Gentlemen, to meet the imminent needs of the empire, we put at your disposal this sum of money. Mr. Speaker, if that money is drawn under those circumstances, it will be done by men in whom this government has implicit confidence, and upon their testimony that there is imminent need. Will anybody here impute to the government of Great Britain the flagrant dishonesty of drawing money that is put at their disposal when there is no imminent need for it, and that she will take it only to put it in her pocket? When hon. gentlemen tell us that we are throwing $25,000,000 across the Atlantic to these people, giving it away as a pure gift, as the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Beland) said-that is an imputation upon British statesmen whose testimony we are willing to accept as the testimony of men who know what the truth is with regard to the question of urgency. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this money is drawn, I say we have conclusive evidence on the most reliable testimony of the need of that money, if it is drawn we have given it when there was imminent necessity; and even the right hon. gentleman and his government say that in case of imminent necessity, of course, we ought to give immediate assistance.
I would like to know where the hon. member for Cape Breton finds in that speech or in these words any statement that could give any one with ordinary judgment and common sense the idea that we were sending this money over with the knowledge and expectation that it was never to be used. Yet the hon. member once or twice congratulated and felicitated himself on the fact that he never misquoted other people.
The hon. gentleman also brought in the loyalty question. Now, I do not care to talk on the loyalty question. When a man is easy in his own mind with regard to his feelings of loyalty to the empire to which he belongs, he is not ready to suspect others of disloyalty. I had the privilege the other morning of attending the annual meeting of the Dominion Rifle Association, at which there were present militia officers from all parts of the Dominion, and I think one of the most loyal utterances I heard on that occasion came from a colonel commanding one of the regiments in Quebec. He said that if this matter of a navy could only be left to the militia officers of the country, they would soon settle it in a way that would be agreeable to the people and provide properly for defence, or words to that effect, and he was cheered to the echo. I have no doubt at all of the thorough loyalty of the people of Quebec, and never have had, and certainly since this matter has come up, if any one had any doubt about it, that doubt must have been removed by the expressions of loyalty that we have heard on all sides from gentlemen from that province. Outside and beyond that, and appealing only to
self-interest, if there are people in any one province in Canada to-day who more than any other should have a feeling of loyalty and reverence for the British Crown and the British power, it is the people of the province of Quebec. They hold a position unique in the whole British empire. They have treaty rights which no subject of the Crown in any other parts of the world have; and if the power of Britain were broken and Canada separated itself from the British empire, those rights would pass away, and be as if they never had been. So I say the people of Quebec, loyal as they are, have more business reasons for loyalty to the British Crown and for a desire to support and strengthen it, than the people of any other province in the whole Dominion of Canada. So much for the remarks of my hon. friend.
With regard to the question before the House, one of the hon. members, in discussing the ideas of the members of the opposition, endeavoured to poke a little fun at us by saying that no matter how we on this side might criticise the proposals of the government, this was the first time anything practical had been offered to be done. Supposing for a moment that is true, I reply that this is the first time there has been any necessity for anything of the kind to be done. The rise of the nations of the world owning navies has been of the most recent date. The navy of the United States is only a comparatively few years old; Japan is a new nation; while Germany as a sea-power has risen into prominence only within a very few years. The Royal Navy has been patrolling our North Atlantic ocean up to within the last three or four years, when a new policy was inaugurated by Sir John Fisher, the new Lord of the Admiralty. Before that Halifax was the naval station of the North Atlantic squadron in summer and Bermuda in the winter. It was a larger and stronger fleet than the one proposed by the government in the Bill now before the House. This fleet or parts of it visited different parts of the country, including Quebec and Montreal, and it was not until that fleet was withdrawn and until Germany had been showing its determination to have immense power on the sea as it has on the land, that there has been the slightest necessity for Canada to go to any expense, large or small, for naval purposes. I think there is no doubt about that, so that in the circumstances I take it nothing has been done hitherto because there has been no necessity for anything to be done. But now all that is changed. A new naval programme has been given to the world. Germany has announced her intention, in most unmistakable terms, to dispute the supremacy of the sea and wrest that supremacy from Great Britain. That she will suc-1391 . ,j ^ ;
ceed I do not believe, for England will spend her last shilling and her last man before she will allow Germany or any other nation to get the upper hand. But the war, if you call it war, is on now. It is a war of, construction and must be kept up. The people who advocate making every endeavour to keep up with this great war of construction which is going on, are not militarists and jingoes. This rapid building of new battleships and Dreadnoughts is not for the purpose of making war, but for the purpose of preventing war, and that is the only way war can be prevented, especially with such an enormously wealthy and powerful country as Germany. I came across the other day a statement made by a Chinese Minister of War some five centuries before the Christian era, and what did he say. He said:
To fight and conquer one hundred times is not the perfection of attainment, the supreme art being to subdue the enemy without fighting.
That is the reason why this building of Dreadnoughts as rapidly as possible is being carried on. It is in order that war may be prevented and the enemy conquered without fighting.
With regard to our connection with Great Britain in the empire, that appears to me one of the most important subjects in connection with this debate. I take it that our interests are bound firmly with those of Great Britain and the rest of the empire. Britain is our best customer. The men who, out on the great rolling prairie, are gathering in those enormous harvests, find a market for their product in the old country. We can say the same of the products of the east. Who are the people that buy our lumber and the other commodities we have to export? The British people take by far the largest part. So that outside of the bonds of heredity, tradition, history and affection, .there are the bonds of business interests, which unite us to the mother country. And this vast business can only be safely carried on if protected by a navy. And for that protection we have to depend on the British navy, or rather, I would say, if my wishes were carried out, the navy of the empire. The supreme law, in connection with governing bodies, is the safety of the people. The safety of the people is the highest law of all, and in order that this empire may be safe, the royal navy must be supreme. Destroy that navy and you put an end to the empire.
Take this Navy Bill we are discussing, what is the object of a navy? Is it for the purpose of establishing ship-building plants or docks? I should say not. I quite agree that the establishment of shipbuilding yards is important because shipbuilding is a great industry which will give employment to a great number of people.
I take it that docks are necessary, whether we have a navy or not, but the great reason for a navy is strategical. The great object of a navy is defence, so that in -considering what is the best kind of navy to have, I take it that the strategical reason is the one which should come before all others. But if we want a navy for strategical purposes we must have a great imperial navy. That is my idea of a naval force1-a navy of imperial dimensions, a navy for the defence of the whole empire, a navy under one control. In that connection the Prime Minister of New Zealand gave expression to a sentiment which appeals to my mind as absolutely correct. He said:
Recognizing how important it is for the protection of the empire that the navy should be at the absolute disposal of the admiralty, Your Excellency's advisers do not desire to suggest any conditions as to the location of The ships, as they are confident that the truest interests of the people of New Zealand *will be best served by having a powerful navy under the independent control of those responsible for directing it in time of peace or war. What the government does feel concerned in is, that the navy in whatever part of the world it may be, should be under one control, so that the most effective results for the defence of all portions.of the empire may be assured.
Those most effective results can only be obtained by one navy, one control and one flag. We are an immense chain of countries, a chain surrounding the globe, separated-no, not separated-bound together by the sea, and immense possibilities open out before us when we consider what may be our destiny as part of this great British empire.
Away off to the south we have Australia, an island it is true, but a continent as well; some four millions of people there now, but to become many millions; with, at this moment, two transcontinental railways projected to run from the southern part of the island to the north bringing into cultivation and opening out for settlement the immense territories some of which have hardly ever-I suppose some even never-been viewed by white men. And we have stretching away across this ocean. New Zealand. It appears to me that the very dream of such an immense empire as this will become, if we are true to ourselves, is sufficient not only to fire the imagination but to warm the heart of every well-wisher of the flag that flies over us and of the country to which we belong. Such a navy, an imperial navy, should be, in so far as we are concerned, supported by all the wealth which we are able to give to that end. It will be just as important for us in the future as it is in the present for the great heart of the empire In the old country that this navy should be great. I do not look for it in my life Mr. DANIEL.
time, but I think of the time in the years to come when Canada will be the dominant partner in this great British empire if we are so minded as to draw closer the bonds of union and not separate them or loosen them as, I am very much afraid, this present navy Bill will do-and that is one reason, and a great reason, why I am opposed to it. I have spoken of one navy. That does not mean at all, and I do not mean to convey the impression, that we should not have the opportunity of building the ships for that navy, or of our part of it, in Canada. I see no reason why, when we provide the facilities in this country to build vessels of war to- become part of our navy and thereby part of the great imperial navy, they should not be built in this country. On the contrary I see every reason why they should be built here. The same thing applies to the manning of the navy. For that purpose this legislation is not required. The old Militia Act divides the militia of this country into land forces and sea forces. Under the Act the militia of Canada is divided into active and reserve militia and the active militia consists of (a) corps raised by voluntary enlistment; (b) corps raised by ballot. Included in the active militia are seamen, sailors and persons whose usual occupation is upon any steam sailing craft navigating the waters of Canada. It even makes arrangement for submarine work. So this naval militia is not confined to the present Act, but as a matter of fact, years ago, there were companies Of naval militia in Canada. There was a company of naval militia in the port of St. John and not only that, but they had a training ship there loaned from the royal navy, the old 'Charybdis'. She was there for quite a long time, an old full-rigged sailing ship with some auxiliary steam. But she was not popular with the naval militia there and the movement finally died out. But the fact that these naval militia corps were in existence and. that we had the training ships show that we had and have sufficient power to train men for the sea, to utilize training ships and all that that implies. We have had that power for years. Since I came to this House, I have noticed the vote of $10,000 for naval militia. But it was shown that part of that vote for one year was spent in paying for the trip to Paris of the then Minister of Marine. That much I have been able to find out, but not how the rest of the money was expended. But there is the fact-the appropriations were made showing that we have the power to enrol and train naval militia. I say, let us stick to that. This Act gives us power to establish a naval college. Let us establish it. And let us put our trained men on the ships that we
build, after we set facilities to build them, and make these ships part and parcel of the great imperial navy. Another thing is that, if we have the naval college, and ask young men to go through, take the training that that college affords, we must be able to offer them a career when they fit themselves for these positions. Such a navy would give a magnificent career to any young man passing through the naval college, because he would not only have a little navy such as the government propose to establish, but he would have a career in which the whole imperial navy would open out for his ambition. And, if we have an imperial navy, there must be some voice in the making of war and controlling the policy the navy is intended to carry out. This would require an imperial council, and we may hope that this could be formed. I do not doubt that the authorities in the old country have had that under consideration. A scheme could be devised under which, if all the nations of the empire took part in making a great imperial navy, arrangements could be made by which each portion of the empire would have its say in the control of that navy. If we are to get the best and the most for our money, to offer the best and brightest career for our young men, giving a chance also to the men who would not be officers but would man the fleet and giving to every one an opportunity to become a member of that fleet, this would be the best course. It would be a navy which we, could call our own; it vrould not be like this little local fleet that we are proposing to- build, but we would have a share in this great imperial navy which even now is by far the strongest that the world has ever seen. Therefore, I think it is a matter which ought to be given every consideration.
We have had a number of quotations from writers in the Fortnightly ' Review.' I wish to quote from an article in that periodical by Mr. J. L. Garvin, in a note entitled ' The Dominions and the Navy.' He says;
It may be asked, what of Greater Britain? Canada is founding a navy of her own. A few decades hence it might begin to be a serious force in the world if the territories of the Dominion are still under the same flag
It would look as if the significance of clause 18 of this Bill had travelled across the Atlantic, and the people over there really understood its meaning.
-if the territories of the Dominion are still under the same flag. There is lively dissension on the whole subject. Some Quebec Liberals are still against all naval expenditure. Many Conservatives denounce ' tinpot navies,' and are strongly in favour of direct contributions to the imperial fleet, but there
seems not the slightest chance of unanimity in this sense. Australia is also creating a federal navy, which will not be able for many years to throw a sensible weight into the-strategical scales. With the system of direct contributions, New Zealand is not entirely satisfied. South Africa, as yet, is not moving. One conclusion is clear. What was called last spring the ' awakening of the empire ' upon the naval problem has not been very effective for strictly imperial purposes. Under the systems they have decided to adopt (and it may be conceded that, in view of the present state of sentiment in Greater Britain, no other course was possible), Australia and Canada can neither save themselves nor effectually help us.
I would call the attention of members to this statement:
Stern experience may teach the people of the Commonwealth
I presume that should be commonwealths.
-the necessity of larger sacrifices and closer combination with the mother country and each other. Meanwhile this island must go forwTard by its own strength, and upon that the whole empire depends. Australian and Canadian squadrons can do nothing to affect the issue in the North Sea. Our efforts in the North Sea may mean all for them. That is the situation, and we must rise to it. If we have full determination to keep the sea, we can keep it. Though the price will be high we can pay it, and nothing in our history will be greater than the spectacle of this little island staking all its resources once more for naval supremacy, wearing down a more formidable rivalry than we have ever met, and holding on at all costs through peace and, if need be, through war until events, far hence, perhaps, shall compel, as they will, the fighting partnership of the w-hole Englishspeaking world.
By this Bill, in addition to a naval militia, provision is made for a naval college, a permanent force and its control. Of course the important features are the permanent force and its control. '
The Prime Minister, on the 15th November, speaking on this subject, said that we should look on this matter not alone as Canadians, but as British subjects. He said:
We are Canadians, but we are something else also, we are British subjects as well. We have to consider this subject, not only from the standpoint of our status as Canadians, but we have to approach it from the standpoint of our status as British subjects. If we have duties to perform as Canadians, we have also duties to perform as British subjects. If we have rights, privileges and responsibilities as Canadians, we also have rights, privileges and responsibilities as British subjects."
In another part of his speech he says: [DOT]I am for Canada first, last and all the
there. We had a personal interest, in many cases a family interest, in it. The war was ours because our own people were interested in it.
These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I intend to vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition. I take it that the statements that have been made with regard to the immense efforts that Germany is making, the feverish rapidity with which she is struggling to make herself the equal or the superior, if she can, of Great Britain on the seas, axe something that we must take to heart. The preparations of Germany, already a great colossus of military power, with a million of men under arms all the time, and four millions to call upon whenever she needs them-not raw recruits, but men who have passed through the landwehr or similar school of military training-are something that we should take to heart. It is a matter of as much interest to British subjects in Canada as to British subjects in Great Britain or to British subjects in Australia. I for one will never vote to haul down the Union Jack from this country. I will not vote for the passing of any Bill which can be turned into a declaration of independence or an Act of separation from the empire of which we form a part; but I stand for British connection, for a closer consolidation of the various portions of this empire, so that we may look forward to the realization in the future of that dream of which I have spoken already, when these great countries, and as they will be in time these populous countries, bound together by ties of interest and blood and affection and sentiment, shall become the greatest galaxy of nations in the world, able not only to protect ourselves from injury, but to uphold the peace of the world.
Subtopic: NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.