alternatehistory.com

With the Canadian government keeping tight lipped while negotiations were being brought to a close, this left a vacuum of information waiting to be filled. The Canadian Military Gazette was one of the first more official channels to comment on the likely upcoming announcement of a naval procurement plan. They would comment, “unless we have badly misread public opinion, the creation of an independent Canadian maritime force that works together with the British Navy will meet with very general acceptance. We do not believe the route of financial contributions is the best course as a dominion navy managed by the dominion government alone sufficiently meets Canadian needs.” Shortly after, the Government announced that within the period stretching to the next year, they would be rapidly undergoing steps to create a Canadian Navy and procuring warships to inhabit it. Arrangements were currently being made to procure older warships as fisheries enforcement vessels and training platforms alongside the announcement that Canada would domestically produce its own warships. A $15,000,000 program was announced to build Canadian shipbuilding and repair industries however, the situation quickly soured.

Instead of coalescing support, these announcements drew controversy. The pro-contribution opposition had been fully expected, rallying around the soon to be famous derogatory title of Laurier’s planned force, the “Tin Pot Navy”. The newest threat came from the Quebec nationalists through Frederick Debartzch Monk, leader of the Quebec branch conservatives. While he had been present for the initial parliamentary naval debates, more pressing matters within Quebec had kept him from heavily commentating, that would quickly change. With the upcoming procurement and general change in naval thinking all being based off the recent Imperial Conference, Monk was heavily skeptical of the fact that the full transcript of the conference was withheld by the colonial office. The office themselves maintained that the discussions were private and contained relatively sensitive material alongside the fact that Laurier and Brodeur needed to keep their agreement with McKeena secretive, the eventually heavily edited and redacted transcript satisfied nobody. Monk struck hard and fast, accusing Laurier of “imperial drunkenness to a point of being fatal to the principal of a self-governing nation.”

Monk accused Laurier relentlessly of “intending to build a war navy for active participation in the defense of the empire”, completely ignoring Lauriers repeated pleas clarifying that this Canadian fleet would not participate in Imperial actions without the consent of the Canadian people. Monk and his fellow Quebec elite would have none of this “imperial rabblerousing”, being promptly joined by fellow Frenchmen Henri Bourassa, a long-time critic of Laurier. Bourassa would utilize his powerful political connections to publish the French paper Le Devior in January of 1910, using the platform as a powerful means of opposing Laurier and his naval bill. It was rather obvious to the people of Quebec that regardless of what they desired, Canada as a whole would go to war with the empire regardless, making any kind of logical appeal rather moot on Laurier’s part. Fate seems to be playing a cruel game with Laurier as one of his most trusted and knowledgeable partners in the naval race, Minister Brodeur, was struck with a serious illness and could not oversee the implementation of the bill itself. Laurier was not as familiar with naval affairs as his minister however, it was time for him to take the reigns so to speak and bring this affair to it’s proper conclusion.


On January 12, 1910, Wilfred Laurier personally introduced Bill 95 into Parliament or more well known as the Naval Service Act. The stress weighed heavily on his mind as he prepared to give the address, he was about to finally forge the arm which would protect his nation for centuries to come or conversely, was about to go down in recorded history as a optimistic fool. It was worrisome, Laurier had familiarized himself to a point to the specific naval matters of the Conferences and such however, he was nowhere near knowledgeable enough to hold up to specific scrutiny. This gamble would need to pay off, the time for caution had concluded.

“Mr. Speaker, it was understood when the House adjourned for the Christmas recess that, upon resuming our sittings, my Hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) would introduce the Naval Bill which was foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne and expose the policy of the government in regard to it. Unfortunately, my Hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to-day in such a condition of health that he cannot be present, but with a view of not disappointing the House and of expediting its business, my Hon. friend has asked me to introduce the measure for him. He hopes, and still more I hope, that when the Bill is brought up for second reading early next week he will be able to be in his place to move the second reading and then go fully into the whole question and all the details of policy and administration connected with it. My object, therefore, to-day will be simply to introduce the Bill and give to the House its salient features, reserving for the second reading the more general discussion of the measure. The Bill which will be laid upon the table is entitled ‘An Act respecting the Naval Service of Canada.’

This bill provides for the creation of a naval force to be composed of a permanent corps, a reserve force, and a volunteer force on the same pattern 'absolutely as the present organization of the militia force. Unlike the Militia force however, no man in this country, under the Naval Service Act or any other, will be liable to military service on the sea. In this matter the present Bill departs altogether from the Militia Act; every man who will be enrolled for naval service in Canada will be enrolled by voluntary engagement, there is no compulsion of any kind, no conscription, no enrollment and no balloting. The Bill provides that the naval force shall be under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It further provides that there shall be a director of naval service who must be of the rank of Rear Admiral or at least of Captain, as we currently have. The Department shall be assisted by a naval board who will advise the department. Commissions in the Naval Militia will issue in the name of His Majesty. Another important feature of the Bill is that it provides for the establishment of a naval college on the pattern of the military college now in existence at Kingston. It also declares that the naval discipline shall be in the form of the King's regulations. These, Mr. Speaker, are the leading features of the Bill. Of course, the matter can be very largely elaborated, but I do not think that any elaboration is necessary to an understanding of the matter. In conclusion, it provides for the creation of a naval force; in this there are to be three classes as in the militia, the permanent force, the reserve unit and volunteer force. The naval service may be placed at the disposal of His Majesty in case of war. When Britain is at war, Canada is at war; there is no distinction. If Great Britain, to which we are subject, is at war with any nation, Canada becomes liable to invasion, and so Canada is at war. The Canadian representatives explained in what respect they desired the advice of the Admiralty in regard to the measures of naval defense, which might be considered consistent with the resolution adopted by the Canadian parliament on the 29th March, 1909. While, on naval strategical considerations, it was thought that a fleet unit on the Pacific, as outlined by the Admiralty, might in future form an acceptable system of naval defense, it was recognized that Canada's double seaboard rendered the provisions of such a fleet unsuitable for the present. Relating to the proceedings given by Mr. Askwith after the Conference had taken place, is the following:

Separate meetings took place at the Admiralty with the representatives of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and general statements were agreed to in each case for further consideration by their respective governments. As regards Australia, the suggested arrangement is that with some temporary assistance from the imperial funds, the Commonwealth government should provide and maintain the Australian unit of the Pacific fleet. The contribution of the New Zealand government would be applied towards the maintenance of the China unit, of which some of the smaller vessels would have New Zealand waters as their headquarters. The New Zealand battlecruiser would be stationed in Chinese waters. As regards Canada, it was considered that her double seaboard rendered the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed, according to the amount of money that might be available that Canada should make a start with cruisers of the Boadicea class, Bristol class and destroyers of an improved River class, a part to be stationed on the Atlantic seaboard and a part on the Pacific. These warships will be built in Canadian docks with money spent by the Canadian taxpayer, thus will create the industrial base for further growth within the nation for all types of vessel, even excluding warships.”


There was obvious dissent within the Liberal party itself however as with many topics involving politics, Lauriers supported fell in behind him, letting loose with a thunderous applause as he returned to his seat. Laurier had hoped that this compromise between an effective force, a largely dominion-controlled force and the infrastructure investments would win over all parties but for a veteran politician, he was far off the mark. Taking some time to regroup, the Conservatives bit back at the Laurier as party member Clarence Jameson took the stand.

“As the battlecruiser is the essential part of the fleet unit, it is important that an Indomitable class warship of the battlecruiser type should be the first vessel to be built in commencing the formation of a hypothetical Canadian fleet. Here we find the large battlecruiser spoken of as a necessity, the first essential in the creation of a fleet unit. Australia and New Zealand have adopted the plan of the naval experts, yet the government of Canada deliberately ignore it and propose placing in the water ships, which in the stern test of modern naval warfare, would he as helpless as a family of small children dumped down in a vacant tenement and told to live for themselves. Again, the class of ships proposed to be built by the government would, in the event of war, compel Canada to take a position inferior to Australia and New Zealand, who are each preparing to provide ships capable of taking their place in the battle line.

It was the boast of the people of Canada, irrespective of race or creed, that when the Canadian volunteers went to South Africa, they took their place on the firing line, they fought shoulder to shoulder with the best troops which Great Britain or any of the colonies sent to the front, they won honor for themselves and reflected honor on their country. To-day Australia and New Zealand are each preparing to provide cruisers of the Dreadnought type. These vessels will not only be a deterrent to our common enemy, but in time of war would take their place in the battle line in defense as well of Canada as of every other part of the empire. Where would the proposed Canadian ships be if they are built, or obsolete craft such as the government are considering the purchase of? Too light to withstand the fire of a powerful enemy and only from such would an attack come; if they went to war at all, they would be forced into a position inferior to that of the ships of the other self-governing dominions, and would actually have to accept the protection of the larger ships of the younger and smaller colonies. The self-respect of the people of Canada, including, I believe, the descendants of the veterans of Montcalm and Wolfe, would cry out against the indignity to which the government proposes to subject this country.”

This appeal to contributionists and imperialists alike resonated with the members of the conservative party and while they were obviously not as well versed in the particulars and practicality of certain naval plans, their issues rang true. Similar to their Liberal counterparts, the Conservatives burst out in agreement. In the end, Laurier’s compromise tried to accommodate everybody but ended up satisfying nobody. The Quebec nationalists complained that the long reaching cruisers and aggressive torpedo boats being ordered demonstrated a want to interfere in other nations affairs alongside their fellow imperial bullies. The contributionists lamented the lack of a concrete large gun contribution or similarly impressive cash donation to the Royal Navy while the imperialists baulked at the specific exclusion of a clause compelling naval service, being an all voluntary force. This was originally placed to satisfy the French Canadians lack of drive to fight overseas conflicts however, it rightly backfired rather quickly. The nationalists were the only party to be readily pleased as a Canadian navy built in Canadian yards was exactly what they had requested. Debate raged back and forth between the Conservatives and Liberals for months, finally coming to a bitter conclusion in May of 1910.

Robert Borden would personally take the stand and while he agreed that it was desirable for Canada to have it's own naval force, he preferred to speak of a Canadian naval force as simply a Canadian unit of the Royal Navy. His party had previously argued that Canada should not take part in the naval defense of the Empire without having a voice as to the wars which Great Britain might undertake however at the same time, Borden did not believe that Britain would bring them into any major conflicts without having first consulted the Dominions. He would put forward that like the Militia, the Navy would corrode the nature of cooperation between the Dominion and the Empire.
Borden went on to state a financial or material contribution for the purpose of meeting an emergency such as what was currently happening would be fully justified and desirable. To meet the German challenge he proposed, the Laurier government's proposal were completely inadequate. This was no longer an expansion of the Fisheries Protection Service and would stick them to the path of having their own naval force permanently while also in his eyes, being too little and too late to help Britain. Even in the best case scenario and with all due haste, a Canadian Service could not be effectively built in less than 10 years. He argued that 15 to 20 years is more realistic especially if Laurier went for all domestic construction. To that end, the crisis was here and now, such future actions would be too late. Borden's view was perhaps somewhat slanted due to the fact that he had visited Britain the previous summer, where he was privy to observing the grand British fleet organized for the King's review. Borden would go on to describe the scene itself,

"It was not a proud thought for a Canadian surveying: that mighty fleet to remember that all the protecting power which it embodied was paid for without the contribution of a single dollar by the Canadian people, although Canada and every Canadian throughout the world had the right to invoke and the just expectation to receive the protection afforded by that great armament. Hereby, the obscenely rapid growth of German naval forces, in my opinion, is nothing but a most serious threat to the naval supremacy of Britain and by extension, being absolutely essential to the integrity of the empire. No one pretends that the British navy is not supreme to-day, but the continuance of that supremacy will cease within the next two or three years at least, unless extraordinary efforts are made by the mother country and all the great dominions."


Borden ended his attacks by advocating the old provision of a fleet unit or at minimum, 1 Dreadnought or, as he described, "the equivalent in cash at the disposal of the Admiralty to be used for naval defense under such conditions as we may prescribe." Even with the applied effort of Robert Borden and Monk/Bourassa from Quebec, all of these things were largely formalities as the Liberal party’s healthy parliamentary majority allowed them to pass the bill with little issue. With a vote of 111 to 70, the Naval Service Bill was put to paper and provided royal assent by King George V.