1922-05-16

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 93 to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: This bill is a short one, and the principal clauses in it contain amendments raising the ages of girls, in the case of indecent assault, from 14 to 16, and carnally knowing from 14 to 16; removing the words "of previous chaste character" in the latter case; and repealing an amendment inserted in the Senate in 1920 that in the case of seduction and for carnally knowing a girl between 14 and 16 the trial judge may instruct the jury that, if in their view the evidence does not show that the accused is wholly or chiefly to blame for the commission of the offence, they may find a verdict of acquittal. These provisions were all passed by the House of Commons last year but were rejected in the Senate. In addition to these there is a provision extending the provisions about bribing police officers to police commissioners; and one correcting a technical error with respect to section 244. This section imposes a penalty for the offences mentioned in the three preceding sections, but by an amendment some sections were added to the code and inserted in the middle of these three sections so as to raise a doubt as to the application of section 244. There is a provision to protect English hall marks on gold and silver; a provision to remove a doubt as to what the maximum penalty should be for stealing an automobile; an amendment to the section with respect to the carriage of animals by railways, to do away with the necessity of getting a written request from the owner to enable the railway to keep the animals the maximum time in the cars, that is, 36 hours; a repeal of the section giving the clerk and deputy clerk of the peace at Montreal and Three Rivers certain powers of justices-the repeal of this section has been requested by the Attorney General's Department of Quebec-a provision giving municipalities of Ontario the j fines when they bear the expense of administering the law under which the same are imposed instead of paying them to the province as at present; and an amendment extending the provisions of section 1038, which enables certain penalties to be recovered by civil process, so as to make it include corporations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a certain proposed resolution concerning amendments to:
The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, chapter 17 of the statutes of 1911, as amended by chapter 31 of the statutes of 1920 and chapter 42 of the statutes of 1921.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) :: Reference was made yesterday by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) to a question which was put to the Government some days ago in regard to a certain judgment which was rendered by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba in connection with the Canada Grain Act. As soon as I came into possession of the judgment and the notes of the judges I studied the case. I had a conference with my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) and the member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales), to whom I intimated my views of the case. They both requested an opportunity of meeting the members of the board before anything should be decided upon. I acceded to the request and was governed accordingly. The members of the board, I may say, arrived in Ottawa this morning, or last night. This morning they had a conference with the Minister of Trade and Commerce at which I understand, the member for Saltcoats was also present. They informed me a few minutes before the opening of the House to-day that they had not yet arrived at any final decision but would come to a conclusion during the course of the day. To-morrow, therefore, I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House as to what decision the Government will take in the matter.
Supply Bill



ASSINIBOINE RIVER FLOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: I desire to call the attention of
the House and of the Government to a matter of great concern to the province of Manitoba. I refer to the overflowing of the river Assiniboine. As hon. members have no doubt read in the papers, a great deal of land has been flooded in the constituency of Brandon, and the destruction has spread further east until now Portage la Prairie, which I have the honour to represent, is affected. I have no definite information as to the total destruction caused by the flood, but it will be seen from the press reports that considerable damage has already been done. Carcasses of horses, cattle and pigs, and the wreckage of granaries and outbuildings are to be seen floating down the river. Last night I sent a telegram to the editor of The Free Press at Winnipeg with a view to securing some information that I might submit to Parliament, but unfortunately I have not yet received an answer. However, as I have said, considerable damage has been done already, and perhaps there will be further destruction still. I would not bring this matter to the attention of the House if I did not think it my duty to do so. I believe that the federal government in the past has spent sums of money in building dykes along this river to keep back the flooding waters in the spring. I do not know how much they have spent for the purpose, but the fact is that they have expended money on this work, and I believe they assumed responsibility for the waters flooding the country. I have nothing to suggest, but I think it would be all right if the Government would


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to kindly put his question to the Government as tersely as possible. There can be no argument on the Orders of the Day.


Harry Leader: The question I would ask the Government is this: Do they intend to do anything to alleviate the sufferings of those people along the Assiniboine river?


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I would inform my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) that the Government has already taken notice of the matter to which he refers. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) has had a re-

port made by the officers of his department, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has already advised the provincial authorities that any officers of his department in the West will be available for such services as it may be in their power to render. The matter is receiving the attention of the Government; more than that I cannot say at the moment.


Harry Leader: I am pleased to accept the hon. Prime Minister's statement, and I hope he will be able to do something for those settlers.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Annual Drill, $1,400,000.
Mr. CALDWELL:: 
Hewitt Bostock: Evidently the error is copied from the Votes and Proceedings. It shall be corrected.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If this item is copied from the estimate there may be a possibility of similar mistakes occurring. The items are read so rapidly that it is impossible to follow them from the Estimates; one has to rely on his memory.


Mr. FIELDING:: The clerk assures me that there is no mistake in the records; it was merely a mistake in printing. [DOT]
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
['I call the attention of the member for Hants to the fact that there is nothing before the committee at the prelsent time. The motion to report progress has been carried.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at one a.m., Wednesday.\nWednesday, May 17, 1922.']
William Stevens Fielding: Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ended March 31, 1922, the sum of $9,623,792.61 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
['Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ended March 31, 1922, the sum of $9,623,792.61 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
William Stevens Fielding: The resolution we have just dealt with closes the accounts for the last year. I now move, with respect to the current year:
Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of cer-

Supply-Naval Service
tain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1923, the sum of $88,517,204.53 he granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 85, granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending respectively March 31, 1922 and March 31, 1923.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On Clause (2)-$88,517,204.53 granted for 1922-23:
['The resolution we have just dealt with closes the accounts for the last year. I now move, with respect to the current year:\nResolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of cer-\n\nSupply-Naval Service\ntain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1923, the sum of $88,517,204.53 he granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
Mr. CRERAR:: How far does this carry us?


William Stevens Fielding: All the appropriations which have been adopted in committee are included in this bill. As a matter of fact, all that we desired to get was the special appropriation for the past year, but in some cases the reports were so blended that they could not be separated. Therefore we have included all the supplies voted up to the present time, but in the Supply Bill they are divided into the former year and the current year.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: We ought to have that bill. It has not been distributed yet.


William Stevens Fielding: I have never known one to be distributed, but if my hon. friend insists I have no objection.


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is aware that the clerks make up these bills and we have to accept their assurance as to the bills being accurate; I have always found them so.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hewitt Bostock: In justification of the Assistant Clerk, I must inform the House that there was no error in the consideration of the resolution of Tuesday, May 9, 1922. If the words in italics are read, the House will see that the item is:
Main Estimates, five-sixths of the amount set forth below, less $400,000.
That is exactly as it was voted. I think I owe this explanation to the House in order to justify our worthy Assistant Clerk.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.- Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $1,500,000.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of the Naval Service): Mr. Chairman, I want to make a short statement to the committee; it may help to guide its deliberations. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not, I am sure, attribute to me any considerable degree of modesty. In the course of the remarks I made the other day on the appropriation for the Royal Canadian Navy, I used these words:
I suggested to the officers that we could divide these ships, send one or two of them to the Pacific coast and keep one of them on the Atlantic coast. I had an idea that the Aurora could be used on the Atlantic, and this shows my absolute unacquaintance with the naval service and what a navy is supposed to do.
A little further down I said:
This, the officer told me, was absolutely out of the question; if we separated those ships and sent two of the destroyers to the Pacific coast, those destroyers would not do at all for the purposes of training by themselves and would be wholly unsuitable for the pelagic sealing protection.
Now, the Director of the Naval Service tells me that I was too modest about myself and too emphatic about him. I will not admit either, but I want to state the attitude which the Director of the Naval Service says he took. He strongly favoured the retaining of the squadron, and he insists that he did not assure me that he could not use any unit of this squadron to assist in carrying out the scheme that I had in mind. I understood his attitude as I stated it, but life is too short to quarrel about it, so I accept his word that I misunderstood him. Some day I may get him to accept mine that he misunderstood me, but not to-day. Now, I am pleased to announce to the committee that the Director of the Naval Service assures me that the first suggestion I made, or a portion of it, is practicable, namely, that one of the torpedo boat destroyers can be used on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic; that the volunteers for the naval service can be trained on these two destroyers, in gunnery, seamanship, and all lines pertaining to the naval service, so far as that training is carried out on a ship of that size. The corrected suggestion I have to make is this: I propose to ask the committee to sanction the use of these two torpedo boat
Supply-Naval Service
[Stage Direction]
destroyers as suggested, instead of the two small ships mentioned in the outline of a few days ago.
I want to correct a little misconception which, I think, exists with regard to these trawlers. My idea of a trawler -and this, I suppose, would be the idea of most hon. gentlemen-would be that it is something in the way of a small fishing smack. These trawlers, however, are seagoing craft, 130 feet long, each carrying a 12-pound gun and manned by from twenty to thirty men. Some thirty or thirty-five of these trawlers were in commission on the coasts of Canada during the war, and rendered wonderful service. I am informed that our share of the patrol of the Pribyloff islands, involving work which we agreed to perform but which for several years we have not done, can be carried out by a craft of the nature I have described. The revenue cutters of the United States are not large ships. They are larger than these, but the Director of the Naval Service assures me that there would be no difficulty in having one of these so-called trawlers proceed to the seal fishing area and patrol those waters. In order that hon. gentlemen may understand that part of the undertaking with respect to the seal fisheries of the Pribyloff islands which we have not performed, I will read a memorandum which has been prepared on the subject:
On July 7th, 1911, a treaty was signed at Washington between Great Britain, United States of America, Japan and Russia for the adoption of means looking to the preservation and protection of the fur seal in the Bering Sea. Under the terms of this treaty the nations interested agreed to prohibit their nationals from engaging in pelagic sealing in the waters of the Pacific Ocean north of the 30° of north latitude. The nations interested undertook to carry on such patrol as would be necessary to enforce the terms of the treaty.
In August, 1910, the Colonial Office had asked if Canada could take part in the Bering Sea patrol and on October 22nd, of the same year, an Order in Council was passed stating that the revenue vessels of the Canadian Government on the Pacific coast were too small for this service, but that the vessels which it was proposed to obtain for the Canadian Naval Service could undertake the patrol and that as soon as the ships were built and equipped Canada would be prepared to send one or more of them to do patrolling within the limits specified.
On September 21st, 1911, the Colonial Office wrote to the Canadian Government stating that the British Admiralty were "prepared to arrange that a vessel of the Imperial Navy should carry out the patrol in the waters North of 30° north latitude and east of the meridian of 170° west longitude until vessels of His Majesty's Canadian Navy were available for carrying out this service."
I Mr. Graham. ]
The limits suggested were those of the Canadian Pacific (Station. The patrol was to be a joint one with the United States. Patrol of the Pacific Ocean west of the 170th meridian was to be carried out by Russia and Japan jointly.
After this date the British Admiralty maintained two sloops, the "Shearwater" and the "Algerene" on the Pacific station for the purpose of this patrol.
In May, 1914, the Colonial Secretary asked if the Canadian Government could detail H.M. C.S. "Rainbow" to undertake this patrol. The "Rainbow" had been out of commission for some time but she was prepared for sea, placed in commission and was sailing for Behring Sea when news was received that war was imminent. She was therefore detained and on the declaration of war took up her duties as a cruiser in the P'acific Ocean, and no British ship has attended to the Behring Sea patrol since that date, the patrol being effected by United States vessels.
Canada is very interested in the question of pelagic sealing and derives a considerable income from the killing of the seals on the Pribylof Islands. She should therefore take part in the patrol and have a vessel available for inspection of the Pribylof Islands and the killing grounds so as to ascertain for herself how the treaty is being carried out and what results are being obtained.
The revenue obtained in 1919 for Canada's share of the sales of skins from the Pribilof Islands was $266,000. Prices of skins have gone down and last year the amount realized was $65,000. In April of this year a sale was held which netted Canada $23,000. Another sale will be held in the fall.
It will be observed, therefore, that Canada agreed to carry on this patrol, or, at least, to insipect the work and see that it was properly carried out and that treaty obligations were respected; and also that we have a financial interest in seeing that this is done. The Director of the Naval Service assures me that this work can be performed and Canada put in a better position than she has been since the signing of this treaty in regard to her share of the patrol of the sea fishing areas in Behring sea.
Mr. MARTELL:: I understand that
under the Pelagic Sealing Treaty, which was negotiated in Washington, nationals of all parties to the treaty, such as Russia, Japan, United States and Canada, were to be prohibited from engaging in the seal fisheries. It was understood, however, that at certain seasons of the year a certain number of seals were to be caught and sold and the proceeds divided among the various parties to the agreement. How does the revenue derived by Canada from the sale of these seals compare with the cost of the patrol?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Well, since the treaty
was signed the patrol has not cost Canada anything, because she has not carried it out.

Supply-Naval Service


Lewis Herbert Martell: The treaty provided
for it?


George Perry Graham: Yes; at any rate it provided that Canada should look after any patrol which the British admiralty engaged to carry out under that agreement. But, so far as I can ascertain, Canada has not undertaken that work, although she has been getting receipts from the seal fisheries.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Was not our share last year in the neighbourhood of $700,000?


George Perry Graham: We can get the figures from the Department of Fisheries. I am told that from one sale that was held our share was $23,000, and that there is to be another sale this fall.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Has the Pelagic Sealing Treaty been denounced, or are we still working under it?


George Perry Graham: The treaty is still in existence, and the United States is doing her share of the patrol work, and so, I believe are Russia and Japan.
As to the submarines, as I announced a few days ago, the Government's policy is not to retain the submarines in commission. The use of the submarine in warfare is a question about which there has been a great deal of discussion among the great nations of the world during the past few months. It was discussed at some length at Washington; it has been discussed elsewhere, and I presume that it will be discussed in the future at other places, perhaps at the Genoa Conference. I think it is well to point out to the committee now that this action of the Government has a pretty strong foundation. I admit at once that there are those who argue, and argue strongly, that the submarine for defence purposes is very useful, one reason that is advanced for its usefulness being that only a submarine with its hydrophone system can detect the approach of similar vessels, that vessels that do not submerge cannot perform this service. Nevertheless, it will be remembered that strong ground was taken at the Washington Conference by several representatives of the great nations, of Great Britain, in particular, as to whether the submarine should be retained at all. There were some, if I remember the reports of the conference aright, who favoured the total abolition of the submarine in future warfare. Others took the opposite view. I am pointing this out to the committee to show that, to use ordinary language, in tying up the submarines, the Government of Canada is following a very dependable lead.
In tabling a return to an Order of the House on the 11th of April last, containing the documents of the Cannes Conference,' the Prime Minister said, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Mar. quette (Mr. Crerar)-I quote from unrevised Hansard, page 902:
I therefore beg to present:
1.	Copy of Memorandum on Anglo-French relations and of the draft of the proposed treaty with France presented by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Mr. Briand at the meeting of the Supreme Council at Cannes, January. 1922.
2.	Copy of Resolutions adopted by the Supreme Council at Cannes, January, 1922, as the basis of the Genoa Conference.
I find in the memorandum presented officially by the British government these words:
The third is the question of submarines. His Majesty's Government make no condition of this, and they fully understand that the divergencies of French and British views on the subject may be due to different ideas of the uses which submarines can serve. The British opinion, however, based on four years' war experience, is that submarines are effective only against merchant ships and are ineffectual otherwise as instruments either of attack or defence.
I think that is about as strong language as could possibly be used in reference to the use of the submarine. So I submit for the information of the House, as it may help in the discussion of this item, that in putting the submarines out of commission the Canadian government is following the exact lead of the British Admiralty and its policy is in harmony with the official declarations of the British government's representatives gathered together in conference with the great nations of the world.


Arthur Meighen: Now that France and the other assembled nations at the Washington Conference have declined the British lead of abandoning the submarine, is it a fact that Great Britain herself has abandoned the submarine?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that Great Britain has, but that does not affect the argument that the submarine has been declared by Great Britain not to be a success, either in attack or defence, except against merchant vessels. This is a question that I suppose will be discussed more or less at conferences in the future.
I want to point out to the committee that this proposal, as announced the other day in the House, is not a finality on naval policy. There is no finality on naval policy
Supply-Naval Service

in the whole world to-day. The great nations of the world will probably meet several times again before they arrive at a conclusion as to the restriction or development of armaments, including the navy, and conferences will be held by the Overseas Dominions as to what share they ought to take. According to the report, such a conference was provided for at the conference held recently. The policy of the Government is along the lines and in accordance with the Naval Service Act passed in 1910. There is not a suggestion in it that is not contained within the paragraphs of the act of 1910. While all countries of the world are wondering at the present time what policy they will finally adopt for attack and defence, Canada is proceeding along safe, sane, economical lines, and when the time comes that a future policy is to be decided upon, we shall have a foundation on which can be built a naval policy worthy of Canada, if the Parliament of Canada decide on development.
I do not know that I need say anything more. I wanted to make this explanation about the submarines, the trawlers, and the torpedo boat destroyers, so that the committee would not be discussing the matter without knowing the full facts.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister stated a moment ago that there was no finality about this proposal. Well, it is pretty near to finality. We would not have much further to go to make it final. I think the minister this afternoon has been in somewhat deep water.


George Perry Graham: Where else should the navy be?


Hugh Guthrie: He has been labouring pretty hard. His statement this afternoon is not at all in accordance with the statement of policy which he made on Friday afternoon. He has undergone another change of heart, and a most radical one, and has laboured in pretty deep water this afternoon in an effort to explain it. It was not surprising to those of us who sit in this corner of the House. It was remarked on the streets of Toronto yesterday that we would have another flop here in naval matters; and I have no doubt in my mind that when the minister and the government read the Toronto Globe's editorial on Saturday, the process of changing heart and changing policies at once began, and we have the result of that Change to-day. Now it is amusing for all members to sit and listen to my hon. friend's explanation this afternoon of the reason why he was

going to abandon these two submarines. That is not the reason he gave on Friday. Why, on Friday the announcement he made to the House was that he was going to abandon the naval service and to go into the volunteer service. That was his reason for stating the policy which he then gave, but in the interval he has had to take up some communications that passed between the French government and British government on the programme that was laid down and discussed at Cannes; and he came to the House this afternoon with a radical change of policy simply because he found from his own friends and his own prominent supporters outside of this House, that the scrapping process which he announced on Friday afternoon was not going to meet with the approval of the rank and file of his party throughout the Dominion. I do not think it was very hard for my hon. friend to take a somersault, or for the members of the Government to take a somersault; they must be quite used to that sort of thing during the present session. It is a spectacle which has ceased even to amuse hon. members in this corner of the House under the conditions which have existed since the session opened.
Now what my hon. friend proposes is simply this: To take the five ships which were a gift by Great Britain to this country and which were accepted by it in good faith-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hugh Guthrie: To take those five ships and scrap them, save two which he says now he finds he can use as training ships.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ships that were asked for.


Hugh Guthrie: the approval of this House and the approval of the Admiralty, will only cost two and a half millions. The greater scheme is in itself a most modest one and is not expensive, but it may yield some results and may train some men. It may eventually amount to something and be of some real value to the country. But it looks to me as if it were going to be pure waste of money to spend a million and a half a year on a volunteer service such as described by my hon. friend on Friday last.
I am not alone in that opinion. I read it in the Toronto newspapers, and I see it in the editorials in the Montreal newspapers. You might just as well throw your money in the ocean as to spend a million and a half on any such scheme as was outlined by the hon. minister on Friday afternoon. I think he has tried to improve his scheme between last Friday and to-day, because he knows it is absolutely unworkable. Well, what are we going to do? Are we going to spend a million and a half of money in playing at naval warfare, getting together a few naval volunteers in this country, and bringing them down to the sea for two weeks each year as a sort of holiday? It is not going to get us anywhere, or establish anything in the nature of a permanent naval service. I believe there is only too much in the criticism that it will be an absolute waste of money. Why can the minister not be content with the present programme? Where is the demand? In what quarter of the country is there any demand to change the programme? The hon. member from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has criticised the present arrangement very severely, and has said that it is a waste of money to spend two and a half millions on the five ships in commission. What will he say in regard to the million and a half the minister proposes to spend on the volunteer services, on the trawlers, and on the armoury' drill and the like? I have tried to find where the criticism of the present policy is. I fail to find it in the press. If there is criticism in the country, it .is that we are not doing enough, and that we reasonably should do more, but I have heard of no criticism inside the House or out of it, save only the words of the hon. member from Lunenburg, that the programme which we carried on last year and the year before should be at all reduced. Let the Government be content with that programme. I agree that it is not one of which we can boast very much, but it is infinitely superior to the programme 
which the minister brought down to the House earlier in the session. If the minister wishes merely to play at the naval game, let him form his naval volunteer force, and put out of commission these ships and his naval reserve. That is the scheme he has outlined, as I understand it, and to that scheme I am heartily opposed.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg) :: I
am sure the House has listened with a great deal of interest both to the statement made by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham) and also to the statement made by the hon. member from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), but it is very amusing to me, and I am sure it must have been to bon. members, to hear the hon. member from South Wellington speak about the "flop" which the hon. Minister of Defence had taken since last Friday. I presume that word flop comes quite naturally to the hon. member from South Wellington, because if there is one flopper in Canada to-day that deserves the title, it is the member for South Wellington. I need not go into details in order to explain to the House and the country how and why. The hon. member deserves that title, because everybody knows the whys and wherefores of what happened in 1917. The hon. minister has told us that he intends to keep the two destroyers, one on the Atlantic coast and the other on the Pacific coast, for training. I do not object seriously to keeping those two boats for training, but if, as his Director of Naval Service told him, the idea was to keep the vessel on the Pacific coast for the purpose of protecting the seal fisheries, it seems to me he is going beyond what is necessary in regard to this matter from a naval standpoint. In my opinion, the matter of protecting the seal fisheries in the Behring straits comes entirely under the Fisheries Department, and should be looked after by one of the Fishery patrol boats.
The matter of the Canadian Navy, as has been said by the hon. member from South Wellington, is one in which the people of the country have been interested for a number of years, but it comes, in my opinion, with very bad taste
5 p.m. from the hon. member from South Wellington to compare the record of the Liberal party in regard to their naval plan, either their past history or their present record, with that of the party with which he is now associated.


Hugh Guthrie: I made no comparison.

Supply-Naval Service


William Duff: -or what happened the last few years in Canada in naval affairs. It might be well to review this matter in a very few words to show what both parties have done; in that way we can come to a conclusion as to whether the policy of the Liberal party, or the policy adopted by the Conservative party, is the better one. I have taken the trouble to look up the records of this House, in order to find what practical work was done by the government of this country previous to 1910 when the Naval Service Act was introduced, and I find that neither the Conservative government nor the Liberal government spent any money on what is known as the Naval Defence of this country. I need not go back very far. For instance in the year 1905-6, the year 1906-7, the year 1907-8, or the year 1908-9, there was not one dollar voted by this parliament towards the naval defence of this country. Although the hon. member from South Wellington says that I was the only person in this House who had criticised the navy and the naval expenditures, yet it seems to me that I should be more interested in the protection of the coast lines of this country than the hon. member for South Wellington or in fact any other member who lives in the interior of the country. I do not wish to say that they should not take an interest in this matter, but I think they will be the first to agree with me that those who live on the Atlantic or the Pacific coast are more vitally interested in the protection of those coasts than those who live in the interior of Canada. I remember during the years of the war, in the years 1918, 1919, when German submarines came across the Atlantic, when those submarines were within five miles of the Atlantic coast, we realized that it would have been very nice to have a navy. But we were not scared at all. The people who were born and bred on the Atlantic ocean are not so easily scared. The hon. member from South Wellington has said that I am the only one that has risen in this House and criticised the navy and deprecated the fact that so much money is being wasted, but it seems to me the members of the House and the people of the country will agree with me that I have more interest in the matter than the hon. member has in view of the fact that I live on the Atlantic coast, and represent an Atlantic coast constituency.
Neither the Liberal party nor the Conservative party spent one dollar on naval defence up to 1908-9. The Laurier naval policy was introduced in this parliament
in the year 1910. I need not tell hon. members what that naval policy represented or what it meant, but the Liberal party endeavoured at that time to put an act on the statute book and to carry it out, in order to create a naval sentiment in this country. Although the Liberal party voted in this Parliament for a naval service, and purchased from the Mother Country two training ships, the Niobe and the Rainbow, when the bye-election came in the county of Drummond and Artha-baska in 1910, the very gentlemen who are now supported by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), aided and abetted by certain Tory newspapers in Quebec-English newspapers at that- went through the country and did everything possible to defeat the Liberal candidate, purely and solely on the question of Canada's share in the naval defence of the country. That is what happened. And yet the hon. gentleman rises in this House and throws taunts across the floor, endeavouring to show that we on this side are not interested in naval matters in Canada. It is a well known fact that leading men in the Conservative party sent telegrams of congratulation to the Conservative candidate-more truly speaking, the Nationalist candidate-in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, eulogizing him for the attitude he was taking in that campaign. Then what occurred when the general election came on in 1911? Did the Conservative party uphold the Liberal naval policy which was passed by this House in 1910? Did they go up and down the country telling the people that we ought to have a naval policy in Canada and that we should have ships on the Atlantic and the Pacific in order to protect the coast lines of this country and safeguard the avenues of traffic on the two oceans? Not at all. They did not utter a single word in favour of the naval policy in that campaign. On the contrary, the leading men of the party which the hon. member for South Wellington now supports toured the province of Quebec supporting the Nationalist candidates who were opposed to the naval policy of the Liberal party and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They told the people of Quebec that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier was elected and his naval policy was carried out their sons would be commandeered and carried across the seas to Japan, there to be disemboweled. And one of the men who conducted this sort of campaign was chosen as Deputy Speaker of the House, afterwards becoming a Cabinet Minister in the Conservative govern-



Supply-Naval Service
ment. That gentleman it was who gave utterance to the famous saying that in order to breathe the breath of freedom "it was necessary to shoot holes through the British flag." Yet these are the men for whom the hon. member for South Wellington is acting as spokesman, criticizing the Liberal policy with reference to naval affairs in this country.
What transpired after the election had taken place? They had to carry out their bargain with the Nationalists of Quebec, twenty-two of whom were returned to Parliament as a result of that campaign, which was one of the most dastardly campaigns ever carried on by a political party in Canada. Did they spend $2,500,000 in naval defence? Not at all. The Liberal party in 1910-11 expended $3,000,000 on naval affairs, and in 1911-12 they voted $3,000,000 again for the navy of Canada. But as soon as those gentlemen assumed office, to demonstrate just how much interest they had in the naval protection of our country on the Atlantic and the Pacific, in 1912-13 they reduced the vote to $1,600,000; in 1913-14 to $1,000,000; and in 1914-15 to only $1,000,000. Now, that is the naval policy they carried out. They had so little interest in naval matters that they reduced the vote in 1913 and 1914 by $500,000 more than the minister (Mr. Graham) is reducing at the present time.


George Perry Graham: And that was before the war.


William Duff: Yes, one and two years before the war. The two ships that were purchased from Great Britain, the Niobe and the Rainbow, were splendid vessels, admirably adapted for training purposes, and they could have rendered very valuable service not only before the war but even during the war. But the Conservative government did not keep the crews on these ships after they had made their bargain with their Nationalist friends. They paid off the crews, and the Niobe was tied up at dockyard at Halifax, with two chains at her bows and two at her stern; and there were not sufficient caretakers left on board to keep the machinery in order. When the war broke out in 1914 this boat was moored to the dock, grounded on her beef bones, and it took six weeks after the declaration of hostilities to get her into any kind of shape to go to sea. As I said before in this House, and I repeat it with emphasis on this occasion, if the Niobe had been put into commission on the Atlantic, and the Rain-

bow on the Pacific coast, on the 4th of August, and if the telegrams that came from the Pacific at that time had been answered-and it could have been effectively answered had these ships been in commission-there would have been a sufficient number of vessels captured on the Pacific and the Atlantic to pay the cost of the war to Canada for the first year. But these people did not want to do anything for the navy. The Borden government did not want to do anything for the defence of the country, and no other conclusion could be arrived at than that they were afraid to break the bargain which they had made with the Nationalists. The war went on and we spent a great deal of money-some $30,000,000-on what was described as naval defence. I have no hesitation in saying that most of that money expended during the war on the Atlantic and the Pacific was wasted. In 1920, the Union government accepted five ships from Great Britain. Now, the people of the country were not consulted in regard to that gift. I do not blame the British government for having offered these ships to Canada; indeed, I think they are to be commended for having done so. But I do say that the ships were accepted by the government of Canada without the authority of the people, who were not consulted in the matter. Notwithstanding the fact that Parliament was then in session, the whole thing was done over the heads of the people's representatives. Is there any man within the sound of my voice, or in Canada, who will assert that since these ships have come to Canada they have been of any practical value so far as the defence of our coast lines is concerned, or in keeping the traffic lanes open on either coast? I do not hesitate to say that they have been absolutely useless for defensive purposes. They have served no good purpose in the last two years, and whatever money has been spent to pay the crews and keep these vessels in commission has been utterly wasted to the people of this country.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. member know what the British Admiralty are doing with the same kind of ships which they sent to Canada as a gift?


William Duff: To use the words of the hon. member for South Wellington, they are "scrapping" them. I repeat that these ships, for purposes of defence at any rate, have been absolutely useless, and to prove that statement I have only to call atten-

Supply-Naval Service
tion to the fact that they have not spent three months on the Atlantic coast or on the Pacific since crossing the Atlantic. They have been wandering all over creation. They arrived in Halifax some two years ago, remained there about six weeks, and the first thing we read in the newspapers was that they were going to take a trip to the Pacific. They were fitted out at great expense to the country and proceeded down to the West Indies and through the Panama canal, and after a time we learned through the newspapers that they had arrived at Vancouver or Victoria. Now, that was a delightful trip. I have no doubt that most of us would have liked very much to be on board one of those cruisers or torpedo boat destroyers on such an extensive and delightful voyage. But I think every one will agree with me that that trip was of no practical benefit to this country. Those ships were not defending the Canadian coast line while on that trip, and consequently no one can argue that from the time they left Halifax for Vancouver until their return to Halifax two or three months later any practical results were obtained in regard to the defence of our shores.
Then during last winter did those ships stay on the Atlantic coast and do any par-1 ticular service that enured to the advantage of this country?-and I need scarcely add that during the winter months we can use boats of this description on the Atlantic coast, poor as they are, for the weather there is very rough; men of the merchant marine, both those in the liners which cross from the Old Country to Nova Scotia and those in the sailing ships which ply to all parts of the world practically, have to make that coast in stormy weather during the winter months, and there are times when it might be very handy, if a wireless were sent from one part of the coast to another that a ship was in distress, to have these ships available to render aid. But where were they when they might have been of some service? For four months those ships were down in Barbados and Trinidad. In fact the officers and crews helped to open the Barbados legislature.
The winter over, those ships are now back in Halifax. But what work is there for them to do in regard to defending our coast line or keeping open the lanes of traffic? I say those ships are absolutely useless. And the question in my mind is not whether we should continue these ships in commission, but: Can we in our present
117i
financial condition spend sufficient money for the upkeep of a navy which will not be of any service for our national defence either on the Atlantic or the Pacific, or to keep open the ocean lanes for our merchant marine? There is the whole question. Will any sane Canadian say that one cruiser, two torpedo boat destroyers and two submarines would be of any service if war broke out between Canada and- what country shall I say?


Mr. LANCTOT:: There is no country
with which we can possibly be at war.


William Duff: I agree with my hon. friend, because we are a peace-loving people and are not going to seek an excuse for declaring war against any country. But if war did break out, what use would these five boats be to defend our coast line either on the Pacific or on the Atlantic? How would you subdivide them? Would you cut the Aurora in two and send one part to the Pacific coast and keep the other part on the Atlantic coast? The minister says that he is going to send one torpedo boat destroyer to the Pacific and retain one on the Atlantic. He can do that with those destroyers, and also with the two submar-1 ines. But what effective service could one destroyer and one submarine on either ocean render to this country? Absolutely none whatever.
My argument is the same to-day as it always has been-that if we cannot spend $100,000,000 a year in order to maintain a sufficient navy on both oceans to be ready for any eventuality, which is absolutely improbable, then it is useless for us to spend $2,500,000 or $1,500,000 for the purpose of pretending that we have a navy.
I do not think I need argue the point any further. There is the whole question in a nutshell. Many hon. members will recollect that when, two years ago, we were discussing the taking over of those five boats the then President of the Privy Council, Hon. Mr. Rowell, in reply to my contention that the ships were no good for defensive purposes, said: Oh, no, that is not what they are intended for. They are to keep open the traffic lanes so that shipping can move between the Atlantic and the Pacific with safety. And no less an authority than the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) supported the view expressed by the then President of the Privy Council.
No man who knows anything about marine matters will dare get up in Parliament or
Supply-Naval Set-vice


Mr. LEWIS:: What is the amount of
their naval estimates to-day?


William Duff: I have not got that information.


Arthur John Lewis: That reduction does not
mean very much unless we know what the appropriation was before and what it is now.


William Duff: I quite understand that that is a small reduction compared with the total naval expenditure of the British government, but I think it will be admitted that the very fact of that reduction being made proves that they realize the necessity for reducing their naval expenditure. Certainly if the British government feel justified in making that reduction, it seems to me that, as I said a moment ago, situated as we are, if we cannot afford to spend a sum of money that will give us something practical in the way of naval service, then it is good business for us to reduce our naval expenditure to a minimum.
I am very much afraid that whilst an overwhelming majority of people in this

country are not favourable to naval expenditures of any great magnitude, a small minority do not share that very widespread view. A few days ago I read a press dispatch from London of a speech made by Lord Lee, First Lord of the British Admiralty, in the course of which occurs the following:
Lord Lee pointed out that the Imperial Conference after a full, prolonged and intimate discussion of the naval needs of the Empire, had agreed that the maintenance of an Empire navy was the common concern of the whole Empire.
In other words, Lord Lee says that the delegates to that conference which was held in London last year agreed "that the maintenance of an Empire navy was the common concern of the whole Empire." So far as I am concerned, if that was agreed to by any delegates from Canada, I submit that they should not have done so without first consulting the representatives of the people in this House. It was bad enough for the then government to accept these five ships without consulting Parliament, which was in session at that time, but it seems to me it is worse for members of any government to go to the Old Country and agree with the British representatives and the delegates from the other Dominions that they would do something in regard to Empire naval defence without first consulting the views of our people through their representatives in Parliament.
As far as I am personally concerned, I am fairly well satisfied with the atatement made by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham). In view of the fact that we have some sort of naval organization, I think that perhaps it is not right or fair that the whole naval vote should be cut out at once. I can understand that it might not be necessary for him to spend the $1,500,000 which he is asking for, and I suggest that ir. the interests of the people he should save any part of that amount which he can as the year goes on.
As to the proposal of the minister with regard to arranging for naval service training for two or three weeks each year, I must agree with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that it is impossible to make sailors in two or three weeks. The hon. member said, in effect, that the money would be wasted in any attempt to make sailors in that short time.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the hon. member consider that a sailor can be made at all on one of these ships? In order to get the proper training, would the men not have

Supply-Naval Service
to go on sailing ships, square-riggers, and so on?


William Duff: I think my hon. friend is right, to some extent. They do make sailors now on steam vessels, though they are not able seamen or as good as the sailors you make on square-riggers, fore-and-afters, and tern schooners. But I say you cannot make a sailor in three weeks. If the argument of the hon. member for South Wellington is good, that you cannot train a man for naval service by keeping him two or three weeks in an armory, on a training ship, or even by sending him two or three weeks to sea, either on one of these patrol boats or on one of these destroyers, then it seems to me the same argument should hold good with regard to the militia, and I am only sorry now we did not fight harder to get the militia vote for annual training further reduced. If you cannot make a sailor in two or three weeks, you cannot make a soldier in two or three weeks.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would succeed if he tried again.


William Duff: In making a soldier, or a sailor?


Arthur Meighen: No, in getting another reduction in the militia estimates.


William Duff: I am a very modest man.
I will let the hon. leader of the Opposition read between the lines; he can come to his own conclusions. I believe, however, there is some merit in the proposal put forward by the minister in regard to a naval reserve. Some of the very best men who were in the British navy during the war, either on the fighting ships or on transports, were men who had been trained in the naval reserve. We all remember the gallant stand taken by the British army on the Gallipoli Peninsula. We remember reading in our newspapers one morning of the decision to abandon the peninsula. We read the vivid story of how these soldiers fought and backed their way down the hill fighting inch by inch, and when they arrived on the Gallipoli beach they found the boats there, ready to take them to the transport. We read that the sailors, naval ratings from the transports, were on the shore; they saw that the soldiers and their equipment were put on the transports. To the naval reserve was left the gallant task of firing the stores on the beach and being the last to embark; and these men had been trained in the naval reserve of England and the naval reserve
of the small dominion of Newfoundland.
If the minister, then, can work out some scheme whereby, at a minimum of expense to the country, we can train a naval reserve, the money will be well spent. I myself have a scheme in my head, Mr. Chairman, which would not cost very much money. We all remember that during the late war the Militia Department created a kind of sausage machine from which they ground out honorary colonels by the bushel. Now, I do not want the Minister of Defence to make me a rear-admiral for this suggestion, but I want to say this to him. We have on the Atlantic coast, and I think also on the Pacific coast, men who require practically no training; men who can be enlisted in a voluntary naval reserve at very small cost to the country. If the minister would like me to do something in this regard I could get anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 volunteers in my own county to serve as a naval reserve on the Atlantic coast. These are the men who should be engaged; they do not have to be made sailors in two or three weeks, for they are sailors now. They have ploughed the seas ever since they were boys of twelve or fifteen years of age; they have gone fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and during the war they braved the submarines in the bay of Biscay and in the Mediterranean, carrying foodstuffs to the people of Europe. These are the men, who in my opinion, are ready to do either the work they did before, or any special work in connection with the defence of their country. It is not necessary to spend much money on a naval reserve this year; the minister should go slowly and work out a proper scheme, and not be in a hurry to spend any more this year. But if the time comes when the minister thinks it necessary after mature deliberation to have a naval reserve, I say that in my county-and in this respect it is only like a number of other counties along the Nova Scotia coast-thousands of young men can be obtained by the voluntary system who will be glad indeed to give two or three weeks a year, or more, in order to be so trained that they may be able to serve their country if necessary, in her defence.
In conclusion I may say that I should be very glad to vote any sum of money which I considered necessary for naval defence, either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific coast. But I submit that either $2,500,000 or $1,500,000 devoted to the naval defence is almost wasted, even though it is given the name of money voted for the naval
Supply-Naval Service

service. Let us be reasonable and sensible in this matter; let us look at it from the plain, business standpoint. If we cannot do anything in the matter of naval defence with either $1,500,000 or $2,500,000, then why should we be talking across the floor of this Chamber just because we feel we want to make some point against the Minister of Defence on the ground of his having cut down the estimate? I say he should be congratulated for cutting it down, and, further, that unless he can propose a good scheme under which it would be necessary to spend money on a naval reserve, the minister when he comes before the House another year would follow a course approved by the people, not only of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but of the country generally, if he said: "I find it is not a practical thing to spend money on a naval service, so I have decided to cut the whole thing out". I say the people of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific would give the minister credit for doing what he thought was right in the general interests of the country.


Mr. McBRIDE:: The hon. member (Mr. Duff) made the statement that one of the ships purchased by the Laurier government was chained to the dock at Halifax, by the late government when they came into power, and that the other was laid up at Vancouver. He said that if these ships had been in proper trim to go to sea when the war broke out they could have seized enough shipping to pay for the war.


William Duff: No, I did not say that.


Thomas George McBride: The hon. member said, if I am not mistaken, that if these ships had been ready for sea when the war broke out they could have seized enough shipping to pay for the first year of the war.


William Duff: Yes, the first year. The hon. member said the whole war.


Thomas George McBride: Then the hon. member said that so far as the five ships taken over by the late government were concerned, if war broke out they would be practically of no use.


William Duff: I said, for practical defence purposes.


Thomas George McBride: Would not these five
ships that were accepted by the late government serve a better purpose than the other two tinpot boats that were scrapped? Let us be honest. The five ships chat the late government accepted from the Imperial government, if they were in pr 'per

shape, would go a long way to defending at least the Pacific coast.


William Duff: You can have them on the Pacific coast.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: The hon. member for South
Wellington has said that he has not heard any criticism whatever of naval matters or of the grants to be made for the upkeep of the Canadian navy. I would like to say that there is a considerable body of opinion which has not been able to express itself through some of the Montreal and Toronto papers, which evidently are read by the hon. member for South Wellington. I would like to state further very frankly that so far as my constituency is concerned, I came here pledged to advocate national disarmament. That is not a personal viewpoint merely. It is the view of the people who sent me here, and I take it that the best contribution we can make in this House is to try to represent the opinion of the constituents who sent us here.
I quite agree that the expenditure of something like $1,500,000 on ships to defend the coast lines of Canada is a good deal like playing with the problem. I can quite appreciate the position that if you are really going to defend our coasts, you might rather have to spend $100,000,000. That is one thing that we should keep before us- the practical business side.
There is another aspect I should like to mention. We ought not to take any further steps in this matter until after the next Imperial conference and until after it is decided what the status of Canada really is. Some of us feel very strongly that we must not do anything whatever that would lead us into any sort of imperialism or draw us into responsibility for doing something over which we have not absolute control. We feel very strongly, a good many of us, that we ought not to be associated in any way whatever with any conferences which may possibly commit us to that from which we cannot very well draw back, but as to which we can have no final decision.
I am not at all sure concerning the reason for the acceptance of that gift of ships from the Motherland. I am not sure as to how much value they will be to this country. I happened to be in the city of Vancouver when that fleet came into English bay, and I know that a great deal was made in the papers of the event. It was suggested that this was indeed the

Supply-Naval Service
beginning of a real Canadian navy. The officers entertained and were entertained, and all that kind of thing, but there is a very large section of the people that since the Great War have ceased to be impressed by that kind of performance. It has been said on this floor to-day that the war is over, and yet there are members who have directed our minds back to 1910, and suggested that we ought to carry out certain policies which were proposed away back in that year. I submit that to-day we look out at the world with very different eyes from what we did in 1910. Surely the war has taught us some lessons, and among others that preparedness does not insure us against war, but that the surest way of creating and maintaining peace amongst the nations of the world is that we should indeed scrap our navies and our great armaments. You may laugh at such a position as that if you please. You may ridicule it; any hon. gentleman is at liberty to do that; but that is coming to be more and more the considered opinion of a considerable number of people in this, as well as in other countries.
Now that we have had a naval policy proclaimed at Washington, we are beginning to breathe a little more freely and feel that we can go on quitely with our business without undertaking any more of these tremendous financial obligations under which we have been labouring in the past. Surely we have an opportunity here in Canada of quitely reorganizing our affairs, not on the old basis, but on an altogether new basis.	[DOT]
The hon. member for South Wellington suggests that as the country grows, the naval service will grow and develop. That is precisely the militaristic point of view, according to which militarism is an essential part of any nation's life. Prom this standpoint we must always look forward to being able to defend ourselves by force of arms. I submit that that time has passed, that militarism is discredited, that the great world war, in which tens of millions of lives were lost and through which the whole world has been plunged into bankruptcy, has taught us that war is not effective, that militarism is a discredited weapon, and that we must look forward to the reorganization of our national and international affairs on an altogether different basis from that which we have had in the past. I would urge that we here in Canada very largely separated from other nations, and freer in that respect to work out our own affairs than most of the nations, should begin at once to stop naval expenditure and to recognize that it is only by the cultivation of international good-fellowship that we shall obtain any security from external attack.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Coming from a constituency which, in the days when shipbuilding was supreme in the province of Nova Scotia, built the largest wooden ships that were ever constructed in Canada, I feel it is my duty to rise and congratulate the minister upon a policy which will indirectly help in the very best possible way to bring back to Nova Scotia her commercial supremacy on the sea.
I was vgry much amused, as the hon. member for Lunenburg says he was, to hear the ex-Minister of Militia refer to "Hoppers." I am probably the youngest member in the House from the Maritime provinces, and while I have many sins to answer for, as I do not claim to be a paragon of righteousness, I am thankful that I do not have to answer to the atrocious charge of ever having been a "political flopper." I stand in this House this afternoon proud of the fact that I can support a Liberal Government, the true successor of the Liberal government led by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I followed the great Sir Wilfrid, as did all my forbears, and of him it can be said in the words of the poet Tennyson, he was a man "Who never sold the truth to serve the hour, Nor palter'd with Eternal God for power; ************
He never shall be shamed .. .what ever record leap to light.
I stand here this afternoon supporting my hon. leader who is the successor of that great chieftain, Sir Wilfrid, and whose naval policy has been vindicated time after time since he first enunciated it to Canada. He is not like the ex-Minister of Militia of whom we could say, as Sir Walter Scott said of "Old Immortality":
He delights in haunting ancient places and refreshing tombstones while the stream of life goes by and flowers bloom unheeded at his feet.
The hon. ex-Minister of Militia probably wants to get back to the days prior to 1910. Those were the days when my hon. friend had sound reasoning and peace of mind for he was standing for a policy which any reliable man in Canada would be pleased to uphold and advocate. But my hon. friend is sick at heart and has no peace of mind for he has shared in the vacillating measures which were adopted under the government of which he was a
Canadian Pacific

member, from 1917 down to the end of 1921. The result is, that in order to holster up a case against the excellent policy which has been enunciated by the present Minister of Defence he stands up and wobbles very much like a " land lubber " endeavouring to get his sea-legs while suffering from mal de mer caused by the bilge water from the pumps of the leaky ship of government which sailed Canada from 1917 up to December, 1921. We are not the only people that are making cuts in both military and naval matters. My hon. friend and colleague from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has stated that Great Britain herself is cutting down her naval expenditure by eighty million? of money. The great dominion of Australia is also scrapping the Sydney, a ship, I believe, which was built wholly and entirely for Australia and of which Australians were proud. I believe that pursuant to the League of Nations an agreement was entered into looking towards disarmament, and we in Canada should not wait for the other portions of the British Empire to lead the way. We in Canada should not ask to be shown what other portions of the British Empire are doing in order to do the right thing, because Canada is mistress in her own house. Canada will be governed by Canadians; and I am proud this afternoon to know that we have a Government which has the courage of its convictions, a Government which will listen to the dictates of the Canadian people and also has the courage to see that Canadians shall be properly led with a view to economy not only in commercial matters but in military and naval affairs.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair, and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 5, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-Extension of time for construction.
Mr. McCONICA:: When this debate was adjourned I was speaking to the amendment offered by the hon. member from

Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). I am a member of the Railway Committee, but I was absent on the day this bill was considered, owing to illness-the only day I have been absent. Therefore, I feel that it is proper that I should be permitted to state my position in regard to this amendment. As hon. members will understand, this amendment, applies to six branch lines that are under charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the two Prairie provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Two of these lines are within the boundaries of the constituency of Battleford. My contention is that it is time that the railroad should show a disposition to begin to construct these branches, and that something positive should be required of this company. The country to be served by these branch lines in every instance is very much in need of this construction. Some of them have been in need of it, perhaps, for years. People settled along the proposed line. The war came on, construction was referred, and the settlers have gone on year after year at very great inconvenience.
The time has come, I think, vhen Canada should arouse herself from the lethargy in which she is resting to-day. If we propose to build up this country, it is time for us to get busy. I consider it almost a disgrace that at this time there should be unemployment in Canada. It is too bad that we should lack railway facilities at this time, when we have great need of improvement; when the world is in distress and needs those things which Canada can produce, and when people are hungry, cold and houseless. We have abundant natural resources, and great forests, but our mills are idle and our fields are uncultivated and uncut. Now are we going to get busy? What put Belgium back into industrial activity? Because she went to work. What must Canada do? Go to work. There is a job for every man who looks for one, if things are properly conducted in Canada. There is no excuse for unemployment. It is a crime for the able-bodied men in this country to go without work for six days in the week. A longtime ago we were admoni-ished that six days we should labour and do all our work, and on the seventh we should rest from our labours, because it is the Sabbath of our Lord. What does that mean? It means that we must observe the Sabbath, but it means a little more than that. It means that for six days we shall labour, and the man who loafs six days violates that commandment every day

Canadian Pacific
of the six, and if he loafs on the seventh, he violates that commandment also, for he is pursuing his ordinary avocation on the Lord's day. I say that in that command we have an assurance that every man can find a job if he looks for it, and I do not know where there are more jobs than here in Canada.
I do not know anybody in better shape to begin to employ labour than the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is laying away its surplus. The people are needing the extensions. The labourers require employment and the people need the money. Let us start the construction, and the railway will get the tonnage and the people will get service. The people will get something to eat, something with which to clothe themselves and the wheels of industry will start. Now is the time, just as quickly as we can get at it. If we stand with our hands folded year after year, and let things go by, it will only be a question of a very short time until we go into bankruptcy. We need immigration -in Canada. But we want something for them to do. We must improve the western part of the country if we desire to accommodate immigrants, and the way to improve it is to build branch railroads. We have plenty of trunk lines, but what do they amount to if there are no branches? It is the branches that bring business; they create the tonnage which makes the railroads profitable. I hope that hon. gentlemen will see the wisdom of providing that they shall go to work in earnest within two years and spend enough money to mean something. The Railway Act provides for an expenditure of 15 per cent, and that is the provision inserted in this amendment. I contend that it is a reasonable provision; otherwise the bill is substantially an extension of the charter for five years, and I do not believe that it is the intention that such an extension should be granted. I, therefore, sincerely trust that the House will see the wisdom of adopting the amendment.


Mr. McCREA:: This is the third time that this matter has been considered by this House. It was dealt with by the special committee, who granted the extension asked for; so I cannot understand why hon. members should persist in opposing it here. It has been discussed throughout the entire time devoted to private bills on each of the two former occasions it has been before the committee in this House, and the object has been simply to obtain, if possible, a snap verdict. Now, I believe in
the development of the country. But if I am rightly informed, as I think I am, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have seven or eight different branches in various stages of construction at the present time in the western provinces.* True, the Canadian Pacific Railway is a strong and powerful corporation; nevertheless, it is hardly reasonable or fair that it should be asked to do too many things at one time. The hon. gentlemen who have been insisting on this amendment are very loud in their protests against high freight rates. They demand cheap transportation. As I have just remarked, it is true that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a corporation of considerable magnitude, and hon. gentlemen say that they ought to be able to proceed with this work because they have all kinds of money. I do not dispute the fact that they have sufficient money for operating purposes; but neither the Canadian Pacific Railway nor any other corporation, big or little, using sound judgment, is going to take the money which it has for operating purposes and put it into permanent investment in the construction of roads. What they will do, before starting upon the construction of this or ony other important branch railway, is to go and sell bonds, and I presume there is not a gentleman in the House, who has had anything to do with the financing of any concern, who does not realize that the present is a very critical time to sell bonds to advantage. If we force the Canadian Pacific Railway to go and sell bonds for the construction of this extension, probably at seven or eight per cent and running over a period of twenty, thirty or forty years, we shall simply be putting a burden on them that will react on the freight rates. If I am correctly informed, the extension that has been asked for in this particular case can really be constructed only by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It can, of course, be built by the Canadian National Railways; but, for my part, the National Railways have as many lines on hand as they can operate advantageously, and I would not by any means advise that they should undertake to build any extensions that can be built by anybody else. The Canadian Pacific Railway are simply asking for the usual extension, namely, two years to commence and five years to finish. If the money market should happen to take a turn for the better and they could get their money reasonably, so that they could carry on the construction now under way, they would probably take advantage of the circumstance;
Canadian Pacific

because it is my belief that they are just as anxious tt>
build the extension as the people are to have it. The conditions, however, are such that it is not wise on the part of this Government to try to place burdens on the Canadian Pacific Railway or, for that matter, or any other corporation that would compel them to go into the money market and buy money at this particular time, when they would have to pay an extremely high rate of interest for it. In the interest of the western farmers and, indeed, of the people generally, who expect and want cheap transportation, we should give the railways an opportunity to take advantage of the money market when it is favourable, and when they can get their money at a reasonable price. I think the Canadian Pacific Railway has a record in this country that ought to be a fair guarantee that they are not bluffers or slackers, and that they will do their work and do it to advantage, if given a fair opportunity. It is not to the advantage of the western people, nor any other community in the country, that we should force the railways to go into the money market at an inappor-tune time, because if they have to pay too much for their money the cost will eventually fall upon the people in higher freight rates.


Mr. STEVENS:: I want to say a very few words in regard to the bill, which is practically on a par with what I might term a sister bill' that was before the House a few days ago. Both of these bills -but I am speaking now more particularly of this one-were, I understand, fully considered and threshed out before the Railway Committee. Now, I do not wish to lecture the House at all, but I would observe that, with the large and well equipped committee which this House has for the consideration of private bills, such as the Banking Committee and the Committee on Railways and Canals, it would seem advisable, unless there is a vital principle at stake, that the decisions of a select standing committee should be accepted, for two reasons: In the first place, before that committee there appear the representatives of those who are interested. I understand, from the reports, that the Railway Committee gave this bill careful consideration. These very proposed amendments were considered by the committee, who decided to report the bill in its present form, or at least with the minor amendments referred to by the Chairman in reading the bill. In the next place, if we brought into the House these matters [Mr. McCrea.l
which are more or less in the nature of details, it would be desirable that the House should have before it in detail all the evidence and the reasons in support of or in opposition to them, just as in the committee. That is what should be done if the House is seriously going to consider from time to time minor amendments of this kind. Now, let us look for a moment at the amendments. As I understand the two amendments, one is to shorten the period of time from two years to one and from five years to three, for commencement and completion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, at all events, that is a matter of detail which the committee itself is more competent to determine than we are in this House, unless we are in a position to hear all the evidence. Now what is the situation? The section of the act which has been referred to by a good many hon. members-


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: The hon. member is not speaking to the amendment. He is speaking on the question of time, which is not mentioned in the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had passed from that and got to the question of bonds, so that my hon. friend's objection is not well taken.


The CHAIRMAN:: The part of the bill which it is proposed to strike out reads:
-if within the said periods respectively the said lines are not commenced or are not completed or put into operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by Parliament shall cease, and be null and void as respects so much of the said lines as shall then remain uncompleted.
The point of time has some relevancy to this particular amendment, as the hon. member will see.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I so understood it, Mr. Chairman. In regard to such an amendment, the details are certainly more familiar to the Railway Committee than they are to this House, and if the House is to be called upon to determine all matters of detail after a bill has passed through the committee, then I consider we ought to have the same information as was furnished to the committee.
But let me turn for a moment to the question of bond issue. There is a clause in the Railway Act, inserted there a few years ago for a distinct purpose; it refers to the expenditure upon a railway or a branch line of a proportion of the capital

Canadian Pacific
stock or the bond issue of the railway company. That clause was inserted because we had a regular epidemic of railway charters. Individuals would get a charter for a railway, and then go out into the market and peddle it, hoping to secure some monetary advantage. This charter mon-gering, as it was called, became a veritable pest, so Parliament inserted in the Railway Act the clause to which I have referred. During the past few years that condition of affairs has almost, if not entirely, disappeared, and we have to-day but two great railway systems, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific-two enormous corporations controlling virtually all the railways of Canada.
This company and these branch lines are controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There was only one criticism that I could direct at the application originally, and that has been taken care of by the committee, namely, the desirability of the Canadian National Railway having running rights over a portion of this line. That was provided for in the amendment now before the committee for adoption. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is desirable that we should accept the decision of the Railway Committee except where a matter of vital principle is concerned. I submit that in this case it is rather a matter of opinion after hearing all the evidence in the case which the Railway Committee had the advantage of hearing.
Let me take one further reference. In the course of this discussion some hon. members said that we should apply business principles in dealing with railway matters. We hear that opinion expressed very frequently, and in that connection from time to time the Canadian Pacific Railway is held up as an ideal business institution, which it undoubtedly is. But let us consider this point for a moment. The Canadian Pacific Railway with its enormous ramifications, and with its numerous railway extensions from year to year, cannot provide the necessary appropriations for those extensions in the same year in which it secures the bill for the purpose; it must plan a certain distance ahead. By the time this bill is passed a considerable portion of the season for construction will have passed, and in my estimation it is unreasonable, and has always been considered so, to ask any concern to commence operations within one year and to tie it down to that limited time with any sincerity of belief in its ability to fulfil the obligation.
I must say that this bill is satisfactory, both as regards the period of time and the bond issue, for these two matters are well cared for in the general act and in the method of procedure which has been followed so consistently in the past. Therefore personally I would feel very much disinclined to vote against the report of the committee which has given consideration to this matter after reviewing all the evidence.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In the Railway Committee I happened to be one of the supporters of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), and in the Committee of the Whole I also supported him, as I agreed to a great extent with what he was asking for. But this House has already twice defeated the motion of my hon. friend, and it seemed to me that on each occasion the majority of the members were in favour of granting this extension. Therefore why should we waste further time in endeavouring to hold up this bill? I have heard the matter debated pro and con, and I still have my own opinion in regard to it, but whilst I disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that this House should be guided by the report of the Railway Committee, I believe that the House should be supreme and that we should have an opportunity of discussing this bill if we deem it necessary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him? I said we should be guided largely by the committee in matters of detail.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes. But this amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni having been twice defeated, I have only to say that although I voted for him on both occasions, I do not like this factious opposition, and as the majority of the House seem to be in favour of the bill, if the matter is pushed to a vote I shall reverse my former stand and vote for the bill.


Mr. GARDINER:: I rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). I do not believe that any hon. members, unless they have had actual experience of western conditions, can appreciate what railway communication means to settlers in western Canada. We have spent many millions of money to induce immigration, and those who have come to this country have been guided to western Canada, and placed on government land on the assumption and
Canadian Pacific

the promise that railroad communication would be provided within a reasonable measure of time. Now, Sir, I can give from actual experience instances in some districts where the people have been ten, fifteen and twenty years on the land without railway communication, and they are anywhere from twenty-five to fifty miles from a railway. What use is it for this country to spend millions of dollars each year to bring in fresh immigrants when we have our old settlers leaving by the hundreds and thousands? I received a letter only the other day from a gentleman in my constituency to this effect:
If I have two thousand bushels of wheat to haul to the elevator this year, it will take me sixty days in the fall to do so.
You can readily understand that if you take sixty days out of a man's fall work there is practically no possibility of his making a success of farming where he is a long distance from the railway.
I am going to give the House two examples in my own constituency where the Canadian Pacific Railway have not kept faith with the people. Any one who is conversant with the southern part of Alberta knows there is a railway constructed from Lethbridge east to Manyberries. That line was supposed to join up the Canadian Pacific railway in Saskatchewan. Construction was started at both ends, but a section in the middle is not yet completed. In 1916, I believe it was, these two pieces of railway were brought within twenty-eight miles of each other, and the roadbed has been built on something like fourteen miles of that gap. There are 12 or 14 miles of road-bed to complete, and 26 or 28 miles of the steel have yet to be laid. The work, I believe, was done in 1916. You can understand how the settlers feel there, especially those who live at the eastern end of the portion which runs from Lethbridge when they have to pay on the hauling of their grain back to Lethbridge and then by Medicine Hat on the main line of the Canadian Pacific. The people on the other side of the Saskatchewan border who have to get coal from from Lethbridge may have to pay freight on their shipments all the way around from Lethbridge to Medicine Hat and Swift Current and back again to within 110 miles of Lethbridge. Now, I maintain that is a condition of affairs that should not exist and that the House should take into consideration. In the same constituency this company have for some years had a charter for the construction
of a road from a place called Leader in Saskatchewan to Pashley in Alberta. They built 25 miles of the line and this 25 miles has been running under construction for a number of years. Hon. members must realize that the construction company are running the trains over that 25 miles of railway, as the road has not yet been taken out of their hands; and the construction company in this ease, I believe, is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. When any of the farmers in that district desire to use the services of this construction company for the hauling of a car of grain or other supplies a distance of 25 miles, the construction company charge them $40 or $50 for that service. It will be seen from these examples, therefore, that we in western Canada do not feel like letting bills of this kind pass without criticism. As a matter of fact, many of the members at this end of the Chamber were elected with a view to their protesting against this system which has been carried on in the past. We are here to protest against it, and that is what we are doing. * The time is not far distant when the railway companies which are getting grants of charters will be asked by the House to put up some bond guarantee as an assurance that the lines in question will be constructed within the time stated in the charter. I am satisfied that we have in the past been somewhat too easy in granting those charters and I believe the time is now ripe when the members of the House should see to it that these companies live up to their charters.


Mr. CAHILL:: When an hon. member moved in this committee a few days ago to refer a bill back to the Railway Committee I supported the motion because the amendment had been moved in the committee itself, and I thought it was only fair that the bill be returned to it for further consideration. But the purpose of this amendment is to amend the bill in Committee of the Whole rather than to refer it back to the Railway Committee. The amendment has some merit; I am quite ready to agree with my ,hon. friends opposite who say that the railway companies are getting a little advantage over the act in this particular clause. But that matter also was discussed in the Railway Committee. I had it brought to my attention after the previous bill was placed before this committee that some hon. gentlemen who were opposing it did not understand that the particular clause which was in the bill had the effect of over-riding the

Canadian Pacific
Railway Act. But that circumstance does not occur in this case. My recollection is that no such amendment as is now proposed was moved in the Railway Committee. The clause was explained in the Railway Committee, and the committee adopted the bill as it is to-day-that is, with the amendment giving the National Railway the right to run over certain portions of the line. If this committee wishes to change the Railway Act or to over-ride the desires of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National in a clause which they want to insert in the bill, they have a perfect right to do it, either in this committee or in the House. But as the member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has pointed out, the railway companies, the people who are interested, cannot appear on the floor of the House and argue their point; therefore, I support the bill not as proposed to be amended in Committee of the Whole, but as reported by the Railway Committee.


Mr. LUCAS:: Subsection (a) of section 1 of this bill affects the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) stated that this was a new charter. But this is not the case of a constituency in which the charter for the construction of a railway line has just been granted. I have a paper here from which I will read a heading in order to give you an idea of what the people of that constituency have been led to believe for years with regard to the construction of this line. The paper is dated at Edmonton, September 11, 1912, and it says:
Construction to commence at once on Bruder-heim-Whitford Lake Line.
Now, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are coming back to this Parliament and asking for an extension of charter. I may say that the announcement in this paper to which I refer has reference to the Canadian Northern, which previously had the charter. Owing to the subsequent financial condition of that road, however, they were unable to carry on and the government took the lines over; the Canadian Pacific then came along and secured a charter through this territory. In view of the fact that the Canadian Northern had the charter first, and in order to prevent duplication, a clause was inserted in that charter to the Canadian Pacific granting to the Canadian Northern certain running rights. The clause read:
Provided that for the purpose of avoiding duplication of construction on that portion of
the line west of Lloydminster, the approval of the route map may be made subject to joint construction or operation with the Canadian Northern Railway terms to be agreed upon by the companies or settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) tried to convince the committee to-night that the reason these railways were not being built was because of financial conditions. I have here a clipping, Mr. Chairman, dated March 1, 1920, in which the following statement of Mr. D. C. Coleman, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was quoted:
The railway companies are very much concerned at the moment over the possibility of a shortage of suitable construction and track labour during the coming year, but if anything like an adequate supply of labour Is obtainable it is our intention to make a start on the Cutknife Northwesterly lines during the present year.
He made no statement as to difficulties on account of finances; he attributed them entirely to labour. I submit that the labour situation in the country to-day in itself constitutes an ample reason why the railways should start construction at the earliest possible date.
Now, referring back to that clause which has been inserted giving the National Railways and the Canadian Pacific joint running rights, I submit that is one of the reasons why the Canadian Pacific has held back the construction of this road. I have before me an extract from the Edmonton Bulletin of so recent a date as February 14, 1921, which also quotes some remarks made by Mr. Coleman. It states:
The obstacle standing in the way of the completion of the Cutknife branch, Mr. Coleman explained, was the fact that settlement had not been reached between the C.P.K. and the Canadian National in regard to the latters application for running rights, over the branch from Lloydminster to Whitford Lake. The vital importance of the completion of this branch to the people residing in the territory it would serve was pointed out to Mr. Coleman, who promised that everything would be done by him to bring the matter forward.
Now, I am satisfied the objection has been overcome. The Board of Railway Commissioners have sat and given their decision, and if the matter cannot be agreed upon in a satisfactory way it could be brought to arbitration and ultimately settled by the railway commissioners.
In the district I represent the farmers are hauling their grain from twenty-five to thirty miles and almost every hon. member on this side of the House has been petitioned for his support when this matter
Canadian Pacific

came before the House. I know the conditions with which the farmers there are confronted. It is one of the best farming districts in Alberta, and the Canadian Pacific have admitted that there is no deadwood in that line, but that it would be a paying proposition from the very start. I am not here to say anything against the Canadian Pacific. I think we ought all to be proud of what it has done. It has undoubtedly done a great deal for Canada, but at the same time I submit that it has been well paid for everything it has done. They are now asking for this charter. Well, there are always two sides to a bargain, and if the people of this country through their representatives in Parliament grant this company an exclusive right for a certain number of years to build that line of railway, then if another company came along to-morrow after this charter had been granted and offered to build a line of railway there, the Canadian Pacific would say, " No, you people are bound; you have given us a charter." I submit that it should work both ways, and that if the company gets an exclusive charter for a certain number of years, it should not be averse to putting up some guarantee or bond that it will carry out the undertaking.
I think the amendment is a very reasonable one. It does not curtail the time at all, but simply asks the company if it is acting in good faith that it will start construction within the specified time and*be prepared to spend a reasonable amount of money. I have therefore much pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edwin Dixon Weir.

Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 87 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry James Bristol.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florant Brys.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Catherine Rudd.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Norman Edward Harris.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 91 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maria Amy Drury.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Naval service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $1,500,000.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the debate of last Friday, I made some very short comments on the Government's naval proposals, both as to their purpose and their extent, and by the sentiments I then expressed, though they followed immediately on the minister's address, I still abide. The minister to-day makes some alterations of importance as affecting some of the positions he took in his address of Friday; but as regards the general scope and purpose of his policy not of very great consequence. In the debate then, and now I am afraid, the Government will not have found among the hon. members of this House very much enthusiasm for its naval proposals. Of the hon. members who have spoken some are of opinion that the money voted, and the plans of the Government that the money is intended to realize, are such as to be of no value. Others oppose, because they do not believe in doing anything at all. The only thing there appears to be unanimity on, is that the money to be spent in accordance with the Government's plans will be wasted.
To get a comprehension of the question one does require to have in mind the history of this discussion in this Parliament and country for some years. The Government has not reviewed that discussion, although I think it should have. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has done so in a way; has done so in his way. I listened to him with interest, and there were some of his comments that were really worth noting. I thought, as he proceeded, that if he had not been so controlled by mad partisanship his common sense on this question wobld have had some show and might have triumphed.
The question arose first in this House in the session of 1909, when a resolution was proposed by Sir George Foster, now of the Senate. The debate I need not follow, for I do not want to be long. Suffice to say that owing to conditions, more or less serious, then existing, it was felt on both sides that unanimity was desirable, that possibly some sacrifices on both sides might

Supply-Naval Service
be made to gain it, and a unanimous decision was arrived at embodied in a resolution which I will not at the moment read but to which I will refer hon. members. It appears on page 3566, volume 2 of the Hansard of 1909. Summarizing that resolution, it said that Canada recognized her increasing obligation to take part in the common defence, of this Empire; that a system of periodic and regular contribution to a central navy was not the best system as a permafient policy; but that the House would approve of the creation-the speedy creation-of a Canadian naval service to meet the needs and purposes of the resolution. That was passed unanimously. The following year a Naval Service Act was brought into Parliament by the government of that day-a Naval Service, Act providing for the establishment of a Canadian naval service. Estimates for the purpose of carrying out that policy, aggregating, I think, the figures given by the hon. member for Lunenburg, $3,000,000, were introduced. The opposition of the day opposed that act. The opposition of the day took the ground that conditions had become more and more perilous; that it was evident we could not, under the terms of that act, develop such a trained force here in Canada as the act. contemplated, build such a fleet here in Canada as the act contemplated, within such time as would be effective at all to meet the world situation that was impending. Consequently, the opposition suggested that in place of commencing this policy now-without at all opposing it, on the part of its leader at all events, as the right principle for a permanent policy -instead of spending our money that way, under those conditions, we should spend it by way of direct help in order that Canada might do something in time of real assistance to the Empire in the trouble that was felt to be approaching. The government's bill passed. The government, I understand, advertised for tenders for the building of ships. I do not know when the tenders were advertised for: I think in July, 1910, because the bill passed early in that year; but the general election came on the 21st September, 1911, and no tenders whatever had been accepted. In a word, there was nothing done, save the marking of time, up to election day.
Following the election, an Imperial Conference was held, attended by representatives of Canada. The Admiralty laid before the conference certain facts tending +o show conference certain facts tending to show
the necessity of the whole Empire becoming sufficiently armed as to naval defence.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What year was that?


Arthur Meighen: That was in 1912. The Admiralty, as well, laid before the representatives of the government of Canada, and of the Empire, certain additional facts which they did not feel could be made public but which were disclosed to the leader of the Opposition of that day. Upon those facts-based upon the public memorandum, and, as well, upon the undisclosed details-the government came to the conclusion that the only thing that could be done that would in all probability be effective would be to make then such effective addition to the central navy as would enable it better to meet the contingency that it was feared was only too clearly impending. No one contended even then that the war that later came was any certainty, that it was inevitable in any way; but the conduct of Germany was such that there was reason to fear danger in the not distant future. The government, therefore, proposed to Parliament the provision of funds to construct three capital ships, those ships to be owned by the Dominion of Canada, to be at the disposal of the British navy, subject to recall at any time by this Dominion, and to add to its effective fighting strength; and proposed that in the meantime-while we made that expenditure which was estimated to be in the neighbourhood of thirty or thirty-five million dollars-definite action for the creation of a Canadian naval service might well wait. We took that course. I was not a member of the administration, but the government took that course in the belief that only in that way could effective assistance 'be rendered in time; but the leader of the government at no time in his public career ever made any assertion hostile to the idea of a Canadian naval service as a permanent policy for this country.
The opposition of the day opposed that measure. The opposition moved an amendment-Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved it himself-an amendment which, along the lines of the resolution of 1909, admitted frankly the responsibility of this country, admitted our moral obligation to co-operate in the matter of naval defence, but set its words against the terms of the government's proposal, and1 proposed instead the creation of two fleet units-one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific-under the Naval Service Act of 1910, in that way fulfilling, as they felt, the obligations of this country.
Supply-Naval Service

The arguments against that are the ' ones I have so very briefly set out, namely that it could not be done, the men could not be trained nor could the ships be built for the purpose, as it provided, in Canada, in any time that would likely be at all early enough to meet the emergency that was felt to be near. The government's policy was carried in the Commons and was defeated in the Senate. That debate was in 1913, and was perhaps the most momen-ous, from many respects, of any that ever took place in Parliament. In 1914, the year following, the war broke out. I am not making any boast as to the course the government pursued, it being vindicated by that war. If the war had never broken out, it would not have reflected upon the bona fides, nor upon the judgment of the administration. The fact is that the war did break out, and that if we had commenced in 1910 even, the creation of a naval service, under all the authorities that have had any experience in this matter, we could not have arrived at any effective service by the time the war did break out. Much less could we have done it if we had commenced in 1912 or 1914. However, in that position we confronted the struggle.
The next incident that took place of consequence was, I think, in the year 1918. I am not purposely omitting anything. I do not recall any consequential matter in the meantime. In 1918 the subject again came before the Imperial Conference. In that year the Admiralty presented a memorandum which I have not seen recently, but which, no doubt, is on record in this House, setting out the great advantages from a strategical standpoint of a central navy, and its great advantages, as well, from an economic standpoint. The representatives of the overseas dominions, however, felt that there were difficulties in the way of accepting the Admiralty's conclusions and putting them into realization in the * -'minions, because of strong local feeling there existing, and, as a consequence, there was presented to that conference, on behalf of the representatives of the overseas dominions, lay Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, a memorandum embodying the conclusions of those ministers. That appears in Hansard of the 27th of April, 1921. I have no doubt it appears sooner, but in the debate of that day it was quoted by myself, and may be seen in the speech that I made then. That was a debate on the subject of my duty, when I should go later to represent this country at the Over-

seas Conference. I think it is of sufficient importance that I read that memorandum to this House. It is at page 2640 and reads as follows:
The Dominion ministers, having considered the Admiralty Memorandum of May 17, 1918, on the Naval Defence of the British Empire, which was circulated to the Imperial War Conference, 1918, submit the following conclusions and observations:
1.	The proposals set forth in the Admiralty Memorandum for a single navy at all times under a central naval authority are not considered practicable.
2.	Purely from the standpoint of naval strategy the reasons thus put forward for the establishment of a single navy for the Empire under a central naval authority, are strong but unanswerable. The experience gained in this war has shown that in time of war a Dominion navy (e.g. of Australia) can operate with the highest efficiency as part of a united navy under one direction and command established after the outbreak of the war.
3.	It is thoroughly recognized that the character of construction, armament and equipment, and the methods and principles of training, administration and organization, should proceed upon the same lines in all the navies of the Empire. This policy has already been followed in those Dominions which have established naval forces.
4.	For this purpose the Dominions would welcome visits from a highly qualified representative of the Admiralty who, by reason of his ability and experience, would be thoroughly competent to advise the naval authorities of the Dominions in such matters.
5.	As naval forces come to be developed upon a considerable scale by the Dominions it may be necessary hereafter to consider the establishment for war purposes of some supreme naval authority upon which each of the Dominions would be adequately represented.
That as I said, was presented on behalf of the overseas dominions. The war, of course, not being at an end, no definite step was taken. A year ago last fall, the Prime Minister of Great Britain suggested a further Imperial Conference, or rather a conference of Prime Ministers. The telegram of invitation suggested certain subjects inclusive of the discussion of the wisdom of renewing the Japanese Treaty, and year following, was broke out. I am other matters connected with foreign policies. Subsequently the Prime Minister of Great Britain suggested further subjects among others, the question of naval, military and air defence. The invitation of the Prime Minister was accepted. A debate took place in this House on April 27, 1921, the government having fixed a day on Which members of the House might express freely their views as to what should be the course of Canada's representatives at the conference. In the course of that debate reference was made again to the memorandum I have just read, the terms of which,

Supply-Naval Service
upon the return of our representatives in 1918, were laid before the House, and as respects which, so far as my memory goes, there has been no adverse criticism in this Parliament. In the course of that debate the subject of naval, military and air defence came up. A motion was moved by the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), embodying instructions to Canada's representative, that on no account was he to bind this country to any further naval or military expenditures. That resolution was resisted by the government on the ground that instructions to representatives at a conference were inconsistent with the very purpose and character of such an assembly; and that if that principle were followed by other countries, if their representatives were all to be shackled and bound in advance, then there would be no value in the conference. That resolution was defeated. In the debate I emphasized the view that there could not be any effective discussion of the naval question at that conference because, first of all, I was of the impression that the conference called was of the nature of a conference of Prime Ministers akin to the Imperial War Cabinet that had sat during the war, and that naval questions were more properly taken up at Imperial conferences proper, where matters affecting the dominions, in a domestic sense, came under review. Further, I expressed the view-and this was the argument which I emphasized repeatedly -that while the nations of the world were then groping, it was true, somewhat in the dark, but groping nevertheless, to come to some understanding by which the whole world burden of armaments could be reduced. I felt that until those efforts should have reached some fruition, and we would know what were to be the aggregate responsibilities thereafter of our Empire, we could not with advantage debate the question of naval defence. In the course of that conference, -though I am not at liberty to give the discussions, I am free to give the conclusions and such discussions as are revealed in the official document filed-a resolution was arrived at which, I may suggest, fairly well embodies the sentiments that I expressed in the debate in this House on the 27th of April preceding. That resolution I read to the House on Friday last. It is so pertinent that it should be read again.
That while recognizing the necessity of cooperation among the various portions of the Empire to provide such naval defence as may prove to be essential for security, and while
holding that equality with the naval strength of any other power is the minimum standard for that purpose, this conference is of the opinion that the method and expense of such co-operation are matters for the final determination of the several Parliaments concerned. And, second, that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming conference on disarmament.
Prior to the adoption of that resolution a prolonged debate had taken place on the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty. I may refer to a partial consequence thereof. Perhaps I should not use the word "consequence". Let me merely say that following the debate, after the debate, whichever way you choose to put it, the notable invitation came from President Harding for a conference on disarmament. That invitation was accepted with alacrity by Great Britain, following a most favourable reception at the hands of the conference itself. The disarmament conference, therefore, had been fixed, and in that way machinery was open by which there might be a consummation of the great longings of the powers that there should be some arrangement by which armaments could be reduced.
It is not out of place to interject here the observation that we get nowhere in these discussions by merely expressing an aspiration, a vague sigh and hope, that the nations may cease to do battle in the arbitrament of rights. We do not reach ou1 any distance towards armament reduction by merely throwing down our own arms and leaving ourselves at the mercy of those who do not. The sane nation, the wise nation, the nation that deserves the right to that appellation, seeks to the utmost of its powers, by coming to terms of agreement with other great nations of the world to make it possible, compatible with its own safety, to reduce its weapons of defence and then manfully carries the burden so reduced. That is the course which this Empire has pursued. I venture to say that of all the nations of the world, of this day or of any previous day, no one has ever struggled harder than has Great Britain, in the years before the war and in the years since, to bring about this much desired result. And of all the nations of this Empire there is none that has contributed more sincerely and ardently, and certainly -without the lightest thought of boasting-[DOT] more effectively than Canada has done to help the Empire towards that end.
The disarmament conference at Washington is the longest step that has ever been taken by the advanced nations of this world towards the practicable goal of dis-

Supply-Naval Service

armament. As a result of that conference, the possibilities outlined by the minister himself (Mr. Graham) in his speech of last Friday, have been arrived at. Great Britain is able to reduce her capital ships by, I think, twenty-three or twenty-four; and the United States, by the abandonment of projected vessels and vessels under construction, and by the scrapping of vessels prior to certain types, is also able to reduce her capital ship strength by, I believe, twenty-eight. The three great leading powers of the world, Britain, the United States and Japan-I do not omit France out of any feeling that she is not a great power, but her position is very much weakened by reason of the war, which we all undoubtedly deeply regret- came to a definite understanding as to ratio, an understanding which is the very heart and centre of the agreement arrived at,-that ratio being five, five and three in capital vessels, the complement or what might be termed supplementary vessels to be proportionate to the capital ships of each nation. That has been made possible as a consequence of the disarmament conference; therefore we know now the residuum, the aggregate responsibility for naval defence that rests upon the British Empire. We know now the point up to which we must go, and beyond which we cannot proceed. Therefore, we are in possession of the facts, to determine what are the duties of the Dominion in the premises, and what course it should pursue.
Now, the question arises: What is our duty? What is our obligation? Well, in the first place, I submit that we have an obligation. I do not know whether anyone disputes the fact or not. If anyone disputes it to-day, I am not aware of anyone who disputed it in April, 1909. The resolution unanimously agreed to in this House in 1909 acknowledged the obligation of this country. The very commencement of the resolution recited that obligation. But we do not need resolutions to enable us to understand our obligations. If in this world we receive the advantage of services rendered, it follows, I think, in the mind of. honest people, that we should contribute either to those services or to their upkeep. That we do receive to-day and have received through all our history the advantages of the British navy as a great public service, there is no room for doubt -no room for dispute at all.

The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) stated this afternoon that even in the late war, he, a citizen of Nova Scotia, residing on the Atlantic coast, had no fears at all. "Why," he said, "though the war raged around I sat there under my vine and fig tree and no man made me afraid." Why was that? The hon. member knows why it was. He rested in that security just for the reason that we all rested in the same position, just for the reason that many of the nations of this world, wholly independent of the British Crown, rested in like security-the reason being the strength, the power and the purpose of the navy of Great Britain.
While Canada was a growing nation we made no effort whatever to assist in that form of defence. We accepted the results with the feeling that we had some obligation to bear a share. But that feeling did not bring practical results; it was a matter of growth, of continuous and increasing realization, and the formal acknowledgment came in the resolution of this Parliament unanimously passed in 1909. Consequently we recognize the obligation. We do not recognize it as a contractual obligation ; it never was, it is not such to-day. We recognize it as a moral obligation binding upon us.
The method by which we fulfil that obligation, whether by co-operation through the construction and manning vessels of our own, or by assistance to a central navy- is for the choice of the people of this country through their Parliament in the light of the best opinion we can gather. The method is for us to choose, the extent we are to go is for us to choose; always it has been so, it is so to-day.
There has been difference of opinion as to what method we should follow; there has been difference of opinion even dividing parties in this House, but on the part of Canadians worthy the name and regardless of party there has been no difference of opinion as to the obligation itself.
Now, I venture to suggest that with that obligation existing, we cannot do justice to our own people, we cannot do justice to the manhood of this country, we cannot do justice to the children of this country, if we as a nation lie under a manifest moral obligation and refuse to do anything towards its discharge. The nation that plays the part of a poltroon and sponger in the life of the world will find that conduct reflected in the moral character of its people and in the estimation in which it is held abroad.

Supply-Naval Service
Had it not been for the belief in the imminence of war I do not doubt at all that this country would without serious party division have come to an effective conclusion as to the right line of naval policy. The belief in the imminence of war, and the difference of opinion that that involved, had the effect of severing us as to the best method to be adopted. Now that the war is past and we are in a position to lay down the lines of a permanent policy, the reasons for that division have disappeared.
We have now passed every emergency that then threatened us, but that there is no possibility of any future danger surely those who profess the truth will not contend. When we see Britain taking upon herself the obligation she does; when we saw the United States, prior to that conference, entering upon a squarely designed programme to surpass all the nations of the world; yes, when we see France to-day, even by the press of to-night bringing down a programme of naval construction and maintenance, exceeding by $69,000,000 her programme of last year, it begins to dawn upon us that we may be a little premature in concluding that the great new social order has arrived, and that the possibility of war has gone.
The duty of this country to-day is to devise a method of carrying out its just obligation in the light of existing conditions, and the question before this committee is whether or not the proposals of the Government fulfil this obligation. I purpose to inquire very briefly whether they do or not.
It is necessary to say first, that after the war in 1920 the ships that we had during the war were manifestly unsuited by that time for any purpose at all. I do not wish to enter into any controversy now as to the value of the ships that were bought in 1910-the Niobe and the Rainbow. It would not be inconsistent with argument ot assume that they were of some value then, but, they were of no value in 1920, and even long before that year-that is, of no practical value as a nucleus for a navy, and virtually of no value even for training purposes. So putting aside matters of controversy that do not affect the issue now at all, let us come to 1920. Feeling that we necessarily must commence some training, knowing what the other dominions of the Empire were doing, knowing what the Mother Country was doing, we accepted from Great Britain a free

gift, not of obsolete vessels at all, but of oil-burning vessels of the most modern type. We accepted the Aurora, built in 1914, an oil-burning cruiser; then we accepted two oil-burning torpedo destroyers, built in 1916, and two submarines, built either then or later.
I do not say there was an express undertaking with Great Britain, but as a matter of deliberate policy for ourselves we undertook to utilize those ships and to train upon them as best we could the personnel of a navy for this country. We undertook that and no more, because we felt that the time was coming, either through the League of Nations or otherwise, when the great powers would be able to agree to a reduction of armaments and thereby we would know what the obligations of the various nations were to be.
We started in this way, completed the complement of those vessels, and proceded to the work of training our young navy. The hon. member for Lunenburg endeavours to make fun of that navy. He says, " What use were those boats for guarding our seas? Why they took a trip down through the Panama canal and cruised around the west coast of Canada. They were not guarding our shores at all." He seems to think they were only utilized for joyrides for the seamen, or as spectacles for our population to gaze upon.
Now, let me put it to the hon. member for Lunenburg: Shores need to be guarded when they are attacked. Men need to be trained upon their ships when there is no attack-trained in time of peace for the purpose of meeting peril if peril comes. Does the hon. member think that the Royal Navy of Great Britain is strung around the British Isles watching for some hostile ship to fire a shot? Is the United States navy stationed at some short distance from the shores of that country, the ships a few flags apart, watching there for fear some hostile vessel may steam upon her shores? That is not what their navy is doing. Those navies were doing just what the navy of this country has been doing. They were training, they were steaming; they were proceeding to various portions of the world. The United States navy was doing that; the Royal navy does it continually. And I say this, without having looked at the records very lately -but I say it with considerable confidence: what we did was under recommendation as a good and effective way to serve the purposes for which the navy existed.
Supply-Naval Service


William Duff: Will my right hon. friend permit me a question, as he seems to address his remarks to me? Does the whole British navy and the whole United States navy leave the British Isles and the United States coasts respectively and go about all over the world?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know whether it does or not.


William Duff: Did not the Canadian navy do that?


Arthur Meighen: I am very sure that more of the British navy does, than ever does of ours. This naval complement we accepted, of very considerable value-of certainly marked value for training purposes. That task and duty we fulfilled, abiding the day when we would know what the aggregate obligations of the Empire were. Now that time has come, and the Government of the day comes to Parliament and says that our full duty under those aggregate obligations is to spend a million and one half dollars to scrap one ship-the Aurora-or to tie it to anchor, lock it in the stable or hand it back; to scrap the two submarines,or hand them back. First of all their suggestion was to scrap the other two as well and establish in their place one ship on the west coast and one on the east, a small vessel on each, to be surrounded by two trawlers of 450 tons, these to constitute the naval service of this country,-the trawlers on the west coast to go up in the Behring sea to protect pelagic sealing. My hon. friend corrects me? He feels that it is quite the proper course for the Canadian navy to protect seals, but not to protect fish?


William Duff: If my right hon. friend
will allow me, I said distinctly this afternoon that I did not think the Canadian navy should be used to protect the seal fisheries; that that was the duty of the Fisheries Protection service.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is right; he said that this afternoon. The minister said the purpose of these trawlers was to protect pelagic sealing around the Behring sea.


George Perry Graham: No, I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the minister to say so.


George Perry Graham: I did not say it was the purpose; I said that was one of the duties that one of these trawlers could perform. There is a marked difference.


Arthur Meighen: Well, if it is, I would consider it was a purpose.


George Perry Graham: Will my right hon. friend allow me, now, so that we can just put it straight? It might be one of the purposes.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right. Is not the minister afraid that while these trawlers are up watching the seals in the Behring sea, the hon. member for Lunenburg will be standing up and objecting that our shores are not guarded at all?


William Duff: Do not worry a bit.


Arthur Meighen: A million and a half to train men, he says, for two or three weeks, partly on land, an hour a day, and partly on ships. They are to go out for a very few days, he says, and come back, and that training is to be merely by way of pastime during holidays; it is to take no boy or young man from his regular work; thereby we are to develop a naval service for this country. Does the minister know of any nation in the civilized world that ever adopted that plan to develop a naval service? I venture to say that even the little country of Switzerland never followed a course like that, though it lies in the lap of Europe, away from the sea, nestling in the Alps.


Mr. VIEN:: There is no navy in
Switzerland.


Arthur Meighen: No. They depend on other nations protecting them and I believe the hon. member for Lotbiniere would have us follow the example of Switzerland and have no navy either.
What are the proposals of the minister tonight. A million and one half for two trawlers on one coast and two on another, these to be headed by one torpedo boat destroyer on one coast and one on another. There is to be no continuous training at all, though it is a fact, as the minister knows-and no one can know better, if he has consulted with his experts-that to develop a seaman for the purposes of a naval service you require not weeks, not months; you require years of continuous application. You require to make it a life work; otherwise there can be no naval service at all.
. Now, what is the position of this country? The aggregate obligation of Great Britain, after you accept a reduction possible this year, as stated by the hon. member for Lunenburg-and that reduction is even more than the hon. member stated, but I know he did not intend to understate it at all-with that reduction as stated by the

hon. member, the aggregate obligation of Great Britain will be in the neighborhood of $400,000,000 upon a little over 40,000,000 people or approximately $30 per head for every man, woman and child of the population of those islands. That will be the residuum after she has exhausted her efforts, assisted by this country and by every other country whose assistance she could garner, to reduce this obligation to the very minimum.
Now the minister in his address the other night expressed more than once his belief in the necessity of reduction consistent with safety and with national dignity. Mr. Chairman I do not stand as much on national dignity as some men; I would have been fully satisfied if the minister had stopped with "consistent with safety". When a nation has armaments reasonably consistent with safety, then there is consistency with national dignity, at all events to suit me. When you go as far as necessary for safety under world conditions you have gone all the length you need go for the purposes of national dignity.
Britain feels that for the purposes of safety she must maintain, a singlepower standard. She cannot afford to go below it. To do so-and she was recognized by all the nations of the world at Washington as being right in her decision not to go below a single-power standard-to do so she is called upon to expend in the neighborhood of $400,000,000. That is the position Great Britain is in. Great Britain be it remembered, until a very few years ago, being an island Empire, having responsibilities in every part of the globe- here and in the Southern seas and all over the world-Great Britain felt that in her peculiar position she could not be safe under less than a two-power standard. She was compelled to abandon that position some years ago. She adopted a 60 per cent defence standard-that is, over the next highest power, but for reasons good to her-doubtless owing in the main to the destruction of the German navy, Britain receded from that resolve and adopted a one-power standard. I am sure there is no citizen of Canada, there is no citizen of the dominions of the Empire, who would for one moment question the claim on the part of Great Britain that it is absolutely essential for her security that a one-power standard be maintained. Is Britain, in a naval sense, to pass to the standing of a second rate power? If she does, are we not affected just the same as the people
Supply-Naval Service
of the British Isles? If Britain passes below the one-power standard and other nations in naval matters get ahead of her-these same nations being much stronger than she is in military organization-then where has the security of this Empire gone? Consequently, she is determined that a one-power standard must be maintained, with the acquiescence of every dominion of this Empire, and to do so she binds her people to an annual taxation approximating $400,000,000. That is the position of the Mother Country. What is the position of the other dominions? Australia has been expending on naval defence at the rate of $14,062,500; that is for the year before last; I have not last year's figures here. Fourteen million odd dollars for a population of five millions. New Zealand has been expending on naval defence $1,088,400 odd for a population of 1,200,000 people.


Thomas Vien: Would the hon. gentleman assimilate the position of New Zealand or Australia to that of Canada in respect of naval defence?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member
means would I compare?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: There is this difference. We in Canada are nearer to Britain and nearer therefore to Britain's Royal navy, and on that account more secure. There is that difference all right. We perhaps if we are of the character to follow such a course, could rest with greater security on the back of the taxpayer of Great Britain. Australia has been spending for purposes of defence at the rate of $6.13 per capita. She has been spending for purposes of the navy $14,000,000 odd, or at the rate of about $2.80 per capita. The proposals of this Government are to spend in Canada $1,500,000, or at the rate of 17 cents per capita-$2.80 in Australia, and 17 cents in Canada, $2.80 in Australia for purposes of real training, for effective purposes, and 17 cents in Canada, wasted on services that cannot produce a man for the navy or an effective vessel for defence.
South Africa does not distribute between her naval defence and her other defences but her expenditure per capita for all defence is $5.55 as against Canada's for all purposes of $1.69. That is the difference between the Union of South Africa and the Dominion of Canada, though the Union cf South Africa is a far younger nation than

Supply-Naval Service
we are, having progressed only ten or fifteen years in its national life, while we are in the fifty-fourth or fifty-fifth year of our national existence. That is how we compare with these other dominions.
Last year, even under the proposals then there might have been something in the criticism of the hon. member for Lunenburg that they were so low as to be criticisable on the score of ineffectiveness; no man witn any knowledge of the subject could criticise them on the score of extravagance. But to-day the minister comes here, under pressure, I believe because I think I know the minister, and I would do him the credit of saying I do not believe these proposals reflect his mind, reflect his sense of Canadian manhood, reflect his sense of British citizenship-


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not cry.


Arthur Meighen: That comes from the hon. member from Quebec.


Mr. POWER:: I did not say anything.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Is the hon. gentleman referring to me?


Arthur Meighen: No, but I would be prepared to if the hon. member wants to say anything. I was referring to the hon. member for Quebec South.
Let me put the minister's position in the light of our obligations both within this Empire and before the world. If it is the British navy that makes us safe, is there not some obligation on the part of this country to do something to assist the British navy, either by some navy of our own or otherwise? Is there not? How does the minister argue his own mind out of that position? I do not think he does argue his own mind out of that position. I think the minister is under pressure from certain sources in this country, under dictation from them, that compels him to come down and present this miserable policy to the Parliament of Canada. His policy is the triumph of Bourassaism in this country.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: Would the hon. gentleman inform the House and the country what sources he thinks are influencing the minister?


Arthur Meighen: I thought I had pretty well, in the last sentence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You made a lot of innuendoes.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member has anything of importance to suggest-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do not play the baby. Answer the question.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
member say? He cannot address those words to me. I will not adopt his style, cr use the hon. member's term. Both are unworthy of Parliament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why do you not answer the question?


Arthur Meighen: I did. I stated the section that I believed dictated this policy, that had triumphed in the determination of the Government to present this policy to Parliament.	_


George Perry Graham: They did in 1911, but not now.


Thomas Vien: It was your unholy alliance.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to give hon. gentlemen the opportunity to cheer. In 1911 I know, and I do not seek to blink this at all, that there were opponents both to the naval policy of the government and to the naval policy of the opposition in this country, who did not want to do anything whatsoever, ll am aware of that. I am aware they elected members to this House. But I am a-ware as well that their policy found no reflection whatever in the policy the government of that day brought down to Parliament. The hon. member laughs. Does he say that a policy of constructing and placing within the British navy three capital ships was a policy that reflected in any degree the wishes of those men?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They kept you in power.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has asked me a question and I suppose he expects an answer. The policy of those men he refers to was reflected in the fact that after 1911 the then government, with the aid of the anti-British refused to carry out the decision by Parliament to have a Canadian navy.


Arthur Meighen: I answer it was reflected in no such way, because the same element was even more determinedly opposed to the three capital ships than to the Canadian navy.


George Perry Graham: And they were in the government.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows that there were none in the government opposed to that course. The government stood as a unit for that course, and the government came-

Supply-Naval Service


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What
about Nantel?


Arthur Meighen: and proposed three capital ships. I am speaking of policies of governments, proposals of governments to this House. I want to reason this matter.


Thomas Vien: You spoke of Bourassa.


Arthur Meighen: I say that this reduction at this time does reflect the triumph of that element in this country.


Thomas Vien: Not at all.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says " Not at all". What element does it reflect?


Thomas Vien: Common sense.


Arthur Meighen: Common sense? Very well. The hon. member believes this is common sense; he is welcome to his belief. The hon. member then has not much confidence in the common sense of his late chief who, in 1913, proposed as a permanent policy of this country the establishment of fleet units on both coasts that would have cost sums transcending this ten times over 

in actual upkeep.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was before the war.


Thomas Vien: The year 1913 and the years 1921 and 1922 are quite different.


Arthur Meighen: I know tney are. I know they are quite different; quite different on the part of hon. members opposite too. There is this fact: In 1913- it is true it was before the war-but the policy was proposed by those who asserted that there was no such thing as emergency at all. I can bring the hon. member quotation after quotation showing that it was asserted time and again that they were laying this down not out of any fear of immediate conditions, but as an incident to the nationhood of Canada; that Canada could not assert in one breath that she was a nation with the responsibilities of a nation, and in the next breath assert that she would not make plans for naval defence. Such was the principle outlined by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and there was much to support that principle. The only reason it was opposed was this: We believed there was danger, and grave danger, and that if we waited to construct and equip fleet units we would really contribute nothing to meet that danger at all. As a matter of permanent policy this can be said for the
course pursued by the then leader of my hon. friend: It was of a magnitude and on a scale worthy of this country.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend is wrong in this because the policy to which he refers was referred to by him and his associates as " a tin pot navy".


Arthur Meighen: Oh, I agree. The policy of leaving the Naval Service Act out of operation virtually till September, 1911, and buying only those two little ships was wholly ineffective and was not improperly described as a tin pot navy policy; but the policy proposed by my hon. friend's leader in 1913, and I distinctly referred to the date, was on a scale and of a character which, had it not been for the circumstances as we believed, of emergency, was worthy of this Dominion and this nation.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Was not my hon. friend insistent against that policy, and was he not aided by the Nationalists?


Arthur Meighen: For the reason just
given I was against it. I certainly was not assisted.


An hon. MEMBER:: The campaign was financed by your party.


Arthur Meighen: So far as in my power I took care that there was no weakening in policy, out of deference to any section and I would like hon. members opposite to follow that course to-day. It is steadfast policy by governments that counts. It is the policy of this Government that I condemn to-night as unworthy of our country; as tending to put us in the position of free boarders within this Empire; as refusing to do what we ought to do, as an autonomous nation under the British Crown.


William Duff: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question? just there? Is ix not a fact that in 1911 when the Liberal party went out of power they had spent $3,000,000 that year towards the naval policy of Canada; and is it not a fact that in the 1912 session of Parliament the government led by Sir Robert Borden, of which the leader of the Opposition was a member, reduced that estimate to $1,000,000?


Arthur Meighen: Yes that is a fact; or rather that is not exactly a fact, but what the hon. member seeks to bring out is true. The $3,000,000 was in the estimates in 1911.
Supply-Naval Service


William Duff: And the year previous?


Arthur Meighen: I have the exact
figures. In 1910-11, the expenditure was $2,256,709; in 1911-12,	$1,901,494; in
1912-	13-14, $2,086,049.


William Duff: I am afraid the right hon. gentleman has added a number of items connected with the fisheries to that sum; they were all under the naval service. The amount I gave was the actual amount for the naval service. What the hon. gentleman has been giving is the expenditure for the naval service and for fisheries protection, to that his figures are not correct.


Arthur Meighen: I am not sure of
that.


William Duff: Well, that is the fact.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member
probably knows that this includes fisheries protection expenditure?


William Duff: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, it will bring the amount down to less than what the hon. member says.


William Duff: If the leader of the Opposition will pardon me, what I want to say is this: The Liberal party, the last year they were in power, spent $3,000,000 for what is known as the Canadian navy. The Borden government the first year they came into power reduced that amount by $2,000,000, to $1,000,000, which shows quite conclusively that they were not in favour of a Canadian navy.


Arthur Meighen: That is not correct. I am only correcting the figures for the purpose of accuracy, not for the purpose of defeating the hon. gentleman's point, because as he conceives it, it is right; They spent for all purposes in 1910-11, $2,256,709. Something less, but not so much less was spent in 1912-13, and in
1913-	14 for that purpose. But suppose we agree there was less spent on the Canadian navy by the government of Sir Robert Borden than by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the reason was this: The government of Sir Robert Borden felt that we could not reach actual results in time that way, and that the right course was to do something immediate and effective, and therefore we proposed to build the three capital ships as part of the British navy. That is the reason there was a reduction in those estimates. But what I put to the hon. member is this: If it took to maintain the Niobe and the Rainbow-

the little service that was got together in 1910-if it took $2,256,709 under the cost conditions that then prevailed, what does the hon. member hope to secure with $1,500,000 under the cost conditions that obtain to-day? The hon. member, however, is not inconsistent in his point; he says we cannot get anything.


William Duff: Hear, hear; very little.


Arthur Meighen: I believe he is a better judge than I. According to my light I think it is worthless; but what I do not understand about the hon. member is this: He says that $2,500,000 last year was so small that it was ineffective and useless, but he says that he will support $1,500,000 although it is less than $2,500,000; and the reason is that he hopes the minister will not spend it. The hon. member nods his head.


William Duff: Quite right.


Arthur Meighen: I must compliment him on the strength of the party tie that binds him.


William Duff: I may say to the leader of the Opposition that I can split hairs as well as he can.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I do not know that voting for worthless expenditure is splitting hairs, but if such is the consummation of the art I decline to follow the hon. member to that end.


William Duff: I would not like you to
follow me.


Arthur Meighen: I would not care for my hon. friend to do so. If we are going to take this step I submit this to the minister: Let us drop the million and a half. What is the value of spending a million and a half in the way he proposes to spend it? If we cannot do something that is of some real value then let us do nothing at all. Do not let us pretend to be carrying our obligation when, in fact, we are not carrying it in any sense. Let me put this as well: If the Government believes the majority of the people of this country want us to follow this course and do nothing in relation to defence, then in the name of honour and of decency let us step outside of the field of Empire altogether and get on our own feet.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: How can we stay and hold our heads up within the circle of the Empire and refuse to bear anything like a

Supply-Naval Service
commensurate share of the cost of the Empire's defence, as the other dominions are doing? Do not let any one say that I favour stepping out. No one values British connection more than I do. But British connection is of value and something to be proud of if we rise to its responsibilities, as well as accept its advantages. There are those who say, "Oh, we are in favour of British connection because of the traditions of Great Britain, because of this and that other glory of Great Britain", but who follow by the assertion that we cannot pay any money in discharge of the responsibilities that undoubtedly are incident to British connections, responsibilities far less than we would have had to discharge if we stood independent as a nation-far less than our corresponding obligations would be as an independent nation. "Oh" they say "if we do anything in the way of assisting, in national defence, that is Imperialism" and they turn in holy scorn from the very thought of "Imperialism". But they say "nevertheless though we do not do anything we want British connection", and they call that loyalty. That definition of loyalty I do not understand. I do not argue that we as a Dominion ought to assist on a scale commensurate with our population, either by way of service of our own, or assistance in any othre form. Great Britain has responsibilities in respect of crown colonies, and I do not think there are any anyway who would not acknowledge that her responsibilitiy per capita is justly greater than ours. Surely on the ether hand no one will urge that 17 cents per capita for the Canadian people is fair assistance on our part, when the burden resting on England is something like $10 a head for the people of that country. I oppose the minister's proposal on the score, first in view of the plan he has revealed, and on the score that it is incompatible with the maintenance of the honour and self respect of this Canadian nation as an integral part of the Empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend who
has just resumed his seat has said, and I think quite rightly, that this question cannot properly he appreciated without some review of the history of the naval policy, and of the discussion which has taken place in regard to it. He says that the Government had not reviewed the discussion, though he thought they should have. I hope my right hon. friend did

not feel that, after he had sat down, the last word would have been spoken, because, while he did review the discussion to a certain extent, he left some material parts untouched. Possibly, I may find it necessary to review this question a little more at length than would have been necessary had my hon. friend not sought to have the House believe that he was covering all aspects of it. He very properly went back to the resolution of 1909, which was unanimously adopted in this House as the basis of the naval policy. He said he would not read the resolution to the House, but would quote the substance of it. I noticed in his quotation a particular phrase, whether it had any significance or not I could not say, but I doubt if it will be found in the resolution itself. It Was to the effect that this Parliament recognized an obligation in the nature of the common defence of the Empire. That was the expression he used. I am not saying whether that obligation exists or not, but I shall read the exact words of the resolution so that the House may have its exact terms before it. The resolution reads:
The 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 is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the Imperial treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian Naval Service in co-operation with and in close relation to the Imperial Navy along the lines suggested by the Admiralty at the last Imperial Conference and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the Empire, and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the Imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the Empire.
That was the resolution accepted unanimously in this House, providing for the establishment of a Canadian naval service, and setting forth that whatever might be done in connection with the Canadian naval service should be in close relationship with the British Admiralty, and along the lines of decisions that had been reached at an Imperial Conference. The outcome of that
Supply-Naval Service

resolution was the act respecting the naval service, which was assented to on May 4, 1910. I have a copy of that act in my hand, and looking it over I think I am right in saying that it has in view four main objectives. The first is the provision for a Department of Naval Service and the administration of that department. The second makes provision for a naval reserve force. The third makes provision for a naval volunteer force, the organizing and maintaining of a force to be called the Naval Volunteer Force. The fourth provision, which is an important one, is that in times of emergency the naval service and the members of the naval forces I have spoken of may be placed by the Governor in Council at the disposal of the British Admiralty. That was the law passed in May, 1910, by the then Liberal administration. That law embodies the Liberal policy as it was stated at that time, and as we are standing for it to-day. There has never been a party which had greater reason to feel proud of its policy, more able to say that its policy had been vindicated by the facts of history at every turn, and that it was a wise and prudent policy in every particular, than the Liberal party in regard to its naval policy.
My right hon. friend said that after the Naval Service Act had been passed the Liberal party, in other words, the Government of the day, had done nothing save the marking of time, up to election day.


Arthur Meighen: Two ships, the Rainbow and the Niobe.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us see
about the marking of time and make a comparison based upon facts as to what was done. Here is the record of the Liberal Administration while in power. The Naval Service Act was passed on May 4, 1910. Immediately, a deputy minister of the department was appointed, and steps were taken to organize the department in its different details. On the 8th July advertisements were inserted in the leading newspapers of Canada for the construction of vessels for the Canadian navy. Canadian and British firms were invited to tender. On August 18 the second-class cruiser, the Rainbow, which had previously been purchased by the Canadian government from the British Admiralty for use as a training ship on the Pacific, sailed from England and arrived at Esquimalt on Nov. 7.	On October 10 the first-class
cruiser Niobe, previously purchased from the British Admiralty by the Canadian

government for use as a training ship on the Atlantic sailed from England and arrived at Halifax on October 21.
Recruiting for both the Rainbow and the Niobe started on their arrival, also the organisation of the dockyard at Halifax. According to the report of the Deputy Minister of the Department of Naval Service for the year ending March 31st, 1911, recruiting was satisfactory and the complement of the Niobe was practically complete on that date. There were still a few vacancies on the Rainbow. By January 19th the Naval College at Halifax was formally opened. On May 1st, tenders, in accordance with the advertisement and information furnished, were received by the government of Canada from several firms. On May 12th, the Hon. L. P. Brodeur, Minister of the Department of Naval Service, sailed for England to attend a subsidiary conference of the Imperial Conference on Naval Defence. On June 29th, an agreement was concluded between the British Admiralty and representatives of the Dominions of Canada and Australia, respecting the control of the naval service and forces of the Dominions of Canada and Australia, setting forth the limits of the Canadian and Australian naval stations respectively. On July 16th, the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, returned to Canada. Then on July 29th, the Canadian Parliament was dissolved and on September 21st the Dominion general elections were held.
Because of the impending elections, the Prime Minister of the day, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), with the high sense of honour that characterized him, felt that it would not be proper to accept the tenders and award the contracts immediately on the eve of the contest.


Arthur Meighen: When were the tenders asked for and when were they received?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The advertisements were inserted on July 8th, 1910, and tenders in accordance therewith, based upon information furnished in the interval, were received on May 1st of the following year.


Arthur Meighen: And the House was not dissolved until well en in July?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. But, as I mentioned, the Minister of Naval Defence was absent in England in the interval attending a subsidiary conference of the Admiralty on the question of naval arrangements.


Arthur Meighen: Wrhen did he leave?

Supply-Naval Service


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He left on May 12th and returned on July 16th. I think the Prime Minister was also away at the time. He returned on July 16th and on the 29th of that month Parliament was dissolved.
Mr. MEIGHEN-: Why was the space of ten months necessary before tenders were received? And why were they not accepted when received?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend may know that, in regard to ships of this character, much of the information that had to be supplied to the firms tendering was necessarily of a confidential nature. It was furnished in part by the British Admiralty and, in part, from other sources. It therefore required considerable time in order to prepare the tenders for submission to the government. The position, as outlined indicates that if a government had tried its best to proceed quickly, and had eagerly sought to get the naval service under way, it could not have been expected to proceed much more rapidly than did the Liberal administration of that day. The Naval College had been established and the Naval Service Department brought into being. The tenders for the various ships were in, and the whole arrangements were virtually complete. But for the fact that the question of Reciprocity reached such an acute stage during the discussions of that year, the whole naval service would have been launched in the course of the year 1911. Was that marking time, as my right hon. friend suggests? That was doing everything it was possible for a government to do to bring into effect the original purpose of the act, that of creating a Canadian naval service.
But from the moment after the election of 1911, what happened? From that hour until the war was over, during all those years, the government that succeeded the Liberal administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier has not a single act to its credit. Although they came into power in 1911, and had before them the tenders for these various ships, they refused to award a single contract. That is how much attention they paid to naval service and how much they believed in the existence of an emergency. The Niobe and the Rainbow, for which sailors had been recruited, were tied up to the docks. If those hon. gentlemen believed in an emergency and were prepared to meet it in that way, they were not fit to hold office as the governors of the country. That is the difference between the two administrations. It is all very well to talk a great deal and to utter an abundance of words. But actions speak louder than words, and if the two administrations are to be judged by their actions, the country will not have much difficulty in deciding which of them prepared in an effective way to meet our national obligations in regard to naval service.
I will not follow my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in his endeavour to arouse prejudice and passion in the country. It seems to be one of his weaknesses that it is impossible for him to make a speech of any length without injecting into it, sooner or later, something calculated to stir up racial or religious animosity in the country. But when he begins on this occasion to talk about Bourassaism as being a factor in any naval question before Parliament he is going pretty far afield in his effort to arouse prejudice and hatred, which we had all trusted were buried ere the close of the great war. I tell my right hon. friend that his time would be better employed, when he is talking about moral obligations-


Arthur Meighen: May I ask my right hon friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have I hit the right hon. gentleman again?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend has a perennial joke on that subject. I suppose he may say that I am hit when I rise to refute a misrepresentation. The only method he has of hitting me is to misrepresent my position. Will he explain how the mention of Bourassaism is calculated to arouse prejudice and religious ill-feeling in the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Fortunately I may leave the matter in the hands of the House. Hon. members are quite able to judge the effect and intent of my right hon. friend's remarks. I do not seek to misquote him in any way. However, I shall not go into the nature of the conflict in 1911. But I can remember how he and his friends in the province of Ontario went up and down the back concessions declaring that Laurier's creation was a tin pot navy. They told the people that he was a French-Canadian and would do nothing for the Empire; and while they were making these representations in one province, other of the right hon. gentleman's friends were going up and down the province of Quebec
Supply-Naval Service

saying that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his party were too imperialistic, and were trying to force Canadians, by conscription, upon warships in order that they might be brought into European and Japanese broils.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend may refer to others, but he should do them the justice of quoting them exactly. So far as I am personally concerned, I deny absolutely that I ever in my life-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Hon. gentlemen opposite have the habit of meeting argument with roars. Now, I never made any reflection in my life on Sir Wilfrid Laurier or any other man because he was a French-Canadian. But I do not refrain from referring by name to any man as a political force merely because of his race.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend as the leader of a great party should be more chivalrous to his followers. He should be prepared to take upon his own shoulders the obligations of his party instead of always trying to creep out from under himself. I will not follow him in the history of the campaign of 1911. We all recall only too vividly the Nationalist-Conservative alliance whereby the Government formed in 1911 was composed of a certain number of Nationalists and Conservatives, which two forces operating together, prevented any step whatever being taken towards putting into force a naval programme to meet the obligations of the day, notwithstanding that those same hon. gentlemen were professing that there was a great emergency of which account should at once be taken.
In 1913 the government of Sir Robert Borden did bring into the House a resolution in regard to the navy. I shall read that resolution and the amendment which was proposed to it, and I shall ask the House to decide which of the two parties was the sounder in its judgmenton matters of naval policy. This is the resolution which was moved by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden on the 5th December, 1912:
Resolved that it is expedient, in connection with the bill now before this House, entitled an Act to authorize measures for increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire to provide:
(a)	That from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire;
(b)	That the said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governor-in-

Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most powerful and modern type ;
(c)	That the said ships when constructed and equipped shall be placed by the Governor-inCouncil at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defence of. the Empire-
The phrase used by my right hon. friend a few minutes ago.
(d)	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 Governor in Council and His Majesty's Government.
The Liberal party opposed that particular policy as outlined. Why? Because they believed at the time that it was not as good a policy, for dealing even with the situation then forecast by the right hon. leader of the government of the day, as was the Liberal policy of 1910.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Which claimed
there was no emergency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer my hon. friend in one minute.
I ask the members of this House to appeal to the events of history as they have transpired, since that resolution was proposed, and ask themselves how far the judgment of the then Prime Minister was to be compared with the judgment of the leader of the Liberal party of that day.
What was the proposal? To give to the British government a contribution in money for the construction of three of the largest battleships in the world. That is what was then proposed. Of what service would those three battleships have been in the late war? The large dreadnaughts were of little or no service and supposing that resolution had carried, what would be the situation as regards those ships to-day? They would have been in British waters throughout the whole period of the war without being of any real service at all, and to-day they would have been among the number of capital ships consigned to the scrap heap. Does my right hon. friend think that that judgment was sound and safe and calculated to ensure permanent support for the Mother Country and a fuller recognition by this country of its obligation in the matter of naval defence?
But what were the facts in regard to those ships; why was that proposal made? It was made because of the Nationalist-Conservative alliance, so that the Nationalists in the government might go to their friends in the province of Quebec and say, "We are proposing to give a contri-

Supply-Naval Service
bution of money to England to purchase three of the largest battleships in the world, and so end for all time to come anything in the nature of a Canadian naval service or a further recognition of our obligations." And in order that the Conservatives in the government might go to their Imperial friends in the province of Ontario and say, "This is only the first step in a series of contributions towards a permanent Imperial naval defence fund." That was the position.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. Prime Minister not afraid that by attacking the Nationalists of Quebec he may arouse race and creed divisions in this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in the least afraid of arousing any prejudice in that connection. If my right hon. friend is still sensitive in regard to his Nationalist allies, I feel sorry for him, but I do not think there will be any danger such as he suggests from any remarks I have made.
Now may I quote what was proposed in the amendment to this resolution of the government of the day? The Liberal amendment was wholly consistent with the Liberal policy as laid down in 1910; and, let me repeat it again, in the light of the events of the war it has been vindicated and justified a thousand times over. The amendment proposed was as follows:
This House declines to concur 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:
The memorandum prepared by the Board of Admiralty on the general naval situation of the Empire and communicated to this House by the right hon. the Prime Minister on December 5th shows that several of the most important of the foreign powers have adopted a definite policy of rapidly increasing their naval strength.
That this condition has compelled the United Kingdom to concentrate its naval forces in home waters involving the withdrawal of ships from the outlying portions of the Empire.
That such withdrawal renders it necessary that Canada without further delay should enter actively upon a permanent policy of naval defence.
That any measure of Canadian aid to Imperial naval defence which does not employ a permanent policy of participation by ships owned, manned and maintained by Canada and contemplating construction as soon as possible in Canada, is not an adequate or satisfactory expression of the aspirations of the Canadian people in regard to naval defence (and is not an assumption 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 to indefinitely postpone the carrying out by Canada of a permanent naval policy.
It is the opinion of this House that measures should be taken at the present session to give effect actively and speedily to the permanent naval policy embodied in the Naval Service Act of 1910 passed pursuant to the resolution unanimously approved by this House in March 1909.
This House is further of the opinion that tq increase the power and mobility of the Imperial navy by the addition by Canada under the above act of two fleet units, to be stationed on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, respectively, rather than by a contribution of money or ships, is the policy best calculated to afford relief to the United Kingdom in respect to the burden of Imperial naval defence, and in the words of the Admiralty memorandum, to restore greater freedom to the movements of the British squadrons in every sea and directly promote the security of the Dominions; and that the Government of Canada should take such steps as shall lead to the accomplishment of this purpose as speedily as possible.
There was the Liberal position in December 1912. Though the government of the day had wasted two years, though they were talking emergency and had let two years go by without doing anything, that was the course the Liberal party in this Parliament urged they should immediately adopt, and in which course they would have had the support of the Liberal party, namely to construct as speedily as possible fleet units on the Atlantic and on the Pacific coasts.
I ask my right hon. friend, I ask any other member of this House, if that course had been followed as was suggested by the Liberal party in 1912, would not this country and would not the British Empire have been in a much better position when war came in 1914-would they not have been in a position to deal more effectively with the situation that then developed?
But my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said something a moment ago about an emergency. To show how insincere the then government was, in regard to its proposed construction of dreadnaughts to meet any emergency, when the bill passed this House-as it diil under closure in that momentous debate to which my right hon. friend referred,- and went over to the Senate, it was defeated there, as he has already stated. But what did Sir George Ross, leader of the Liberal party in the Senate, say at the time of that defeat? He pointed out very clearly, that the only reason the government was proposing this contribution of dreadnaughts by a separate act was, that the Nationalists of Quebec might tell their followers there, that it was a means of escaping any permanent naval service, of getting rid of it entirely and of any obligation under it; and Sir George

Supply-Naval Service
made this statement in the course of the debate from which I now quote:
Under the Laurier Act of 1910 now in force any number of millions could be contributed by Parliament if so disposed. Why then harass Parliament with a bill which is not required for emergency purposes and which is not as effective as the Act of 1910? If the hon. gentlemen are sincere in their efforts to meet an emergency, let them withdraw the bill now before us, and submit to the House a supplementary estimate for ten or fifteen millions for the speedy construction of battleships, wherever they can be built and then, from year to year, ask parliament for such additional sums as may be necessary for their completion, according to the practice of parliament in regard to all larger appropriations.
I do not know that a single senator would object if it was proposed, in the regular and parliamentary way, to do that. May I say more: the bill provides that this money shall be applied in the construction of a certain number of ships. That could be done under the act of 1910. I am informed that it is the indention to construct three battleships under this bill. If hon. genlemen or the government of the day wanted four or five they could build them wherever they pleased under the act of 1910.
Now, what has my hon. friend from Oxford to say about the belief in emergency under these circumstances, and the Government's endeavour to meet it?


Donald Sutherland: On January 19',
1914, a year before the war, the Liberal party took the ground that there was no emergency-even at so late a day as that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am stating the position the Liberal party took in this Parliament, the position that they maintained consistently from 1910 until the moment of the war. It was that this country should construct fleet units on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and should do so just as speedily as possible; that there was legislation on the statutes to enable any government to do what it pleased in the way of constructing capital ships and to use them as they wished; there was no need for the adoption of a special measure behind which, an ulterior motive might lie concealed. That was the position of the Liberal party, and it is a position of which every Liberal in this country has reason to be proud. Had this policy been carried out, there would have been a very different story when the war came on, as to the part played by Canada's naval service, in addition to the magnificent part which was played by her army.


Mr. CLARK:: Is that the Government's
policy of to-day also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was
the policy of the Liberal party in 1910; it was the policy of the Liberal party in 1912; it was the policy of the Liberal party in 1914, and it is the policy of the Liberal party to-day. It is the policy the Liberal party will continue to advocate as the one effective and only reasonable poliey for this country.


John Arthur Clark: Do I understand the
Prime Minister aright? Is it the Government's proposal to construct these fleets immediately?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I drew my
hon. friend's attention to the purposes of the Naval Service Act and to the Liberal policy, which aims, let me repeat, at the creation of a naval department, the establishment of a naval reserve, the creation of a volunteer naval force, and the construction of ships to act in co-operation with the British navy at such times, as the Government of Canada may place them at the disposal of the Admiralty. That is a broad policy; it is a policy not for one day or one month or one year; it is a policy for the years that lie ahead. When it was promulgated it had regard to a situation which existed or was believed to exist at the time; it was put forward in the light of the financial condition of the country, in the light of world conditions at the time. And that policy will be carried on in the light of our country's present financial condition and in the light of conditions generally throughout the world. That is the policy which we believe it is most advisable to follow, alike in the interests of this country and in the interests of the Empire.


John Arthur Clark: Does the naval expenditure as represented in the estimates presented this session represent Canada's proper proportion in the way of naval expenditure within the Empire?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
glad to take that point up later. The question of proportion must be considered in relation to all the other aspects of the subject. It is perfectly proper to consider it in relation to the naval and military expenditures that we are called upon to make at the present time, in relation to our public debt, to what we have still to meet in the way of obligations arising out of the war. We are entitled to take all these matters into consideration in undertaking to say what is wise and in the public interest at the present time, in the way of

further naval expenditure; and that is what we propose 'to do. But the broad policy is exactly as I have indicated it to my hon. friend. The Liberal party has had one policy, from the start, and that has been a permanent policy. It has never wavered in that policy; it has fought for it; it will continue to stand for it, and some day that policy will become the pride of this country as well as of the party that inaugurated it.
Now, Sir, that was the position in 1912. And after 1912, after this resolution with regard to the three dreadnaughts defeated, what did the Government do? They professed to believe in an emergency, but from that moment until the hour that war broke out, and until the war was over, nothing was done in any way to further the development of a naval service or-until the war had started-to put into commission the two ships which had been purchased by the Liberal Administration. As a matter of fact, if I recall the circumstances aright, when these ships were put into commission they played a very good part in the war- in a small way, it is true, but nevertheless a part of which we were all proud at the time.
So much for the period preceding the war and the intentions and purposes of the respective parties in the matter of naval policy. When the war was over, when the troops were being demobilized, when this country was being called upon to vote millions upon millions of dollars for the return of the men from overseas and to meet expenditure of further millions for pensions and the like, we naturally expected that at least a breathing time would be permitted, before we were asked to make further expenditures on naval account. I must say that for the first year after the war there was a slight cessation; the total expenditure on naval account in the year 1919-20 was $209,456, this amount being provided to keep up the services which the department was controlling and which related to branches of national administration other than those I have mentioned. In the following year, 1920-21, the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, under whom the Naval Department had been placed, came before Parliament, and in the main estimates, first of all, asked for an appropriation of $300,000. The press of the country announced that he had decided to demobilize the naval forces which then existed, and the country got the impression, that for a time at least, there was to be a little leeway in the matter of further 
Supply-Naval Service
expenditure on naval account. Then, much to the surprise of this House, within a very few days of the conclusion of the session, when Parliament had reasonable ground for the belief that its work was done, and most of the members were preparing to leave for their homes-on the 14th of June, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries brought dovyn a supplementary estimate of $2,200,000 for naval expenditure.
Here is what the minister said on March 25:
In vfew of Canada's heavy financial commitments and of the fact that Great Britain has not as yet decided on her permanent naval policy, and of the approaching Imperial conference, at which the question of naval defence of the Empire will come up for discussion between the home Government and the overseas dominions, it has been decided to defer in the meantime action in regard to the adoption of a permanent naval policy for Canada.
That sounded very logical and very reasonable. If it was sound logic and good reason on May 25, 1920, it is equally sound and equally good to-day, and it is a position, which this Government has taken with respect to naval expenditures-except, that the present Government has a permanent naval policy. The point to which we are # giving consideration at the moment is, in the light of present needs, in the light of existing world conditions, in the light of the fact that the Imperial Conference referred to has not been held, how far is the Government justified in going at the present time in making expenditures under the Naval Service Act?
We take the position that was taken by the Minister of Marine at that time, that there are heavy financial commitments of which this country and this Parliament have to take account, that Great Britain has not yet fully decided on her policy, and that an Imperial conference is to be held at which the question of naval defence will come up for discussion, between the home government and the overseas dominions. Hon. members opposite have always contended, that we should wait until there had been an Imperial conference before taking any steps that committed this Parliament very far in the matter of naval expenditure. I think they are right in that.
I think they are sound in their view that naval policy, so far as this country is concerned, should have, as one factor meriting consideration, the matter of possible cooperation with the other British dominions and with the United Kingdom in the event of any great and serious danger arising.
Supply-Naval Service

Possible co-operation, I say, but thus far, in regard to the question of existing naval armaments, there has been no Imperial conference held since the war.
But what did the minister say further; and now I come to the point that has a particular bearing on these very ships we have been discussing to-day:
The Government has decided to carry on a Canadian naval service along pre-var lines, and has accepted the offer of Great Britain of one light cruiser and two torpedo boat destroyers to take the place of the present obsolete and useless training ships, the Niobe and th$ Rainbow.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think this House was entitled a year or two ago, and I think it is entitled at the present time, to have some definite information with respect to these ships which were a so-called gift on the part of Great Britain. We have never been told why that gift was made to Canada, whether it was made at the instance of the British government, offering us ships which were never requested by us, or whether it was made at the instance of the government of the day making some suggestion to the government of Great Britain. Will my right hon. friend, who was Prime Minister and should know, tell the House the circumstances under which < these five ships were accepted from Great Britain?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I was
Prime Minister at the time the arrangement was made. I am not certain as to the date.
I know of no special arrangements at all except that Great Britain offered us the five ships, which were accepted. I remember there were negotiations as to the character of the ships, and finally these were agreed upon as being modern and useful for our purpose. I know of no other arrangement at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does it not
strike my right hon. friend as a somewhat curious circumstance,-because even if he were not Prime Minister at the time, he was a member of the government which accepted these ships,-that he should not be informed about any agreements or arrangements with respect to the offer or its acceptance?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that there were any special arrangements. I do not know why there should be.
Mr.' MACKENZIE KING: Is it not an amazing thing, that the acceptance of a gift, which involved an expenditure of something like $2,500,000, should have been
made, without any understanding or any conditions or any agreement one way or the other, between the parties to the transaction?


Arthur Meighen: The government of the day intended to maintain them and to use them for their purposes, or they would not have accepted them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the government of the day so inform the British government?


Arthur Meighen: Not that I know of.
So far as I know, the British government did not exact anything. They had some confidence in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then we come to this position. The government of the day intended to put five ships into commission, involving an annual expenditure of $2,500,000, but the government of the day had no authority from Parliament for that purpose, nor did it ever present to Parliament, as a matter for discussion, the question as to whether they were justified in taking that particular step.
Mr, MEIGHEN: The minister knows we could not put a ship in commission or spend a dollar until Parliament had voted it for the purpose. We came to Parliament to get the vote, and Parliament voted it.


Ernest Lapointe: After having accepted the ships.


Arthur Meighen: Very well, but Parliament did not have to vote it. Parliament is not voting it to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was
the position my right hon. friend and his colleagues took in Parliament? It was this: If you refuse to vote this money, you repudiate this gift on the part of the British government.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman read that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I could if I had the time to look it up. It would not take long to find it. That was the nature of the argument that was presented at the time.
Now, the position is this: In regard to naval policy, more perhaps than in regard to any other policy of which this Parliament has reason to take account, we contend that what is to be done and what shall not be done shall be a matter of discussion in this House and in this Parliament. That is the essential condition. But such an op-

Supply-Naval Service
portunity was never given to the Canadian people or to their representatives in Parliament with respect to these ships, nor was it given to the Parliament of Great Britain with respect to the ships that were given away. It was all a matter of secret arrangement between some right hon. gentleman associated with my right hon. friend, and one or two members of the British administration. The position we took at that time, and the position we take to-day is that the acceptance of these five ships committed this country to a certain course for years to come. We contended that before that obligation was consummated, Parliament should have been fully informed and should have had an opportunity to express its views. To the extent to which we of the Liberal party had an opportunity to express our views, we protested against the acceptance of these ships. We asked that they should not be put into commission at that time because we regarded them under the circumstances as a very expensive and unnecessary luxury. May I quote to the House, a brief extract or two from the remarks which I ventured to make as leader of the Opposition at that time with reference to the acceptance of these ships? I quote from the Hansard of the 14th of June:
I shall not attempt at the moment any criticism with respect to the acceptance ot this gift beyond mentioning that on these matters Parliament should in the first instance be consulted. The people of Canada have a right-through their representatives in this Parliament-to say whether or not at tips time the country should be committed to an expenditure such as this afternoon the minister has announced we are to be asked to meet. We have this right as a Parliament and the country should not have been committed to this course by secret negotiations made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the course of the last year, or the last few months. All that we have been told this afternoon is that negotiations have been carried on by the Prime Minister and his colleagues and some members of the British Admiralty. With this comes the announcement that certain commitments have been made by Order in Council, in regard to none of which this Parliament has had the slightest intimation.
And further:
A wave of indignation will sweep over this Dominion when the statement goes forth that, now that the war is over, at a time when we are considering in what way we can retrench on naval and military expenditures, and after the professions they have made, the Government have announced a programme involving an expenditure such as that which has been mentioned to-day, and more especially when the country learns that this has been done without Parliament having had any voice in the matter one way or the other. That, Mr. Speaker, is the exception X wish to take at the moment to the programme of the minister and of the Government. 1 shall, at the moment, say nothing
as to whether it is right that Canada should or should not do this or that. I believe that Canada should assist in naval matters-in coast defence and co-operation in other ways-but I say that the country has a right to have its policy determined on the floor of Parliament and not in secret councils of the Cabinet. Certainly in this matter, the Government have shown a complete indifference to the rights of the people, through their representatives in this House, in giving no opportunity whatever for the country to say whether or not these ships shall be accepted, whether or not the expenditures, they will involve shall be incurred, whether or not we are to launch upon such a programme at the present time. All that the Government have said is that they have no policy, and will have no policy, until after the Imperial Conference in 1921.
What was said in that connection from one source was said also by a number of other speakers who addressed the House at that time. May I read just one paragraph from a speech made by my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance, in the course of the same debate? Here is what the Minister of Finance said at the time with reference to these particular ships:
I say that there are reasons why we should not proceed further in this matter. The first is that we have not the money; second, there is the fact that we are not in a position to-day to declare any extensive naval policy; and last, but not least, is the fact that if you accept these ships from Great Britain you accept a white elephant. We should say with great gratitude that we appreciate the offer which Great Britain has made us but that we cannot find it possible at the present time to avail ourselves of it. Later on we may have the ships when we can afford to undertake a definite policy in this direction. We are not going to ignore naval responsibility and refuse to take our share in naval affairs, but in view of all that has happened, let us have a breathing spell let us have time to think matters over, and let us devote the money to things more urgent than this.
That was the position the party took when in opposition; that is the position which we take to-day. We say, that there are more urgent matters; we say, there are demands for our money to-day greater than any that come within the circumference of this particular contribution for naval purposes.
But that is not all. Not only was this Parliament not consulted, not only was Canada placed under an obligation by the late government through forcing these expenditures on the country against its will, but when the British Parliament met, subsequent to these gifts being made to Canada, we find that the members of the British House took exception to the gifts being made without the Parliament of Great Britain having been consulted. That is the strange position into which the two coun-

Supply-Naval Service


Mr. LOGAN:: Now the cat is out of the bag.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, we find here, how it happened:
-the dominions made requests for certain vessels which were usually in their waters, were not required by the Admiralty for further use and probably to them had not much more than a scrap value-
They cost us two millions and a half a year to keep up and to Britain they did not have much more tl an a scrap value-
-and the view of the Cabinet was that when a dominion made a request of that sort it should be acceded to.
Well, that was not enough for the chairman of the commission, and he asked the further question:
What occurs to me is whether the committee is satisfied that important ships should be given even to our Dominions without the authority of Parliament. Has the Cabinet the power to
give away any of the ships of the British navy?
To this Mr. Stewart, the witness, replied:
I suppose there is no precedent.
Now that is the way in which these ships were obtained by Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister will permit me this question: If I caught the reading carefully it referred to "gifts" what the Prime Minister is relating refers to "ships in their waters." That seems to be not applicable to the Canadian case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my hon. friend can get what satisfaction he can out of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not seeking to get any satisfaction, I am trying to obtain information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will quote from the record again:
What happened was that the dominions made requests for certain vessels which were usually in their waters-
That does not say that in all cases the vessels were in their waters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In our waters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there is any distinction made as between vessels in Canadian waters and vessels in other waters.


Arthur Meighen: It could not possibly refer to Canada. I do not know who made the proposals first, but I do know this, that the ships first under consideration were ships that were not of a modern character,

Supply-Naval Service
were not oil-burning ships at all. A discussion took place for some time over those, and finally ships of the most modern character were taken. Those words could not apply to them. The minister himself says the ships are of a value that cannot be scrapped even now, and he is going to put them to use. Why then does the Prime Minister stand there and say they are of no use at all, that they are only of use for scrap?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying they are only of use for scrap. It is as far as the British government is concerned, that they are only of use for scrap. This is a statement that was made under oath before the Public Accounts Committee of the British House of Commons.


Mr MEIGHEN:: It cannot refer to our ships.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is as clear as it possibly can be to what ships it relates.
I may say, that in case of the larger item, gifts of ships to the dominions


Arthur Meighen: It may not be Canada, it may mean ships that were in their waters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement does not say that it is ships that were in their waters. The statement speaks of "the dominions", and that embraces Canada. It does not speak of ships "in our waters" but "in their waters." It includes all the ships as definitely as any statement can.


Arthur Meighen: When were these ships in our waters before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking of the gifts as a whole, the statement refers to ships that were usually in their waters. The witness evidently tried to find some excuse to save the face of the Cabinet; but what the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons did was to take exception to the gifts being made without parliament having been consulted. However, I think all hon. members will be able to judge of the value of the evidence for themselves. The evidence as taken before this committee is exactly what is implied in this statement. My hon. friend has no other statement to give us than that the ships were offered by the British government. Well, according to the statements I have quoted, even that was entirely without precedent. If the British government had kept the ships they would probably have been of use to them only as scrap; they had served their purpose and it suited the government's purpose to give them away. The point we
119J
are taking exception to is that the government of my hon. friend and his predecessors bring into this country ships which might have been consigned to the scrap heap by the British authorities, but upon the upkeep of which we must expend two and a half million dollars, if not more, and this without ever consulting Parliament as to whether or not the ships should be accepted.
I come next to the Imperial Conference of Premiers which my right hon. friend attended. Let me say that the position which the Government takes to-day is precisely in accord with that which is set out in the resolution of the Conference of Premiers that has been quoted by my right hon. friend. The resolution reads:
That while recognizing the necessity of cooperation among the various portions of the Empire to provide such naval defence as may prove to be essential for security, and while holding that equality with the naval strength of any other power is a minimum standard for that purpose, this conference is of opinion that the method and expense of such cooperation are matters for the final determination of the several parliaments concerned, and that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming Conference on Disarmament.
Let me say a word in regard to the first part of this resolution, which reads, "recognizing the necessity of co-operation among the various portions of the Empire." If that has any meaning other than reference to co-operation as the word is used in the Canadian Naval Service Act, I will not accept the further meaning. If it implies an obligation beyond that which, this Parliament itself has been ready to assume, in the matter of national defence, then, I contend it goes beyond rights or powers which the leader of the government of the day had any right to assume in giving assent to the resolution. I asked the right hon. member whether it did go further than this Parliament had recognized its obligation to go, and he answered me in the negative that it did not, and I accept his word for it. He has referred to a resolution of April 27 which was adopted, but I will quote it because it further states the Liberal position on the matter of naval service. It reads as follows:
That the House while recognizing the propriety of Canada being represented at any Imperial Conference or Conferences of the Prime Ministers of the Empire that may be called, desires to record its opinion, that at the coming conference no steps should be taken in any way involving any change in the relations of Canada to other parts of the Empire, and that in view of the present fin-
Supply-Naval Service

anclal position of Canada no action should be taken implying any obligation on the part of Canada to undertake new expenditures for naval or military purposes.
That was the Liberal position before my right hon. friend attended the Imperial Conference as a representative of Canada. I understand from his remarks that that resolution was unnecessary, that in no way did he exceed the intent or purport of it in representing this country at the Imperial Conference. The Government of to-day, propose to accept that interpretation of his action while at the conference, and not to recognize any obligation, which may directly or indirectly have been made as respects. Canada, implying military or naval expenditure beyond what had already been agreed to, before my right hon. friend attended the conference. I should like my right hon. friend to tell the House frankly and openly if he feels that is other than a just and proper interpretation, or whether he thinks additional obligations have been put on the Dominion by reason of his having been at the Conference of Prime Ministers.


Arthur Meighen: As I have stated, the resolution could not be worded more clearly. It means precisely what it says. It places no obligation upon us at all. It clearly says that what we do, in point of character and in point of amount, is for us to say. Any obligation we are under is bounded only by our sense of duty and right and honour in the Empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite clear. I wish to draw attention of hon. members to one or two matters in conclusion. First of all, in regard to the ships accepted in the manner I have described, we have consistently taken the position, that this Parliament should have been consulted, before those ships were accepted, and I think it is only right and proper at the present time, that Parliament should understand that we recognize no obligation in virtue of any action taken by our predecessors, without having consulted Parliament or without having for it the approval of Parliament.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That would include
moral obligations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
matter which may be considered wholly apart from anything else, but I contend my hon. friend had no right-and I am assuming from his word that he is stating that he did not-to obligate this country
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
in any particular, at the last Conference of Prime Ministers, beyond what had already been formerly agreed to in this House. This resolution states:
The conference is of the opinion that the method and expense are matters for final determination of the several parliaments concerned.
That is the position we are taking at the present moment, that while we have our naval policy, it is our duty to come to Parliament and discuss the expense which will be involved in bringing any part of it into practice or full play. More than that, we take also the position that the views expressed in the next recommendation or the next statement is a sound and proper one to have regard for: namely, that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming conference on disarmament. That is one of the strongest reasons why the government of the day, should not have accepted any ships which involved additional naval expenditure by this country. The conference of prime ministers thought it well to state that, before any of the dominions undertook to do anything of a material character with respect to their respective naval policies, they should have regard to the conference of disarmament and what actions might grow out of that conference. We have had regard for the Disarmament Conference and part of our policy is the result of what took place at that conference. The Minister of Naval Defence has this afternoon given a quotation from a document that I laid on the Table of the House on the 11th April. It is the memorandum of the British Government on Anglo-French relations; I wish to repeat one sentence to which he referred, because it gives the reason why the Government of to-day thinks it unwise this country should incur further expenditure in the matter of submarines. These submarines it should be recalled, were accepted by the Prime Minister of the day, without I think, his even consulting his cabinet, certainly without any consulting of Parliament. They were put into commission and we have been paying the cost of them ever since. What is stated in the British memorandum? It is-
The British opinion, however, based on four years' experience, is that submarines are
effective only against merchant ships and are ineffectual otherwise as instruments either of attack or defence.
We do not feel justified, in view of the opinion expressed to the world in that mem-

Supply-Naval Service
orandum, in having as part of our policy the maintenance of submarines. But if that is not sufficient, I would refer my right hon. friend and hon. members opposite to the report of Sir Robert Borden at the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments held at Washington. Let me read Sir Robert's own words in reference to the use of submarines, on page 22 of the report which has already been presented to Parliament and of which hon. members have copies. The report says:
An important proposal by the pritish Empire delegation, which enlisted universal attention, should be specially mentioned here. It looked to the complete abolition of the submarine. The pro-posal was formally placed on record in the following terms:
"The British Delegation desires formally to place on record its opinion that the use of submarines whilst of small value for defensive purposes, leads inevitably to acts which are inconsistent with the laws of war and the dictates of humanity, and the Delegation desires that united action should be taken by all nations to forbid their maintenance, construction, or employment".
It precipitated a remarkable discussion to which the widest publicity was given. To those who have acquired any intimate knowledge of the character of submarine warfare, the conclusion expressed in the proposal seems irresistible.
It was effectively argued that for defence the submarine is of relatively small value, while, on the other hand, the very nature of the craft and the physical necessities under which it operates are such that its use in war inevitably produces acts inconsistent with the plainest dictates of humanity.
I ask my hon. friends, in view of a statement such as that, in view of the Conference of the prime ministers having expressed the view that regard should be had, in any future naval policy, for the work of the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments at Washington, whether this Government would be justified in continuing to keep in commission the submarines accepted by the late government.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Government is quite as sensible as any of its predecessors of the obligation that rests upon this country as a nation and as part of the British Empire. It is fully cognizant of its obligation of service on land and sea, and its obligations, moral and otherwise, in every other respect. But we feel that every obligation can be rightly discharged only in the light of conditions as they exist, and the conditions to-day are entirely different throughout the world, and in our own country in particular, from those that prevailed prior to the war. To hear the argument advanced by my right hon.
friend (Mr. Meighen) one would imagine that the position was exactly the same it) the world to-day as it ever was. He dwelt at considerable length and eloquently on the position of Great Britain, who had scrapped so many ships; but he never said a word about the ships of other nations having been correspondingly reduced in numbers. He did not say anything about one great menace having been completely abolished.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend
evidently did not hear me. I referred to the reduction of the United States navy and to the destruction of the German fleet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend is quite right in saying that he referred to those matters; but he did not mention them in the connection I mean. I am speaking of his remarks as regards the necessity of Canada recognising its moral obligation towards Britain. In that connection he spoke at great length of how Great Britain had reduced her different fleets and of the consequent necessity lot Canada to give so much more to meet the situation than she would otherwise be obliged to do. Now, as hon. members are well aware, the condition of the world today is vastly different from what it was previous to the war, particularly in the matter of navies. The German navy has been completely destroyed. What menace is there at the present time that threatens any part of the British Empire on sea? Does my right hon. friend think that Canada, or Great Britain, or any other part of the British Empire is going to be attacked by the United States, by France, or by Japan? These countries have recently entered intoa solemn agreement together with Great Britain for the very purpose of helping to obviate the possibility of war arising between them. Is there any danger from Italy or from any of the smaller countries? Have we not a right, in considering expenditures here, to take all these facts into account? Have we to assume that at all times a situation will exist such as existed prior to 1912? I think the Government is justified in taking,-indeed, I think it would be seriously lacking in its sense of duty if it did not take-very much into account the changed conditions in the world to-day, and, in addition to that, the changed condition of our own treasury and the way in which these matters are likely to he viewed by the taxpayers of the country. We can build up the British Empire in no better way than by helping to make a
Supply-Naval Service

united, a contented and a happy people. And when my right hon. friend talks about moral obligation, let me remind him that the best defence is no offence, where you can avoid it, to other countries. I thought of that the other evening when the right hon. gentleman talked about exclusion with respect to a great Asiatic power. If he wants to build up the Empire and at the same time to avoid the necessity for military expenditures let him treat courteously the other great powers and there will be less need for munitions and instruments of war. Let us establish that good-will by which the building up of vast armaments is eliminated altogether, instead of creating the ill-will which, throughout the whole of history, has been responsible for wars among the nations of the world. We are sensible of our moral obligations and we shall do our utmost to meet them; and what I have just indicated is one of the most effective ways of doing so. There is the further position taken all along, that it would be the part of wisdom and prudence on the part of the Government to wait until after another Imperial Conference before beginning to launch out on any scheme in connection with naval matters, in the direction my hon. friends have indicated, which may not be acceptable and which may result, as the submarine business has done, in a waste of public money to no purpose. These are the reasons which have actuated the Government in seeking at the present time a retrenchment in the matter of naval and military expenditures. We are seeking to consolidate the great departments of defence and to bring into one department, under one minister, the naval, the military and the air forces. What is the object? Avowedly, it is for the purpose of economy; avowedly, for the purpose of retrenchment. If we are ever to have retrenchment in military and naval expenditures this is the one moment in which it is possible to bring about something of that character. The Government regards that as its first duty, its first obligation. It is sensible of all its larger duties and obligations, but it feels that it will best serve the interests of the British Empire as a whole when it helps to enlist, in the matter of defence, whether on land or sea, the sympathies of all our citizens throughout the Dominion, rather than antagonize their just sentiments by experiments of different kinds which will only tend to increase taxation and render no effective service in the long run.


Arthur Meighen: I do not desire to make anything in the nature of a speech in reply to my hon. friend, but merely to refer to three or four matters which he has brought up, in order that what I said before may not, through any fault of mine, be misunderstood. The Prime Minister's address consisted in the main-at least half of it did-not jo much in a review of the history of this question as in a continuous and bitter attack upon his political opponents and upon the stand they have taken from time to time upon the question. I sought to make a review, but I place myself in the judgment of the committee if, in the course of that review, I made any attack whatever or any attempt to enlist the sympathies of the House on behalf of one or other of the old parties. I made no comparison of the relative merits of one course as against the other. I refrained from doing so, not because I did not think I was capable of doing it. Were the occasion appropriate, were there any object to be served, I think I might employ as forceful an argument- I venture to suggest, in all respect, a more effective argument, one more faithful to the facts-than did the Prime Minister. That was not my purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: The usual tactics are becoming apparent. How different is the course pursued on one side of the House from that followed on the other.


William Duff: That is because you are up.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is; I think that is the reason. Cannot hon. members meet me any other way than that?


William Duff: It is your fault, not ours.


Arthur Meighen: I sought to review the history of the question only that the perspective might appear and that the committee might the better judge what we should do now. That is all. I made no attack upon the principle of the Naval Service Act; nor, in the whole history of the debates in this House since I became a member of it, have I ever made an attack upon that principle. My position has been that under the act you could not develop a navy, either in point of ships or in point of men, in time to meet any situation that might confront us. I have made no attack on the principle of the act as being a sound one applicable to this country. In fact, I affirm that in 1918 at the conference Sir Robert Borden himself proposed, on behalf of the dominions, that the proper line to pursue by way of a per-

Supply-Naval Service
manent policy was even in the direction of the Naval Service Act. In so far as a Canadian naval service is embodied in the minister's proposal, I make no attack now. But policy consists not only in a statute, but in the actual proposals of the government as to what they are going to do under the statute. And it is in that respect that I make any attack. I propose to confine myself in what I say to that. I will not be drawn into the old discussions that took place years ago. We gain nothing by referring to them to-night. I want to discuss for a minute or two a few of the remarks of the Prime Minister as related to the point in issue.
On the lines of the Naval Service Act are these proposals adequate and worthy of our country? The Prime Minister attacks me very bitterly because I was a member of the Government that acceptd the free gift from the British Government of five ships, and he says that we never should have accepted them without coming to Parliament, because by that acceptance we obligated this country to maintain those ships.
The government of the day in accepting those ships certainly intended to maintain them and use them for the purpose for which we accepted them. But we could not do so until we came to Parliament and got authority. We could not pay a dollar of the cost in discharge of the obligation of this country without coming to Parliament and securing that authority. We came to Parliament, and we got authority for that purpose-just the same authority as the Government is seeking to-day.
Is it the argument of the hon. gentleman : But Parliament could not help itself. You by merely letting these ships into your ports obligated the country morally co maintain and operate these vessels. Is that the argument? I do not think it is. But if it is, how is his Government discharging the moral obligation now by abandoning the ships? Their own conduct now shows that by the mere acceptance of the ships they do not consider that a moral obligation was incurred at all. That is their position, rightly or wrongly. If the obligation exists, how can they abandon those ships now?


Thomas Vien: Will my right hon. friend allow me a question? Does he not believe that Canada, like other nations, should disarm after the Washington Conference?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman must have been asleep; I was on another subject altogether.


Thomas Vien: I was quite awake.


Arthur Meighen: Then why does he want me to leave the subject I am discussing? We came to Parliament for authority to spend every dollar. I am not concerned as to the position of the British government. The British government parted with property; we parted with nothing; that is the difference. What they should have done is for them and their Parliament to say. The hon. member tries to read into some evidence that was given there the inference that the vssels we took were worthless. Well, the vessels are there to be seen. Those vessels are modern.


William Duff: No, they are not; they are obsolete.


Arthur Meighen: They are not as
modern as when they were built,-nothing ever is. After the Government has had these two trawlers, three or four years they will not be modern either. On that principle you would never get anything. Those vessels were modern in construction, they were oil-burning vessels. They were as modern as any that the British government had; that is to say, of their size and for their purpose. They are not, of course, capital ships, but they are useful for training purposes. The fact is they were good vessels when we took them over, they are good to-day, and the Government admits it by saying they are going to put them to use.


Thomas Vien: They were not going to be
kept in commission in England.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. The British government may have had sufficient vessels without them; I know nothing about that; but I do know that they are well constructed, modern vessels.
The next thing my hon. friend says is-


Mr. CANNON:: How can my right hon. friend argue that England expects us to keep these ships in commission when she has been scrapping other ships?


Arthur Meighen: England is scrapping
her ships to-day,-she has scrapped twenty-three or twenty-four. But does that imply that we are under no obligation in the matter of naval defence?


Thomas Vien: She does not need more ships.


Arthur Meighen: She does not need more ships, but she needs to maintain a defensive naval force, and it is in the maintenance of that defence that I make my plea.


Thomas Vien: These were surplus ships.
Supply-Naval Service

Mr. ME1GHEN: Suppose they were, the naval service must be maintained, and its maintenance costs money. Britain's expenditure this year is about $400,000,000- about $10 a head; ours is 17 cents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my right hon. friend really understands the point I wish to make when I spoke of the right of Parliament to pass on these matters. Does he contend for one minute that the Union government, which was formed for the purpose of carrying on the war, had any right to deal with post war questions with respect to naval policy? And would he say for one minute that his government had any right to deal with this naval question which related to post war policy?


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly I say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where did you get that right?


Arthur Meighen: The government of the day had to carry on all matters of policy. The government of the day in any event did not make any change in naval policy, none whatever.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was it understood by the people of Canada when the Unionist government was formed that after the war was over part of its duty was to inaugurate a naval policy for post war times?


Arthur Meighen: The Unionist government did not inaugurate a naval policy at all.


William Duff: For once he is right.


Arthur Meighen: But I am afraid my hon. friend will be censured very soon by his leader.


William Duff: Do not worry.


Arthur Meighen: What is the complaint?


William Duff: The complaint is that the Tory party had no naval policy.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister's complaint is that it had. We simply carried on a system of training for the naval service, believing that was the best by way of permanent policy, and we carried it on on a scale that we thought fair. Certainly it was not on too great a scale; if there was any complaint it was that it was on too small a scale. We carried it on on a scale that we thought fair until the aggregate commitments of the Empire would be known. These aggregate commitments became known at the Disarmament Conference.

Now I come to my last point. After the Disarmament Conference, when the utmost efforts of Britain were put forward and assisted by this country, by Australia, by New Zealand, and the other British commonwealths, and, let me add, by the United States-after those countries had exerted their efforts to the utmost, still the obligations of Great Britain remained at the point I have named, with the approval'of those countries. Now, is Canada to stand up and through its Prime Minister say : Those countries do not know world conditions. Britain does not know world conditions, and sihe has assumed naval obligations that she does not need to assume at all. Do the Government take that position? I do not think they will now say so. We know what burden Great Britain has assumed, reduced by that conference after every effort of those peace-loving nations had been brought to bear- we know that the residuum is about $400,000,000 a year. The Prime Minister says that our fair share of that huge burden is $1,500,000, to be spent on training boys two or three weeks in drill halls and on trawlers watching seals in the Behring sea.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know by what right my right hon. friend quotes me as to what I consider Canada's share of naval defence to be. This country through this Parliament has the right to determine what it thinks is necessary in the matter of naval policy, apart from any moral or other obligation that has been referred to.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister does not need to emphasize that point. I have emphasized it all through my speech, and I emphasize it now. We have the right to say what we will do in regard to naval policy, but what I am asserting is that the Government in its proposals does not fairly assume to discharge the moral obligations of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is for the Government to determine.


William Duff: What are the moral obligations ?


Arthur Meighen: That is what I am debating.


William Duff: What are the moral obligations of Canada from the standpoint of the leader of the Opposition; what should we do?


Arthur Meighen: The moral obligation of this country is affirmed in the resolution

Supply-Naval Service
of 1910, agreed to by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by the House; affirmed in the resolution of 1912 moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; affirmed in the policy and resolution of the Government; affirmed repeatedly ever since -the obligation to co-operate in the naval defence of the Empire of which we are a part.


William Duff: How much money, in round figures, would the hon. gentleman say we should spend on the navy-$5,000,000, $10,000,000, $20,000,000, $30,000,000, or how much?


Arthur Meighen: It is not for me to fix the amount.


William Duff: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is before us now is this: the appropriation of $1,500,000 particularly when it is wasted in this way, is certainly not discharging the obligations of this country.	.


William Duff: I agree with the right hon. gentleman that $1,500,000 cannot go very far. But if he is sincere, will he tell us how much he would spend in 1922 toward the naval defence of Canada by way of discharging our moral obligations? Now, be a man and answer it. *


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: How much money?


Arthur Meighen: I might remind my hon. friend that I am not Prime Minister of this country.


William Duff: Thank God for that.


Arthur Meighen: As to the amount, I do say it should be very substantially more than this.	.


William Duff: How much more?


Arthur Meighen: And I do say that it should be something which would be effective as to training and service.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Why?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
asks "Why"? The committee will appreciate the position I am in when I receive questions like that. Now, the hon. gentleman argues, and he argues rightly, that if we had, in an independent sense, to protect our own shores and to develop here a navy which in itself is sufficient for our defence, we would need to spend-I do not know whether he is right or not, but I think he fixed it at $200,000,000.


William Duff: At $100,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. But as part and parcel of the British Empire, as an autonomous nation within it, we occupy a more fortunate position; the real value of the great League of Nations of the British Empire is that by co-operation we can secure that defence at a much lower cost. But we cannot have co-operation unless there is among the various nations of the Empire a sense of the individual duty of each nation and some honest attempt to discharge that duty. This point the Toronto Globe of this morning very forcefully emphasizes.


William Duff: I would like to get this matter down to a basis of dollars and cents; that is the only way in which we can settle the matter. What I want to know is how much the leader of the Opposition thinks the people of Canada should spend in 1922 on naval defence?


Arthur Meighen: Well, I will tell the hon. member this: I would certainly maintain the operation of what we have.


William Duff: What would that cost?


Arthur Meighen: Last year it cost $2,500,000.


William Duff: You did not do anything.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, we did. There are boys in training to-day who under this policy will be thrown out, whose careers will be destroyed, whose years of work will be lost. That is the effect of this policy.	-


Thomas Vien: The right hon. gentleman says he would maintain what we have; would he include the two submarines?


Arthur Meighen: I will come to that in a moment or two. There was something just on this point that I wanted to refer to.


Lewis Herbert Martell: May I ask my right hon. friend


George Newcombe Gordon: I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the leader of the Opposition until he has had an opportunity of answering the question that has been asked him. He has indicated his objection to interruption.


William Duff: I would like an answer to my question; how much should we spend this year?


Arthur Meighen: I have answered it.


William Duff: No, you have not.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will give the vote he ought to give, and other
Supply-Naval Service

hon. members opposite follow, it will not take me long, in a post of responsibility, to announce a policy that is a policy for this country.


William Duff: But we have no confidence in the leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has not; we will not quarrel over that.


Lucien Cannon: Will my right hon. friend answer one question? He said we should protect our coasts, as part of the British Empire. Would he state to the House against whom we should protect our coasts?


Arthur Meighen: If there is no one to protect against, why waste a million and a half in preparing for protection? The Prime Minister used language that was very much the same, and when I come to that-if hon. members will allow me-I thirik the hon. member for Dorchester will admit that I have made reply.
The Prime Minister says that at the Disarmament Conference all were agreed to scrap and to reduce; and why not Canada as well?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never said that.,


Arthur Meighen: Well, I understood that to be the argument, and I am afraid I lost the argument if it was not. I do not think the Minister of Naval Affairs will dispute that he endeavoured to set that up as an argument on Friday last. And I can recall quite well the hon. member for Pictou saying: Other nations are taking a holiday for ten years; why cannot Canada do so? That is representative at least of the line of thought presented by those hon. members. My point is this: Canada for fifty-four years has been on a long holiday in the matter of naval defence. We have done very little. The question cannot be proportionate reduction until you get something like proportionate burden. It is proportionate burden-not portionate to population, but having regard to all considerations-a fair distribution of burden. That is what I am arguing for. Canada, indeed, has never pretended that she ever reached a fair or just discharge of her obligations in this matter. Now, I come to this question-[DOT]


Lewis Herbert Martell: My right hon. friend is very good natured and I am sure he will permit me two questions. Is not some of this expenditure for the protection of our rights around the Pribyloff Islands as re-

gards sealing? That is number one; this is number two: Who asked for the ships which we received from England? Was not the taking of them from England condemned by the people of Canada and was the giving of them not also condemned by the people of England through the Public Accounts Committee of the British House of Commons?


Arthur Meighen: The first question is: Is not some of this money for the purpose of protecting our fishing rights?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Sealing rights on the Pribyloff Islands.


Arthur Meighen: Well, the minister says it is, so the answer to that is, yes. But I wonder if it is the conception of the hon. member that we are meeting our just share of defence obligations by looking after fish around Behring Sea? As the hon. member for Lunenburg says, that is not a matter of defence at all; that is only working something into defence in order to provide an excuse for the money going under that head-that is all. Now the next question is, was not the accepting of the vessels condemned by the people of Canada?


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my right hon. friend will pardon me, I said: Was not the accepting of the vessels condemned by the people of Canada and the giving of them condemned by the people of England, as was evidenced in the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee? That is to say, both the giving and the taking were condemned.


Arthur Meighen: I was not very far
wrong. However, I give my honest opinion : I do not think one man in five hundred had the matter at all in mind in the late contest.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: An hon. member says, "Yes". Well, I do not think so. But I really do believe we have a higher opinion of the sense of public honour and self-respect of the people of this country to feel that it was derogating from the rights of Canada to accept as a free gift from the motherland vessels that were of use to us, in our modest way, in preparing a naval service for this country. As to what the people of Great Britain have done, that is not my business. I am not in this Parliament to make any comment on the action of the British parliament or the British government. They are responsible to their people; we are responsible to ours. Now, the last

Supply-Naval Service
suggestion has to do with the hon. member for-


Lewis Herbert Martell: May I ask my hon.
friend another question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not fact that the giving of these ships without consultation with or the approval of the British Parliament was condemned by the Public Accounts Committee of the British House of Parliament? I do not know whether it is so or not, and I would like to ask my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I really do not know. The only information I have was right from the Prime Minister. I do not think we are particularly concerned with that. Whether hon. members differ with me or not, I see a very great difference between receiving something and giving something.
Now on the last phase, the Prime Minister asked: Which is the nation that may attack us? Why Should we be alarmed? I cannot quote his exact words, but he demanded to know who it was we feared, and that is a very common question in this House. It is repeated now by the hon. member for Dorchester. The Prime Minister brought it up in connection with the question as to what we ought to do. I ask hon. members to reflect on this question which I mentioned when I rose the second time. After the Disarmament Conference, after all the facts that could be known were known and all that could be done was done, Britain's obligations rested upon a parity with those of the United States, only on a parity, at a certain amount per annum, the maintenance of a certain size of navy costing so much per annum. We cannot say it is too much.
, No Canadian will say that Britain can afford to become a second-rate power in a naval sense. We cannot say it is too much. Now hon. members admitting that this minimum has been arrived at in the effort to reduce armaments, the only question for us to decide is what share of that aggregate would fairly and rightly under all conditions be the proportion of this country? That is the question before us.
The hon. member asks: What are we arming against? As I stated in the debate on the militia estimates, that is a question that never can be answered, and it is a question that, if it could be answered, might not wisely be answered. I am not going to point my finger, I would not if I could, to any special nation and say: There is a potential enemy. That is not the habit
of any civilized country; that is not our habit; we do not do that. We say now we are in the position where we should only do our share in the common defence proportionate to what we have to defend, proportionate to our strength to defend, our fair and reasonable share under all the circumstances of the case. That is all we have to decide. There are many things to be taken into account, and if I were to stand and argue all the considerations, it would take some time. But I say one manifest thing: Outside of Great Britain, for Great Britain is not the only country in the Empire, we cannot stand squarely in front of our fellow-citizens of other dominions and say that we are bearing our fair share of the burden under the conditions of to-day.
The Prime Minister says we should pursue a pacific policy. I agree with him to the full. He intimates that it has been my plan to carry discourtesy to other countries and to stir up strife. When was I guilty of that? When were any words of mine ever of that character in this House of Commons? None that I can recall, none certainly were ever intentionally so. This country cannot pursue too pacific a policy to suit me, nor can this Empire pursue too pacific a policy to suit me. This Empire and this Dominion must, in words, and in every other way, pursue a most courteous policy towards Japan and every other country, but courtesy is not inconsistent with reasonable guarantees as to our control of our immigration and reasonable guarantees as to the composition of our people. It need not be inconsistent at all. If it were so, then I would say we would do better to suffer something rather than to pursue any course that had even the appearance of hostility towards a great friendly power. But after all this is done, there remains a necessary defence for great countries. We know the magnitude and the aggregate of that defence to-day, and in all selfrespect I say that we ought to do our share.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As the hour is very late


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to stay until morning till we get it through.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would (remind the Prime Minister that in the old days before this session, if a minister were to make an answer of that kind, it would bring a ready retort from him when he was on this side of the House. I am speaking in all
Supply-Naval Service

courtesy to the Government when I say that in view of the late hour and the hour to which we sat last night-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking in all courtesy, too, but may I remind my hon. friend that at ten minutes to six o'clock the House was ready to carry the resolution. Then his desk-mate rose and asked if the Government would he agreeable to calling it six o'clock to give the right hon. leader of the Opposition a chance to speak later on in the evening. I rose and said that if there was any other member of the House who wished to speak, we would go on until six o'clock, but that otherwise, to meet the convenience of the leader of the Opposition, and give him a chance to speak afterwards, we would call it six o'clock. Under these circumstances, I think it is perfectly reasonable that we should seek to end this debate to-night.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think my hon. friend the Prime Minister will acquit me during the last thirteen sessions I have been in this House of ever taking advantage of a seeming agreement. I was not in the House at the time, but my colleague informed me that he knew the leader of the Opposition had intended to speak but had not expected the hon. member for Hants to resume his seat before six o'clock, and surely it is not an unusual thing to ask the Chairman to call it six o'clock when it is almost t that hour. If, however, my hon. friend insists that we should sit until this item is passed, why, of course, he is in control of the situation. I have no desire to weary the House, but this is certainly one of the most important problems that has ever been brought before Parliament, and I think it would contribute very much to the success of the debate and the securing of the opinion of Parliament if we were to adjourn now, but if the Prime Minister insists, of course, we shall have to go ahead.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to take an arbitrary stand on the matter at all, but I do think hon. members of the House are beginning to feel that we ought to get through the work of the session. We have had a couple of days now on this estimate, and I doubt very much if there are any other hon. members who wish to speak besides my hon. friend. If there are, and they will rise, and I see there is an appreciable number, I am quite agreeable to adjourning, but if it is only my hon. friend I think we should go on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the Prime Minister is wholly unfair in putting me in that light, as if I was simply rising for the purpose of delaying this vote. That is not my intention at all. I consider this is one of the most important questions before Parliament. It is a matter that might very properly come before the House in the form of a resolution on going into Supply and be the occasion of a full dress debate in the House for days with profit. The leader of the Government has repeatedly enunciated as one of his fundamental principles that he musit consult Parliament and now he infers just because three or four members of the House have spoken, certainly not more than six, on this important matter, that it may be disposed of without further discussion.
I listened with a great deal of patience and attention to the discussion to-day and also to the very brief discussion,-not a whole day's discussion as my hon. friend the Prime Minister suggests-on a previous occasion. The minister introduced this item with a very brief speech and the leader of the Opposition stated that it was so important he would like time to consider it. Then we meet this afternoon and have a further discussion of it. I regret that the discussion this evening particularly in the address of the Prime Minister should have been taken up with a review, not so much of historic facts connected with the naval question, but a review rather of the controversial points. Now what I wish to suggest to the Government is this: That a rehash of old political discussions and debates in this House of the naval problem will get us to no very useful conclusion, but I do think that the time has arrived when we as a Parliament, and when Canada as a country, should face this problem, and should face it seriously, [DOT] and endeavour, as far as possible, to arrive at some conclusion commensurate with the importance of this Dominion and with the measure of her obligations.
Now I wish to draw attention to the question from this angle: First, I ask the question, is it Canada's desire to remain an integral part of the British Empire? To that I think there is only one answer which will be immediately given by every hon. member in this House, and I think by almost everyone within the confines of the country, and that answer is in the affirmative-that we do so desire, and that there is no wish to weaken the ties of Empire. Very well, let us accept that. Then we take the next step, which seems to me to be a logical

Supply-Naval Service
one and ask: Are we then as a member of the Empire, as a member of this commonwealth of nations called the British Empire, to assume that portion of the obligations of defence of empire which properly rests upon us? That seems to me to be the next point. If we admit that we are, and I have not heard a word to the contrary, then, by a logical sequence, we come to the next point: Is the estimate before us to be considered as a reasonable discharge of that responsibility? Now let us examine that briefly for a minute.
My hon. friend the Prime Minister, not only to-day but repeatedly, has laboured the point of our moral obligation. He has also queried the right hon. leader of the Opposition on this point: Did he obligate Canada to any specific obligation or responsibility in the recent conference at London? That seems to me to be begging the question. The point that the Prime Minister and his Government should determine is this: Are we obligated at all, is there any moral obligation resting upon us? If there is a moral obligation resting upon us, does not that imply a corresponding practical or political obligation that we should discharge or else be derelict in our duty? It is not a question as to whether the leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister, made for us any specific commitment in London. That is not the question. The question before this House, and the question the people of the country are seeking leadership on, is: What is the measure of the obligation of Canada at this time?
Now, I wish to take another step to a point which has already, I think, been effectively brought forward by the leader of the Opposition but of which I will at least take the liberty of repeating. It is this: The British Empire, represented by the Imperial government, in the recent Washington Conference came to a point in naval disarmament beyond which it said it could not go


Frank S. Cahill: What right has the Imperial Conference as regards the Canadian Parliament?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not desire to be discorteous but I can hardly see the force of my hon. friend's question.


Frank S. Cahill: My hon. friend said the Imperial Conference decided something. I want to know what power the Imperial Conference has?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I used that expression I made a mistake-I meant the Washington Conference. It decided the point to
which the naval armament could be reduced, which is admitted to be the minimum.


Frank S. Cahill: What does my hon. friend mean by the defence of Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I recognize the wit of my good friend from Pontiac who is really seeking to interject a little merriment in this debate and is not serious.


Frank S. Cahill: Not at all; I want to know what my hon. friend means by Great Britain in this discussion?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot conceive of any hon. member asking me or anyone else to define what is meant by Great Britain.


Frank S. Cahill: Well, my hon. friend
speaks of the responsibility of Great Britain. I want to know what he means by Great Britain in this connection? Or what responsibility Canada has towards Great Britain?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made a statement to this effect: That at the Washington Conference a point was reached where it was agreed, not only on the authority of the British Empire but also on the authority of other members of the conference, that disarmament could not safely go below a certain point. That point represents a burden on the taxpayers of Great Britain of some $400,000,000 annually. Now then, it seems to me we have reached a basis of argument on this point where we come to a practical question. The question, as I have stated, is this: Are we obligated; are there any obligations resting on Canada in this connection? The Prime Minister has admitted that there are obligations; he has admitted that we must take our place as a member of the Commonwealth of the British Empire in this question of naval armament. In the face of the fact that Britain is maintaining naval defence for the Empire at the expense of $400,000,000 a year the question arises-is a million and a half an adequate amount for Canada to contribute towards that expense? I contend that it is not only inadequate but that it is not conmmensu-rate with the dignity of the country.
Now let me turn for a moment to some arguments advanced by gentlemen opposite. The minister in the first place scrapped the whole of the new Canadian navy-that is the five ships presented to Canada by the Mother Country, and put into operation and commission by the previous government. Then he pointed out that this unit was useless so far as naval work was concerned. He, however, modified that today by admitting that the unit might be
Supply-Naval Service

useful for training purposes, that it might be useful for representing Canada in some parts of the world where her interests needed attention and protection; and furthermore he admitted that Canada's interests and obligations demanded the existence of this unit, or portions of it. What sense then is there in Canada abandoning this somewhat limited and small unit in the face of the admission that we have work for it to do, in the face of the obligation undoubtedly resting upon us? In the face of the recognition by the minister's action to-day that there is a need for some naval unit in Canada, what is the sense of abandoning the unit we have? Some hon. gentlemen to-day asked to what extent should we go? It is not for the members of the Opposition to state to what extent we should go; but I think we can, as a parliament, take this position: Until a further Imperial Conference is held we should maintain the unit that we already have in commission. That, I think, is a safe and reasonable position to take.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) to-day made quite an argument on the general basis of disarmament. He pointed out that the world was disarming, and therefore Canada should disarm. That we should present to the world a peace loving people, that we should not for one moment pretend that we are in sympathy with or in harmony with the maintenance of national defence at all. I think the House might very properly- and this has not been referred to by any previous speakeT-turn its attention to the conditions and political activities in Europe to-day. Turn for a moment to the situation at Genoa, which it had been hoped, would usher in a new era, which my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to, out of which it was hoped some solution might be reached of the economic problems of Europe, but, as a matter of fact, it is admitted to-day, by all the nations participating in that conference, that very little more than a complete failure has resulted from that meeting, but that is not all. If we turn to Germany and Russia, we find a new international treaty entered into by two of the greatest nations of the world, one of which has to-day under arms a force that, I think, is greater than the armed force of Germany before the war. She has an army running into millions, in active service, strung along her western frontier. The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has properly stated that perhaps it is not a wise thing for members

in the House of Commons to refer to an apparently belligerent action or attitude on the part of any nation, but I think we are very unwise if we refuse to take cognizance of the existence of that tremendous armed force in Russia to-day. Then couple with that the fact that Germany has refused apparently, and is constantly refusing, to meet her obligations under the Versailles Treaty, that she is seeking to avoid those obligations, and add to that this fact that France-who is more intimately associated with the possible effect of such an alliance as I have referred to than any other nation,-expresses general alarm at these conditions; when you couple these three facts together, I think we have every right to say that there is an exceedingly disturbed state of mind in certain quarters of the world, which may be reflected at any moment in the form of active warfare. In the face of these facts, of our obligations as a part of the British Empire, of the admission of the Prime Minister that these obligations exist, it seems to me we are doing a most unwise thing, in not only cutting down, as we have done from last year, by a million dollars, but in scrapping the naval unit we have had, and in refusing to maintain that unit, and taking a decidedly backward step in connection with the matter of defence in Canada.


Mr. CHURCH :: Supply-Naval Service
mg' nearly $17,000,000 for naval defence. Why is it that these two departments have been singled out for economy? Is it because we cannot afford a proper service? We have spent some $900,000,000, directly and indirectly, on our railways, and yet we 1 cannot afford a few paltry I dollars to safeguard our maritime freedom. The Prime Minister had a chance to adjourn and give the members an opportunity to take part in the discussion, to-morrow, but he said the debate must go on. Well is it going on and it is likely to last until five or six o'clock tomorrow morning, but I do not see how the position of this country is going to be enhanced in consequence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. gentleman tell the committee what book he is quoting from?


Thomas Langton Church: I am quoting from the
official New Zealand year book-a section -"Sketch	of Naval Defence." It
was prepared by the Department of Naval Affairs in New Zealand. I will send it over to my hon. friend as soon as I am through with it. I got it from the parliamentary library. New Zealand did their duty and in 1913 passed their Naval Reserve Act, providing for the establishment of a compulsory naval force. They took the British Admiralty at its word-they saw the German peril right at their door. They were loaned a third class cruiser by the British Admiralty to form a training ship in order to establish the nucleus of a naval force. Another vessel of the light cruiser type was also presented to them. On the 20th August 1913 the battle cruiser New Zealand, one of the ships of the line,

Supply-Naval Set-vice
189?
which later in the great war was with Beatty in the North Sea, and brought Admiral of the Fleet, Jellicoe, to New Zealand after the war, when he inspected their naval defence, considered their problems, and made his report. The result was that the New Zealand government adopted an enlarged naval policy.
I would advocate that we also approach the British Admiralty and ask their advice on naval matters in view of the conference at Washington. We have a precedent here in the case of New Zealand. Indeed, I believe Admiral Jellicoe made a report on the naval defence of this country, but I have never seen it.
Long before the war New Zealand recognized the principle of contribution, and the existence of an emergency, and they contributed a dreadnaught, believing that as a great maritime people their money was well spent. They have compulsory military training, and their young men are trained for the merchant marine. There the building up of a merchant marine has brought more trade and commerce to the country than any other policy ever adopted by that government. What has been done there could also be done in Canada.
So much for New Zealand. What has Australia done?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will my hon. friend
tell me what Australia and New Zealand are paying for naval defence this year?


Thomas Langton Church: I already gave that. I must apologize to my hon. friend; I could not catch all that he said. Think of what the merchant marine did during the war; it went out on the seven seas, brought the troops across the ocean from Australia and New Zealand, transferred sixty-five per cent of the American Expeditionary Force and the larger part of the munitions which went across the seas from Canada and the United States. Here is what was said by the Prime Minister of Australia about the duty of Canada and Australia so far as the fleet was concerned.
Yet but for the British navy, where should we have been? Where would civilization have been? The least we can say of the navy is that it has saved Britain. But the truth is that it has saved the civilized world.
Behind that impregnable wall of triple steel we have had opportunity to remedy, in some fashion, our lack of preparation. But is there a man amongst us who does not pale as he looks back and sees the awful gulf which he has missed by a hair's breadth, who does not rejoice that there were men amongst us who shut their ears to the cries for a smaller navy?
Think of the hundreds of millions we are spending to-day on this awful war; think of the spectacle of the civilized world wallowing in blood, straining every energy in this awful work of mutual destruction; think of the holocaust of lives, the fearful sufferings; and then think that, had Britain taken heed of Lord Roberts' warning voice, had we been as well prepared on land as we were on the sea, the peace of the world would have been, in all probability, unbroken.
He refers to Australia's part in the war. I shall read only one paragraph further:
We live in great days. The British race is being tried in the furnace. For us here in Australia, saved by the British navy from the awful horrors of war upon our own soil, this is our hour of trial. We must do our part, cost what it may. For we stand now at the parting of the ways.
Debates on this subject have taken place in the Australian House. I have here the blue books published in Australia for 1919-20.


Thomas George McBride: I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. gentleman is talking about.


Thomas Langton Church: Supply-Naval Service


Lucien Cannon: May I ask my hon. friend a question? What value does he attach to Lord Jellicoe's opinion in view of his strategy at the battle of Jutland?


Thomas Langton Church: If the Prime Minister will give the hon. member time to-morrow, he may be able to go on with the debate and discuss Jutland. It was good for Quebec and his constituents that he had the protection of the British fleet. When we come to Canada, what is this country doing in the matter of defence? Canada from time immemorial has been content to sponge on Great Britain, not only for naval defence, but for every other kind of defence. The policy of the people of Canada was set out in 1910 right in this House, and it was said there was no emergency in this country. I have shown that both Australia and New Zealand said there was an emergency, and

so firmly were they convinced of it that in order to protect their trade they voted these large sums of money for their naval defence. Canada is in a most humiliating position in regard to this matter, and I say that advisedly. I appreciate the high costs of ships per ton, the high cost of money at the present time, and the high cost of material, but I do say that the merchant marine of this country has never had a chance. It has been regarded merely as an appendage of the railway system, with the result that Canada is today very many miles behind the times so far as her merchant marine is concerned. It has never had a chance, and if the Government would only have Lord Beatty, Admiral of the fleet, report on the question of the merchant marine and Canada's Naval Defence and see what could be done to nurse this important industry, I say that it would be a [DOT] splendid thing for the country, not only in the matter of freight rates but in the development of business generally.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend is talking about the merchant marine and we are discussing the naval estimates. I submit that he is entirely out of order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule that the point of order is well taken.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I submit that the hon. member was discussing the merchant marine to show that by its abolition, we should have a lot more money for naval expenditure, which means that the public-


George Newcombe Gordon: I would point out to the hon. member that the ruling of the Chair has been given, and while it would have been competent for him before to discuss the point of order raised, he is out of order now.


Thomas Langton Church: I am urging the Government to bring down their naval policy. It is humiliating to have this two-penny halfpenny policy for a people of nine or ten millions, especially in view of the record the Canadian people made in this war. It simply means that we are sponging on the British people for naval and land defence. I would advocate a broad-minded policy, and it would really be an economy, if we had a proper shipbuilding programme for the lakes. It would help to solve not only the merchant marine problem, but the transportation problem, and unemployment, and would give us naval defence, and our ships would be able to sail the seven seas and

Supply-Naval Service
get some of the trade which this country should get as a result of the war. Certainly we are not getting the proportion now that we should get. I wish to quote from a little book called "The Fleets behind the Fleet" by W. Macneile Dixon, Professor in the University of Glasgow, to show that the great industrial expansion of Great Britain has not been due to free trade and Cob-denism but has been contributed to largely by the union of coal and steel and by the merchant marine. I say that every dollar spent on the merchant marine is a dollar spent on naval defence and for the expansion of trade and commerce, and that is also the view of this writer. He says that Canada should take a leaf out of the book of the Mother Country in this respect and goes on to speak of the merchant marine and the Royal navy.
The Royal navy is the heir of the merchant service, the inheritor of its fighting spirit and tradition. Not till Victoria's reign was any clear line of division drawn between the merchant sailor and the man-of-war's-man.
Histories as they have too often been written, obscure the vision and provide a false perspective. Faithful chronicles no doubt of the red-letter days of battle, but how few and far between were the battles in our long naval wars! Too often the histories speak of the navy as if it were a thing apart, a mere fighting instrument, and forget to tell us of the fleets behind the fleet: of the merchant sailors and the fishermen, the pioneers and the builders of our sea-supported confederacy.
These "traders", it was said of the Elizabethan seamen, "escaped the notice of kings and chroniclers.' Nevertherless, it was those men who saved England and America from becoming provinces of Spain.
The "navy" as we call it, what has history to say of it? That until the reign of Henry VIII, the pious founder of the Koyal navy, it was, in fact, neither more nor less than England's mercantile marine. As for Elizabeth's tall ships and proud captains, Drake and Hawkins and Frobisher and many another, they were stout merchant skippers, and of the fleet which met the Great Armada, near upon two hundred sail, but thirty-four belonged to the Queen's navy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend intends to speak very much longer, 'perhaps he would let me know, and then I can say what I have to say.


Thomas Langton Church: I would say to the Prime Minister I shall be glad to talk for one, two or three days, if necessary and advisable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason I asked my hon. friend the question was because I think there has been some misunderstanding as to the nature of a remark I made at the time the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) got up to speak. I intimated then that that I was
quite prepared to stay here all night to get through the debate in order to get on with the business of the House. I understand that hon. gentlemen opposite have construed that as a threat on the Government's part to keep this committee sitting all night if need be, and that some of them have arranged to have a series of speeches running well on to the morning. Now I have no desire whatever to have any remark of mine construed as a threat-nothing could be further from my mind than such an intention. I did say, and I repeated it later on, that I thought most of the members of the House were anxious to get through with business and we would do so by bringing to a close, if possible, to-night a debate which has been going on for a couple of days. I certainly feel that the House has got an entirely wrong impression of what I had in mind if it thought my words implied a threat in any way. The statement I made was that if there were a desire to continue, and if members on the other side would so indicate by rising I would be quite willing the debate should be adjourned. Only the hon. njember for Centre Vancouver rose. I desire that there shall not be any misunderstanding as to the attitude of the Government. We have every desire to give every hon. member who wishes to speak the opportunity to place his views before the House. If, therefore, there are several hon. members who still wish to speak I am quite willing that my hon. friend who now has the floor should adjourn the debate, and that the committee should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Thomas Langton Church: Then I move that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston) :: I did intend to say a few words, but I wish to say that I am not in any combine to detain the House. Unless I had something that I thought would be of practical use in the debate I would take no part in it, I do not think that any hon. member can say that I unnecessarily detain the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would also like to explain that there is no understanding of the kind alluded to.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been moved by Mr. Church that the committe rise and report progress.


George Perry Graham: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am
Supply-Naval Service

generally very easy to get along with but I do not think the Opposition is treating me in a matter that is exactly fair. This is the third time Naval Estimates have been postponed. I postponed bringing them in at the request of the Opposition because [DOT]certain members were away. I did so because I wanted to accommodate them. The other day when these naval estimates were up, at the request of the leader of the Opposition I kept back this large item and set a day for its discussion, with the inference of course that the discussion would be concluded to-night. Now I find my convenience is not considered by the Opposition. I do not wish to complain but I have to go away to-morrow in order to fulfil an engagement. That means that my estimates will have to be further postponed, and I do not know for how long. If the courtesy is only going to be on one side I shall not be so courteous the next time.


Arthur Meighen: I do not really understand the minister in making this reference.


George Perry Graham: I do.


Arthur Meighen: It is true that the
Oppositition asked for the postponement of the Defence Bill for a certain reason.


George Perry Graham: My estimates have been postponed three times at the request of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Postponements are
quite usual and are always granted. On Friday after the minister had stated his naval policy I suggested that we might go on with the other estimates, but I said I did not think this item should pass-that it was one of the most important matters; indeed by far the most important-that has been before this House. The minister should not have expected that the criticism should come immediately after his pronouncement of policy. The request for postponement was a most reasonable one.


George Perry Graham: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: What is the Opposition doing to-night?


George Perry Graham: Talking against time
absolutely, as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) certainly has been doing.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think my hon. friend is fair in saying that. There has been no such purpose in view. The comment he makes is unfair and unworthy of him; there was no purpose whatever to obstruct the minister's estimates. There was a purpose to have an opportunity for

discussion on the part of those who wished to fairly discuss the estimates. That is the only stand we take. Furthermore, if the minister had been in the last Parliament he would know something about what obstruction and unfairness to the government was.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: Allow me just a moment. I do not wish to be misunderstood, or to allow my right hon. friend to say that the postponment was in reference to some bill. On three distinct occasions I was asked to postpone the estimates and I did so.


Arthur Meighen: I do not dispute that.


George Perry Graham: Well, I think there ought to be some little reciprocity.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister wants the postponement we are quite willing to meet his wishes. If he is not able to be present to-morrow we are quite ready to take this matter up again on Thursday. We do not desire to unnecessarily exhaust any time at all.


George Perry Graham: I leave it to the judgment of the House whether my statement is correct or not.


Lewis Herbert Martell: In the Montreal Herald to-day there is a despatch-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I call the attention of the member for Hants to the fact that there is nothing before the committee at the prelsent time. The motion to report progress has been carried.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at one a.m., Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 17, 1922.