To protect our coasts, to look after our trade routes-never rise to the idea of empire. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any fight for supremacy on the seas, that fight will occur in the North sea. Sea fights are not like land fights. You may have a war on land for four or five years. But Togo destroyed the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan in forty minutes; the fleet of Spain was destroyed in the harbour of Manilla in an hour and a half; the Spanish fleet at Santiago was sunk in a few hours; Nelson won the victory of Trafalgar in three hours. And if the British fleet is ever to be challenged by the German fleet, it will be challengd in the North sea, and the battle will be finished in not more than a few hours. We are interested in seeing to that, if the supremacy of Britain on the seas be challenged by Germany or any other power, our interest should be protected. And, if we have a feeling of loyalty towards the British empire, if we appreciate the advantages and privileges of living under British institutions, if we really desire the empire's success, if our conception of the destiny of Canada is that she should remain in that empire, we should be anxious to contribute to the strength of the only weapon that can protect the integrity of the empire
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) was in Toronto a short time "ago and made a speech there before the Ontario Club, which is reported in the 'Globe' of Friday, February 18 last. Speaking of us poor sinners on this side, he said:
They disregarded the resolution of last session, in which they had concurred, that a contribution of money would not be satisfactory.
He did not believe that the people of Canada to-day were going to send tribute across the Atlantic to be expended by other men.
Now, knowing the hon. Minister of Justice as well as I do, I was unwilling to believe that he would misrepresent the position taken by the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and I set myself to ascertain, if possible, whether he had any excuse for making that statement. And I think I discovered it. Our minister of war (Sir Frederick Borden) delivered a speech here on February 10, and if hon. gentlemen will look it up, "they will see that the hon. minister declared that the resolution that
was presented by the Prime Minister last March was the one that was finally adopted by this House, and he puts it on ' Hansard ' just as it appeared when first read by the Prime Minister. Let me read it to you:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House reaffirms the opinion repeatedly expressed by representatives of Canada, that under the present constitutional relation between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of any stated contribution to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be a satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
You will remember that that is the paragraph as it appeared in the resolution brought in by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Militia has referred to that as the one finally adopted. But it was not so. The one that was finally adopted was changed to make that paragraph read 'the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury ' would not be satisfactory. You catch the difference at once. The resolution as first brought in by the Prime Minister would prohibit us giving any monetary contribution under any circumstances. It was amended as I have said. The Minister of Militia, our minister of war, did not know then, and does not know now, that that amendment was made by the resolution. Not only the minister of war does not seem to have known of that amendment, but the Minister of Justice also. For I cannot believe that- the Minister of Justice misrepresented the case. We studied law together, and I do not believe he would do such a thing; I choose to believe that he did not know that the resolution was amended so as to permit the giving of a monetary contribution. The Minister of Militia puts into this resolution a whole paragraph that was cut out:
The House has observed with satisfaction
They actually wanted to put this in at first.
-the relief afforded in recent years to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom through the assumption by the Canadian people of considerable military expenditure formerly charged upon the imperial treasury.
It required a high degree of courage to propose to send that home to the old country when Sir William White had examined the dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, and had found that the government had allowed them to tumble to pieces. That paragraph is entirely cut out of the resolution as finally passed, but our war minister did not know it. There is no mistake about that, for I took the trouble Mr. CROTHERS.
to read his whole speech to see about it. Before reading the resolution, he said:
The hon. member for North Toronto introduced a resolution which was afterwards changed into the resolution which finally and unanimously passed this House. . . . Without detaining the House, I shall proceed to read that resolution.
Then he proceeds to read the resolution that the Prime Minister first brought in. I thought that perhaps he had made a slip, so I took the trouble to go to the Printing Bureau on the 21st of last month, to examine the proof-sheets, and I found that they had all been corrected, but the resolution was left there. And you will find it in the revised edition, as I have it here represented as having been finally passed, namely the one that the Prime Minister brought in first. So that accounts for the Minister of Justice making the statement he did in Toronto. He did not know that it had been amended-our minister of war did not know that it had been amended-he does not know now. He revised the proof-sheets and this is in the revised edition. It is going down to future generations of our people as the resolution passed by this House.
Subtopic: NAVY ESTIMATES.