England, in order to maintain her security in her own waters, has been obliged to withdraw some of her naval forces from the distant seas.

Such is the condition; and I ask once more what is the remedy? In our humble judgment, the remedy is this, that wherever, in the distant seas or in the distant countries,-in Australia, Canada, or elsewhere, a British ship has been removed to allow of concentration in European waters, that ship should be replaced by a ship built, maintained, equipped and manned by the young nation immediately concerned. If the young nations of the Empire take hold of the equipment and manning of ships to look after the distant seas, concentration can easily take place in the waters of Europe, and the British Admiralty knows what zones it has to defend. This is the Australian policy; this ought to be the Canadian policy. I insist once more upon what is stated in the memorandum: There is no emergency, there is no immediate danger, there is no prospective danger. If there were an emergency, if England were in danger-no, I will not use that expression; I will not say if England were in danger, but simply if England were on trial with one or two or more of the great powers of Europe, my right honourable friend might come and ask, not $35,000,000, but twice, three times, four times $35,000,000. We would put at the disposal of England all the resources of Canada; there would not be a single dissentient voice.

But this is not the condition with which we have to deal. The condition that we have to deal with to-day is simply what I described a moment ago. This is not new. The memorandum which my right honourable friend submitted the other day disclosed nothing which we did not know before. Every word that is there we knew; every figure we knew. I may say more: every word, every figure in that memorandum we discussed four years ago. We discussed it in the month of March, 1909; and then we came to the conclusion, the unanimous conclusion, that the best method of helping England,

of discharging our duty, was not by contribution, but by the creation of a Canadian navy..

Four years ago, my right honourable friend said we must and will. To-day he no longer says we must and will; but we on this side of the House continue to say we must and will. Now, sir, I ask, why is it that my right honourable friend and his first lieutenant, the leaders of the Opposition then, who to-day have the responsibility of office, will not go on with the policy so forcibly put forward by them, instead of a policy under which, in the language of my right honourable friend, there will be no preparation of the soil or beginning or growth of the product of defence? The reason, sir, is not far to seek, The reason is well known: there is one and only one and it is because this subject of imperial defence has been made the subject of contentious politics. It is the result of the alliance, the unholy alliance, which has been formed by the honourable gentlemen opposite.

What is this contribution that we have to-day before us, and upon which we are asked to vote? It is big in money; it is big in figures. Is it as big otherwise as it ought to be? I ask every honourable member of this House; I ask every honourable gentleman sitting there: You give England two or three dreadnoughts, to be paid for by Canada, but to be equipped, maintained and manned by England. Did I say manned by England? I must qualify that statement. In justice to my right honourable friend, I must qualify that statement; because he told us that he had secured from the imperial authorities the privilege of having Canadian officers serve on those ships. Oh, ye Tory jingoes, is that the amount of the sacrifice you are prepared to make? You are ready to furnish admirals, rear-admirals, commodores, captains, officers of all grades, plumes, feathers, and gold lace; but you leave it to England to supply the bone and sinews on board those ships. You say that these ships shall bear Canadian names. That will be the only thing Canadian about them. You hire somebody to do your work; in other words, you are

ready to do anything except the fighting. Is that, sir, the true policy?

[Some honourable members: No. No!]

Is that the true policy? It is a hybrid policy, it is a cross between jingoism and nationalism. Unless I mistake the spirit of the Canadian people, if they are true to their ideals, if they are true to their own blood, no matter to what province they belong, they will not be satisfied with this hybrid policy, but they will insist that their contribution shall be a contribution of money and of men as well, as was provided in our resolution of 1909.

...

But I may be told that is not the policy recommended by the Admiralty to the prime minister. Sir, I deny that altogether. My right honourable friend did not go to England to consult the Admiralty about a policy. It is evident that when my right honourable friend went to England, he had abandoned the policy of a Canadian navy. He went to Englandit is very clear from the last paragraph of the memorandumto ask what they would accept for immediate aid. In other words, he went to England to ask what England would accept in the case of an emergency, although there was no emergency.

It had been said that a Canadian navy was a separatist navy. As to that, he would not discuss every opinion he had held at twenty or even at forty; he had learned something from observation and experience: "Any thought of separation from Great Britain, if any such thought exists anywhere, and I do not believe it does, would be a folly and a crime." Canada would be at war when England was at war, but would herself decide as to whether her forces would take part in the conflict. The government's proposals settled nothing: The problem which you have to deal with is one which