Supply-Naval Service

Thirdly, we stand for a permanent Canadian navy to guard our coast and trade routes and commerce with Great Britain, and all other nations at peace with the Empire.

Fourthly, we stand for the construction of a navy and shipyards, using for that purpose the product of Canadian industry and building it by the industry of our people.

Fifthly, we stand for the training of our own seamen in naval schools and colleges, and on board training ships, so that when our ships go out to sea they will represent Canadian blood and bone and flesh, and sentiment.

Sixthly, we stand for placing our ships at the disposal of the King in case of emergency, or at any time, at the expense of Canada, and not at the expense of the British taxpayer.

The leader of the Liberal party in the Senate argued in favour of contribution; and if ever there was a time when we should make a contribution, it is here and now. Canada owes it to the Mother Country and its magnificent fleet-that the awful horrors of war were not visited upon our own soil and that the war did not cost us many millions more than it did. Sir George Ross says further:

Our hearts, hopes and money to go with the ships wherever they are called to fight for the integrity of the Empire.

Seventhly, we stand for co-operation with His Majesty's dominions beyond the sea in forming one solid phalanx if need be, with all the powers they represent, in the defence of Britain for the peace of the world.

Eighthly, we stand for unity and defence if the emergency arises, and we do not propose to question the wisdom of the Admiralty as to how or where that emergency has arisen, or with whom or why we are called upon to fight for the Empire. If you can get any better foundation, I will go with you, and I will stand on a stronger platform than any own if you build me one. We want to be in the strongest position and we want to do that in perfect independence.

Where does the Liberal party stand today? By their seventeen-cent-a-head policy they have discarded the eight planks laid down by Sir George Ross which I have just read.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the people of Canada are disappointed and humiliated by the attitude of the Government of the day. It has been stated that we are a nation; but notwithstanding the great part taken by Canada in the war, notwithstanding the status which we are supposed to have attained, in the matter of naval policy we are going back to the state of affairs which existed one hundred and fifty years ago-Canada-a so-called nation is to continue to sponge on the British taxpayer and, through the action of the Government in this matter, is reverting to the position of a Crown colony.

Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto): Mr. Chairman, I do not flatter myself that anything I can say will change the policy of the Government. At the same time, I think it is my duty to voice a protest against the reduction that has been made in the naval estimates. There can be no doubt whatever that the amount put in last year was the absolute minimum to be 4 p.m. of any service whatever, to be of any value in keeping a naval organization of some small degree of efficiency. The Government have thought it wise to reduce the appropriation to the point where practically no reasonable result can be obtained. Now, sir, if they were wiping out the naval appropriation altogether, there might at least be some ground of economy upon which they could argue; but what they have done is to make an appropriation for an expenditure of a million and a half which can produce no result whatever. Two or three trawlers out on the Pacific and two or three trawlers on the Atlantic, with a torpedo boat, is to be the naval establishment of this country for the next year. I do not believe, Sir, that this meets with the approval of the people of Canada. I know how anxious the people of this country are for economy; I am as keen as any member of the House to reduce the expenditure; but I think that at a time like this there should be some appreciation of our duty in the matter of providing for the defence of Canada and of showing a desire not to continue to lean entirely upon the navy of the Mother Country.

In discussing this question the other night the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) made a remark which indicated that, in his mind at least, the state of affairs existing throughout the world was not such as to justify our dispensing with the little degree of efficiency that we had in our naval service. I want to read to the committee the opinion of a man who ought to be a competent authority on that particular subject. When Right Hon. Lloyd George reached London yesterday he presented a picture of Europe which must make every man harbour a fear of the possibility of another outbreak on that continent; and if that is the case, surely it behooves us at a time like this not to wipe out the effectiveness and efficiency of the naval establishment that we have, but, if anything, to increase it. Mr. Lloyd George, referring to the Genoa Con

ference and to the Hague Conference which is to be held, said:

You must remember that a few weeks ago there were armies massing on frontiers extending over thousands of miles with every evident intention of marching against each other, and the whole centre of Europe was in a state of fear and trembling because they were expecting the march of these armies and a renewal of the terrible conflicts of the last few years. By the Genoa conference the march of these armies has been arrested, and I believe that an order will never be given for a single battalion to go forward.

Let me draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the march of these armies has been arrested for a period of eight months. That is all that any nation in Europe is committed to do; and if that was the state of affairs two months ago; if all they have been able to do by a conference of two months is to enter into an armistice or a truce for eight months, I think we must regard the situation as one of very great seriousness certainly one which does not justify this country in destroying what little naval establishment we have.

I am not a militarist, Mr. Chairman, but I hope I am a self-respecting citizen of Canada who is prepared to do his part in defending his country; and I believe that is the attitude of the people of this country generally. For that reason I believe they will not be content with the appropriation which has been made, and the plans which have been outlined, for carrying on our small naval operations. It is not a question of economy, because I think I can convince the committee that more money is being expended in ways that are entirely unnecessary than has been cut off these estimates.

My hon. friends to the left, a short time ago, went down to the city of Quebec. I do not know who was the personal conductor of that expedition, but I understand the purpose of it was to convince those hon. members that an expenditure of a million and a half for improvements to Quebec harbour was a wise and necessary expenditure. Well, I was greatly interested upon their return from Quebec to hear one of these hon. members stand up and say he did not at all approve of extending the facilities there, because the existing facilities were sufficient to handle twice the amount of business that was done last year or that will be done this season. I point out there a wasteful expenditure of at least a million and a half of dollars on the harbour of Quebec. I have no objection to an ex

Supply-Naval Service

As

penditure of $5,000,000 on the harbour of Montreal, because I believe that additional facilities, especially for loading and unloading, are required there. I think that, perhaps, is an expenditure that can be justified and which is reasonable in its character, but why this House should spend a million and a half dollars on unnecessary work and cut a million and a half of dollars off the naval estimates is something I cannot understand and something, I think, which will not be justified by the people of this country. We must either make it plain that we are going to adopt efficient action, or else do nothing at all. It cannot be argued that this reduction has been made on the score of economy. I want to make my protest against wasteful expenditures of the kind alluded to and the cutting off of necessary expenditure such as we find here in this particular branch of the service. my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) said a few moments ago, there has been a large amount of money spent, and a very large organization created, in this country for the development of any naval talent, or desire for naval service, that may be latent in the youths of the country. That work has been accomplished by voluntary contributions and expenditure. In many points in Canada the Navy League is developing what talent or inclination there may be for naval service among our boys, and they hope to direct that talent or inclination to the service of the country. What inducement is there for them to go on and spend money collected from private sources on a service of that kind if we are going to cut out and destroy the naval establishment we have had in the past? I submit, the Government is making a great mistake; and they will be apprised of that in an unmistakable manner by the Canadian public when the time comes. I want to join my hon. friend from North Toronto in registering a protest against the destruction of the naval service of this Dominion.

Mr. J. H. MACKELVIE (Yale): I would like to ask the minister if he has fully taken into consideration the responsibility which, I think he must admit falls to some degree upon the Government with respect to the students who have taken a course in the naval college, and some of whom, perhaps, have put in two, if not three, years in that institution. These lads have selected the navy as their career; they certainly entered the institution with the idea that

Supply-Naval Service

they had a chance of securing the training that would fit them for commissions in the navy; and I cannot conceive how the Government can escape from a certain responsibility by reason of failure to realize these plans. I am acquainted with some of these young men-one belongs to my own constituency-bright lads who would be a credit to the navy. Yet they are now deprived of the careers upon which they had entered although they have spent two or three years studying at the naval college. In view of the time so spent I do not think they are in a position to enter a university from the naval college. The training they have received would be of service in a science course in the university, but I do not think it would be of material use in classics. I therefore want to ask the Government if they have fully taken into consideration any scheme whereby justice can be done to the lads referred to.

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of the Naval Service): The matter of the Royal Naval College at Esquimalt was one of the difficulties of the situation, which confronted the Government, and I am going to explain it frankly to the House. My hon. friend has asked me if any care or thought has been given to the students who are in course of training at the college or have graduated from it. Some of the students who have graduated have gone to other universities. The Naval Department made arrangements previously that students from the naval college could enter the universities either of Queen's, Toronto, or McGill before completing their second year. We are now endeavouring to ascertain if arrangements can be made with the universities so that those who have attained their second year in the naval college may be given matriculation standing in those institutions. As to the school itself it is a remarkable institution, there is no question about that, but for the last two years only four students each year have gone from it to finish their training in the Royal navy. Even if there had not been any change in the system no graduate would have gone this year from the naval college to the Royal navy, so that, so far as opportunities of service to the country from that college are concerned, they have come to an end, at least for some years. At the present time we have in the Royal navy some forty young men and Canada is paying for their training which will take some years to complete.

The Government intends, under its scheme, to allow those young officers to finish their training as was anticipated. The cost of that training alone for the coming year is estimated at $73,000. As I said before, no graduate from that naval college can find entry into the Royal navy for training; we have come to a blockade in that regard. I therefore ask the committee, in all fairness, of what use is it to the young man that he should be allowed to continue his naval course when at the end of the term of three years there would be no place to which he could go?-it would not be fair to him, and would not be fair to the country.

Now let me point out what the naval college is and as I said before it is a wonderful school of training. The young men there are being trained ostensibly for a naval career, but that career, no matter what policy is adopted by Parliament, so far as the navy is concerned does not exist for the present. The committee can readily understand that while the British navy will probably retain all the officers we have there in training and for whom we are paying, there is no great career ahead in the Royal navy when that navy at the present time is dismissing its officers day by day and cutting down its staff. There are forty-two students at the naval college; but so far as conditions are concerned we cannot compare the present with the past.

It will be found as the days

go by that the taxation that may be imposed on the people of Canada is all that they can stand. I want to emphasize that: The taxation that the Canadian people will have to bear is all that they can stand; and wherever the country is not getting what it believes to be value for money expended, that expenditure ought to be dispensed with. Nobody can accuse me of not being in favour of such institutions as the naval college because I am. But if we are not going to get any value for the country, and if there is no career for the young men that we are sending to the naval college, why keep up this expense merely for sentiment?

Now, let me give a little statement as to conditions in connection with the Royal Naval College. The cost of that college is $175,000 per annum the number of cadets at present at the college is 42; and the cost of training each cadet for three years is $12,000.

Mr. CRERAR: The cost of training each cadet?

Mr. GRAHAM: The cost of training each cadet for three years is $12,000.

Mr. CRERAR: That is $4,000 a year?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, $4,000 a year. At the present time 25 graduates are serving in the Royal Canadian navy, and a number are undergoing further training in the Royal navy. The complement of the college is 12 officers and 41 instructors and 12 civilians, a total of 65. I will not say that number of officers, instructors and civilians in various employment are not necessary, because each branch has to be taught, and a man could instruct a hundred, perhaps, as easily as he could instruct two, but in this line of instruction 65 people are employed under pay to instruct 42 young men; that is, merely to finish their education so that they can go into the second year in the university, after this training as midshipmen. And the cost to each pupil is $12,000. In the face of the fact that there is no future for the boy, either here or abroad, for some years at least, should we continue that? Perhaps you will say that it is useful in that it trains the young men in other walks of life. But surely that is not part of the federal authority's duty. Education belongs to the provinces, and the reason for the institution of this naval college was that it might train boys for the naval service. When we consider that each graduate costs $12,000, and after the training they are only fit for a second year in a university, without any naval career ahead of them, I believe the country will agree that we ought for the time being to close down the naval college.

Mr. MacKELVIE: What the minister has said may be taken as an argument for the discontinuance of the college, as far as new pupils are concerned, but I still think he must recognize the fact that some obligation rests upon the Government regarding these lads who are there, who have entered in good faith, on the understanding that their training was to be completed. Did I understand the minister to say that the Royal Navy now refuses to take any further graduates in the school?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, I did not say that. Mr. MacKELVIE: How is it that no career is open for them in the navy?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Royal navy does not need officers, and is dismissing officers every day at the rate of something like 2,000 I think. What young man would care to enter on that career? As a matter

Supply-Naval Service

of fact, during the last two years, before that took place, only four went from the college to the Royal navy.

Mr. McKELVIE: I would like to have an answer from the minister with reference to the point I raised, as to whether he concedes that the government has any responsibility in connection with those lads who are already taking the course, having in good faith entered the institution.

Mr. GRAHAM: The boys who are just on the first year have not lost much, as their junior training would stand them in good stead anywhere. In the second place, we are endeavouring to get various universities to accept second year boys as matriculants, without examination. The third year boys come to the universities and are credited with the second year work.

Mr. GUTHRIE: They may go to the university if they are fortunate enough to have parents or friends sufficiently well off to finance them through their university career, but, if I understand aright, a number of those boys are not so situated, and a nice question arises as to what is to be done with the boy whose father is not able to give him a university career and who may have spent two or three years at the naval college, having gone there in good faith hoping to complete his education and enter the navy and make that his calling for a lifetime. A difficulty arises in connection with the cadets of the naval college, but I think, perhaps, a greater difficulty will arise in connection with those who have

gone through the naval college. I was always under the impression that the British Admiralty had made an arrange-ment with the Government of Canada that they would accept a certain limited number of our naval college graduates each year. I do not know what the number was, but I think probably those who graduated from the college were entitled to a course in the British navy and to become fully equipped in every respect. Judging from what the minister has intimated to the committee to-day, I gather that this arrangement is still in force. There has been no intimation from the British government that it will not continue that practice and accept from Canada or the other Dominions such men as we may prepare and send forward. Of course, if we stop the college we certainly will not have any boys to send forward. But I do not think the trouble is with the British Admiralty. I doubt

Supply-Naval Service

if they would send any information to this country that in future they will not accept all the qualified cadets we are able to send them. I think there may be a greater difficulty in the case of the boy who has passed through the naval college and has entered upon his course of training in the Imperial fleet or, having qualified there, has taken a position in the Canadian navy. What is to be done with the officers on our own Canadian ships who went into Canadian naval service on the faith of an act of Parliament, went through the whole course of training, passed through the college, through the rank of midshipman, obtained rank as officers in the various units of our Canadian navy, or are holding positions in the British navy? Are you going to demobilize these men? Are you going to turn them adrift? And if so, upon what principle are you going to act? I have a communication here from the parents of some of these boys. The parent of one lad living in Guelph, where I reside, has also communicated with me on the subject of his son. His son, I think, in the coming month is to become a lieutenant? Of what? I assume he will be cast adrift. Another one writes as follows:

We have say, 60, officers of the Royal Canadian Navy serving in our own ships and with the Imperials. Their service extends from one year to about twelve years. Before going to sea these officers put in three to four years of study to qualify; since 1910 at the Royal Naval College.

If these officers are turned adrift now or urged to retire on the small gratuity offered, a great injustice will be done.

The midshipmen who went to sea last year will of course be the least affected. Their training is such that they can enter the 2nd year at McGill in engineering and the break will not be severe, and they can more easily adapt themselves to some other line of work. Take, however, the officer who has put in five years or more at sea after his college course; it will take at least three years of hard work to fit him for some other work, and the officer who has served from the outset will find it will take him longer. It may well turn out that he will find it impossible to fit into something else. That will be his misfortune. All the country can do and what it ought to do is to start these officers towards any new calling they might choose.

Mr. GRAHAM: Where is he now?

Mr. GUTHRIE: I take it he is in the Canadian navy.

Consideration should also be given for the money they have been compelled to put into the expensive uniforms of the service.

I do not know exactly what England is doing but it is freely reported she is treating her officers generously. I have heard it stated that they are paying lieutenants £1,000 and allowances for uniforms.

What are we doing with these Canadian officers in the British navy and those Canadian midshipman officers in our own Canadian navy? Certainly, it will be unjust, wrong in every sense of the word, to cast these men adrift. They will have to be taken care of; something substantial will have to be granted to them, not only for their disappointment, but for their actual outlay in payment of very expensive uniforms which they are bound to provide.

At this point, I should like to refer to one other matter. When this question was up for discussion in this House on Tuesday last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), made some quotations from a report of, I think, the Public Accounts Committee of the British House of Commons, and the inference which has been drawn in some quarters from that quotation or a part of it, has been, I think, an entirely wrong one. A wrong impression has been created; and, as in the interval I have been able to make some inquiries, I want to place the result of those inquiries before the committee. The quotation to

which I refer is to be found in unrevised Hansard at page 1951, and in part, it reads:

What happened was that 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, and the view of the Cabinet was that when a dominion made a request of that sort it should be acceded to.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING: The hon. gentleman is not quoting my words.

Mr. GUTHRIE: No, this is a quotation from the report of the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee in England.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING: It is a quotation of a sworn statement by a witness before that committee.

Mr. GUTHRIE: That is the statement which, I think, has given a very improper impression. The impression seems to have gone abroad that the five ships which we have in Canada have nothing more than a scrap value; that they were amongst the ships which were in Canadian waters either during or after the war; and that they were ships referred to by this witness who appeared before the committee in the British Parliament and who said that they had only a scrap value to Great Britain. That statement is not in accordance with the facts at all. As a matter of fact, the five ships which we have are thoroughly mo