alternatehistory.com

The Naval Aid Bill was introduced in Parliament on December 5 of 1912. It read as;
"HIS MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-

1. This Act may be cited as The Naval Aid Act.

2. From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.

3. That said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governor in Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armored cruisers of the most modern and powerful type.

4. The said ships when constructed and equipped shall be placed by the Governor in Council at the disposal of His Majesty for the common defense of the Empire.

5. 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."

In essence, this bill would essentially hand over the funds required for the construction of 3 capital ships to Britain. Canada would be left high and dry when it came to their own naval policy, as Borden wished to pass this law before any others. It is generally agreed that while these ships likely would have had Canadian names, they would be commissioned into the Royal Navy and operated by them. To the Nationalists, this was the ultimate betrayal of their trust and a worst case scenario. While the Imperialists and Contributionists were generally rather content with this payment.


That being said, the proposed amount produced a rather extreme whiplash in Parliament. Even the generally rather vapid and pro British Governor General expressed his dismay regarding the new naval bill.

“I am not quite sure exactly what the government are going to propose as the permanent naval organization of Canada, something more practical and useful than the Laurier naval bill I hope. This they want to repeal at once and I am urging them not to do this til they have an organization to propose in its place. I think it would be a mistake for Canada, alone of all the great self-governing dominions, to be without any system of naval defense. I think you will agree with my view that for the moment an inferior and existing naval organization is better than none.”

In his typical fashion, Borden launched himself into boisterous and stirring speeches in order to attempt to drum up support for his newest bill.

"So far as official estimates are available, the expenditure of Great Britain in naval and military defense for the provinces which now constitute Canada, during the nineteenth century, was not less than $400,000,000. Even since the inception of our confederation, and since Canada has attained the status of a great Dominion, the amount so expended by Great Britain for the naval and military defense of Canada vastly exceeds the sum which we are now asking parliament to appropriate. From 1870 to 1890 the proportionate cost of North Atlantic squadrons which guarded our coasts was from $125,000,000 to $150,000,000. From 1853 to 1903 Great Britain's expenditure on military defense in Canada runs closely up to one hundred million dollars. Has the protection of the flag and the prestige of the Empire meant anything for us during all that period? Hundreds of illustrations are at hand, but let me give just two. During a period of disorder in a distant country, a Canadian citizen was unjustifiably arrested and fifty lashes were laid on his back. Appeal was made to Great Britain, and with what result? A public apology was made to him, and fifty pounds were paid for every lash. In time of dangerous riot and wild terror in a foreign city a Canadian religious community remained unafraid. 'Why did you not fear?' they were asked, and unhesitatingly came the answer, 'The Union Jack floated above us.'

No thoughtful man can fail to realize that very complex and difficult questions confront those who believe that we must find a basis of permanent co-operation in naval defense, and that any such basis must afford to the overseas dominions an adequate voice in the molding and control of foreign policy. It would have been idle to expect, and indeed we did not expect to reach in the few weeks at our disposal during the past summer a final solution of that problem, which is not less interesting than difficult, which touches most closely the future destiny of the Empire, and which is fraught with even graver significance for the British islands than for Canada. But I conceive that its solution is not impossible; and, however difficult the task may be, it is not the part of wisdom or of statesmanship to evade it. And so we invite the statesmen of Great Britain to study with us this, the real problem of Imperial existence. The next ten or twenty years will be pregnant with great results for this Empire, and it is of infinite importance that questions of purely domestic concern, however urgent, shall not prevent any of us from rising "to the height of this great argument." But to-day, while the clouds are heavy and we hear the booming of the distant thunder, and see the lightning flashes above the horizon, we cannot and we will not wait and deliberate until any impending storm shall have burst upon us in fury and with disaster. Almost unaided, the motherland not for herself alone, but for us as well, is sustaining the burden of a vital Imperial duty, and confronting an overmastering necessity of national existence. Bringing the best assistance that we may in the urgency of the moment, we come thus to her aid, in token of our determination to protect and ensure the safety and integrity of this Empire, and of our resolve to defend on sea as well as on land our flag, our honor, and our heritage. And so we invite the statesmen of Great Britain to study with us this, the real problem of Imperial existence. Meanwhile, however, the skies were filled with clouds and distant thunder, and we will not wait and deliberate until any impending storm shall have burst upon us in fury and with disaster."

Borden's Imperialistic appeal to patriotism had struck accords with members of Parliament across both sides of the aisle however as the Liberal opposition delivered their reply, any pretenses of cooperation between the parties for support was quickly dashed. While there was the potential for an option for Canada to take over the operation of said three ships in the future, it was extremely likely that these immensely expensive and resource intensive vessels would stay in Admiralty custody for their entire service lives. While special privileges would likely be given to Canadian personnel to be stationed and trained aboard these ships alongside the ships themselves receiving Canadian names, (Ontario, Quebec and Acadia), Borden was quickly taken under fire.

If Laurier was furious at the proposal, the man in classic fashion, did not show a crack of rage in his impenetrable mask. At a Liberal caucus held the following day, the party decided with dissent that this bill would not be allowed to pass, no matter the length they must go to.


At the next meeting of Parliament, Laurier tore into the Naval Aid Bill from every angle he could think of. He began by saying that it was the Conservatives who had dragged the Dominion's naval policy into the zone of contentious politics with their ridiculous Imperialistic jingoism. They had thrown out Laurier's perfectly reasonable procurement plan for what? Handing the Admiralty money on a silver platter? This plan, unlike his own, would spend no money on Canadian infrastructure and do nothing to assist the Canadian economy. In the mind of Laurier, Borden had given up the policy of a Canadian navy before he went to England, and had then when he arrived, asked the Admiralty of what they would like as a tribute. Laurier reaffirmed that the existing Canadian naval organization of his own creation was not separatist in tendency. Laurier concluded by moving an amendment, the gist of which was that any measure of Canadian aid in imperial naval defense which did not carry out a permanent policy of participation by ships owned, manned, and maintained by Canada, and built in the Dominion, would not properly express the aspirations of the Canadian people. He proposed measures should be taken as quick as possible to realize the potential embodied in the Naval Service Act; and that accordingly, in place of a tribute to the Royal Navy, two fleet units should be provided, one for each coast. The makeup of these fleet units was never agreed upon however it is thought to be two similar units to Australia. This too though was rather optimistic.

Laurier's speeches reinforced his point of view and struck home the problems with Borden's policy;

"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 . . . This is the Australian policy; this ought to be the Canadian policy. You say that these ships will 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."

It seemed that Borden had seriously underestimated the amount of bitter feelings regarding the Liberal loss in the last election and his pledges to effectively destroy the Liberal formed Royal Canadian Navy. Even members of the Quebec Conservatives switched sides to support Laurier through these debates. For 2 straight weeks in March of 1913, Parliament had a continuous sitting in regards to the bill. The Liberals were dedicated to stopping this bill by any means necessary and in the words of one of their members, "we are going to sit until Christmas time, if necessary, to prevent the passage of this bill." Over the next 23 weeks, every kind of argument and obstructive trick in the Parliamentary playbook was utilized by the Liberals. The arguments largely turned entirely partisan with each leader eventually falling back to party lines with their leaders rallying support solely around good old-fashioned party allegiance. Once the bill was forced through into a second reading though, the tactics of Laurier took a major turn. Another member of Parliament explained the tedious slug fest which had unfurled.

"We then entered upon a discussion which involved practically continuous sitting for two weeks. The debate went on, night and day, until Saturday, March 8th, at two o'clock in the morning. Members on each side were divided into three relays or shifts and were on duty for eight hours at a time. We had to adopt unusual precautions because we did not know at what hour the Opposition might spring division and have a majority concealed and available. On Monday, March 10th, the debate was resumed and it continued at great length throughout the week. On Friday, March 14th, and again on the following day the debate became so violent as to occasion apprehension of personal conflict. As midnight [Friday] approached the Speaker twice had to take the Chair amid scenes of great disorder."


The general strategy for the Liberals at this stage of the debate was to discuss every single point which arose or could be introduced, and to discuss each for as long as humanly possible in the most minute of details possible. Every tiny fact or statistic brought up by the Conservatives was asked for verification, sessions of Parliament turned into marathon one sided arguments and hours upon hours of reading from lists. The Conservatives largely said as little as possible to avoid supplying the Liberals with any more ammunition for their stalling tactics and hoped as they waited that the sheer physical exhaustion caused by such obstructive and long winded tactics would eventually crack the Liberals facade. The debates themselves were quickly descending down into a state of "frivolity and license with obstruction reaching the point of destroying parliamentary government."

In the face of such stubborn opposition, Borden would write to his Governor General, "These tactics must be arrested, condemned and banished." For the very first time, the Conservatives utilized the newly founded 'closure' rule. As is stated by ourcommons.ca, the closure rule is described as follows;

"Closure is a procedural device used to bring debate on a question to a conclusion by a majority decision of the House, although all Members wishing to speak have not done so. The closure rule provides the government with a procedure to prevent the further adjournment of debate on any matter and to require that the question be put at the end of the sitting in which a motion of closure is adopted. Apart from technical changes as to the hour at which debate is to conclude, the rule has remained virtually unchanged since its adoption in 1913.

Closure may be applied to any debatable matter, including bills and motions. The rule was conceived for use in a Committee of the Whole as much as in the House, but it cannot be applied to business being considered in standing, special, legislative or joint committees of the House. When these committees are considering bills, the House may use the time allocation rule to impose a deadline on the committee stage or to force a committee to report the bill to the House."

Ironically though, a closure rule was not previously passed by the House partially on the opinion of Borden previously, with him stating that such a tactic was 'undesirable'. With votes of 105 to 67 and 108 to 73 respectively for Borden, the Naval Aid Bill was essentially rammed through Parliament after a final reading on May 15th, 1913. Although Borden's bill had braved the harsh treatment of Parliament, it still had to survive the Senate. As senators within the Canadian Senate are appointed for life by the Governor General and any new appointments are always made from among the supporters of the Party in power at the moment, this was a major issue. Borden had not been in power long enough to place a large amount of his supports within the Senate compared to the record 1896 to 1911 length of Laurier's rule over the Canadian government. This had resulted in a iron grip on the membership of the Senate and on May 29, 1913, by a vote of 51 to 27, the Naval Aid Bill was finally defeated in the Senate and returned to the House. While Borden took this initial defeat fairly well however, he soon cabled Churchill in secret and proposed the Admiralty should start construction of the trio regardless of the Canadian funds. He assured Churchill that before their eventual competition, the Canadian government would once again introduce a bill to finance these ships. In a rare show of common sense, Churchill replied with "Such an arrangement would be open to criticism in both countries as seeming to go behind the formal decision of the Canadian Parliament and that we have no right at present to assume the Senate's vote could be reserved." Borden would move to attempt a foothold within the Canadian senate but any kind of naval policy on his end seemed to be dead and gone.

After this defeat, the Conservative government abandoned their naval ambitions for the foreseeable future as the Royal Canadian Navy continued to languish in port under the governments financial constraints. Through this "heart breaking starvation time" though, the Navy would acquire one of the men most instrumental in changing the path of the department for years to come.