is adopted, I earnestly hope that the decision will be not to fence any longer, not to indulges in absurd platitudes any longer, but to say, "Yes, we are going to do something, let us hasten to find out how best we can do it, but we want you to understand that when the Empire is at war we are at war." (Hear, hear) Now, the operating clause of Borden's Bill is this way, it is a very inoffensive thing, it is left wide open on purpose--I think Mr. Borden would have been open to severe censure if he had done anything else-it is left this way on purpose that the loyal sentiment may be crystallized, but how it may be crystallized is a matter for future agreement and understanding. Section 5 of his Bill says, "The said sum--that is the sum that is to be devoted to the establishment, whether $35,000,000 or not--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 Governor-in-Council and His Majesty's Government." That is all, "as may be agreed upon," assuming of course that an agreement will be reached, but binding us in no way as to the details of that agreement. Do we want to assist or not? If not, why not say to the Old Country, "We have kept up this sham long enough, we intend, as Senator Cloran says, to rely on the Monroe Doctrine, and shelter ourselves like a lot of rank cowards behind a nation that would justly despise us, and amongst whose Senators I doubt if one could be found who would utter sentiments approaching Senator Cloran's about his country." The Americans are too proud-spirited for that; I am very much mistaken if they would not take the most speedy means of kicking him out of their Senate.

Now it must be remembered in order to satisfy the scruples of those people who object to war--I may say I object to it on every account-that while the Scriptures say we should be void of offence, they do not say we should be void of defence, and I think that should be borne in mind. Those people who do not believe in war or in taking any measures to protect themselves always shelter themselves behind the people who do. (Laughter) The people who preach Peace, Peace, will always call Police, Police. Of course they will. Why the whole system of Nature is built upon activity, more or less of conflict, and while we are expecting that some day reason will dominate, it can dominate only by means of cooperation, and if we refuse to co-operate, then, as I said before, we are criminal in our disregard of the first requirement of peace.

The Memorandum from the Admiralty of which you have heard so much is worth quoting because it suggests a way of acting. This memorandum, as you know, was drawn up by the British Admiralty in response to the request of the Prime Minister of Canada to be furnished with some data in order to enable the Parliament of Canada and the people to consider the question. "The Prime Minister of the Dominion having inquired in what form any immediate aid that Canada might give would be most effective, we have no hesitation in answering after a prolonged consideration of all the circumstances, that it is desirable that such aid should involve the provision of a certain number of the largest and strongest ships of war which science can build or money supply." Now there may be a better way; I do not say that there is not; but if the Admiralty .of Great Britain suggests, as it has done, to Canada a way by which they can enter into an immediate bond of union or agreement upon a certain vital question, I should think it is worthy of consideration. "After prolonged consideration," they say, "if you want to co-operate with us, there is your way." I blame Mr. Borden for saying that if the people are not satisfied after this is done, they may reconsider it,-that is the general tenor and trend of his remarks. I think he should have taken a stand, I think he should have announced his permanent policy, because I think the people want it; they do not want any more fooling; but (for mercy's sake) when we say we will give $35,000,000 to an Imperial Navy, and when it is upon an Imperial Navy of Imperial Defence and protection that we depend for our citizenship, I think it is time we did something. If we were walking in South Africa, the humblest Kaffir might give us a clout on the side of the head and say, "What is the matter with hitting him? He is only a Canadian; he is living in the realms of peace over there; we will see how it works." If we were indignant and protested that we were a British citizen, Great Britain, with a certain air of cynical superiority that you could not blame her for would say, "Certainly my dear little Canadian, we who have paid the way for a long time are an Imperial people and we will look after you." And they would look after the poor little Canadian and he would come back as cocky as ever, and when he is asked for five dollars he would say, "No, I must look after responsible government; I don't mind Britain being responsible to Canada, but God forbid that Canada should ever be responsible to Britain or the other Dominions beyond the Seas. (Laughter and applause)