1928-03-28

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Kay.
First report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Kay, the fourth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization was concurred in.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
lay on the table of the house:
Copy of the slavery convention adopted by the League of Nations at Geneva on September 25, 1926.
Copy of the second opium conference convention protocol of the League of Nations, signed at Geneva on February 19, 1925.
Copy of international sanitary conference, signed at Paris on June 21, 1926.
These copies are in both French and English.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. NEILL:: Whereas order in council No. 439, approved 16th March, 1928, for reasons stated therein provides for a test movement of coal in full trainloads from Alberta to Ontario, the difference between the set rate of $6.75 per ton and what the Board of Railway Commissioners may determine to be a reasonable rate, to be paid by a vote in the estimates, and
Whereas the reasons stated in said order in council apply equally to coal mined in the province of British Columbia;
1.	Will the government extend the provisions of said order in council to coal mined in British Columbia at the same rate as above mentioned, subject to a pro rata increase for the extra distance?
2.	Whereas a number of British Columbia coal mines are situated on Vancouver island, and not in a position to readily ship by rail but well situated to ship by water, would the government grant them the same possible advantages as offered to railway shippers, by providing an equivalently proportionately low set rate for the transportation of coal in shiploads from Vancouver island to Montreal in the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) :: An order in council was passed on the 13th February, 1926, (P.C. 225) referring to the Board of Railway Commissioners certain questions relating to costs and rates for transportation of Alberta coal. To assist in definitely determining the questions so submitted with a view to ascertaining the possibility of Alberta domestic coal supplanting foreign household fuel in the Ontario market, it has been deemed necessary, as provided by order in council of March 16th, 1928, (P.C. 439) to carry out an actual test movement. Those engaged in coal operations in British Columbia have not made representation as to getting into the eastern market.


PENITENTIARY GUARDS-CLASSIFICATION
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Are penitentiary guards classified as civil servants under the Civil Service Act and as civil servants under civil service jurisdiction?
2.	Has the government or the department having the matters in charge, or the Civil Service Commission, prohibited penitentiary guards from becoming members of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada or any other civil service organization?
3.	If such prohibition does exist, what are the grounds for the decision?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	(a) Yes, for purposes of appointment, salary and promotion.
(b)	For all other purposes they are governed by Penitentiary Act.
2.	Yes, by department.
Questions

3.	Duties of penitentiary officers are semimilitary, semi-police and purely confidential, and under regulations they are not permitted to make the affairs of the penitentiaries the subject of conversation beyond the precincts of the prison nor make them known to any person outside. These regulations they have sworn to obey.


PENITENTIARY GUARDS-SALARIES
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	What is the minimum and maximum salary of a penitentiary guard?
2.	Did not Colonel II. W. Cooper, late warden of the British Columbia penitentiary, recommend in his annual report, that the minimum salary of a penitentiary guard should be $100 per month?
3.	What is the schedule of hours that a penitentiary guard is required to be on duty oc-eording to the regulations?
4.	What is the total number of hours that a penitentiary guard is required to be on duty in one week, including the Sunday duty?
5.	Is it a fact that inspector Jackson, now in charge of the British Columbia penitentiary, has only allowed the guards 10 minutes off duty for the noonday meal?
6.	Is it true that penitentiary guards have been punished or reprimanded for not saluting the superintendent of penitentiaries or an in-peetor when on a visit to a penitentiary?
7.	How many penitentiary guards have (a) resigned; (b) been dismissed from the British Columbia penitentiary during the fiscal year 1927-28?
8.	How many penitentiary guards have been appointed to the British Columbia penitentiary during the fiscal year 1927-28?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	$1,200 and $1,500.
2.	Yes.
3.	From opening to closing of the prison. Average daily hours served-seven and a half.
4.	About forty-five hours.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	(a) Permanent officers resigned, one; temporary officers resigned, two; temporary officers let go at expiration of employment period, two.
(b) Permanent officers dismissed, one; temporary officers dismissed, one.
8.	'Ten (temporary).


EGGS-IMPORTS, ETC.
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	What were the imports of hens' eggs, by dozens, into Canada, (a) from the United States; (b) from all other countries combined, during each month in the year 1127, and for the months of 1928 on which the department may have information?

2.	What wore the total imports of hens' eggs, by dozens, from the United States, (a) to the port of Montreal; (b) to the port of Toronto, during the same period?
3.	How many dozens of hens' eggs have been exported from Canada, (a) to the United States; (b) to the United Kingdom; (c) to all other countries combined, during the above period?
4.	What was the production and consumption of hens' eggs in each province of Canada during the year 1927?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. Imports into Canada of eggs in the shell (a) from the United State, (b) from all other countries, by months, from January, 1927, to February, 1928, inclusive.
	(a)	(b)
	Imports	Imports
	from	from all
	United	Other
Months	States	Countries1927-	Dozen	DozenJanuary.. ..	
622,966	10.254February.. .	
1,123,466	4,611March.. ..	
958.719	6,774April	
2,384	4,198May	
4.S75	2,551June	
2,798	5,817July	
2,169	1,495August.. ..	
87,600	1.575September..	
134,757	1,588October.. ..	
2,232	2,269November..	
28,353	6,768December..	
200,797	7,6291928-	January.. ..	
22,234	7,276February.. .	
26,567	93322. Statement	of imports from	the United
States of eggs in the shell entered for consumption at Montreal and Toronto each month from January, 1927, to February, 1928.
Months	Montreal	Toronto1927-	Dozen	DozenJanuary.. ..	
292,154	184,446February.. .	
437,130	421,048March	
435.420	204,515April	
21	123May	
1	109June	132July	-August	
60,000	11,400September.. .	
47,520	60,000October.. ..	-November.. .	
173	24,960December.. . 1928-	
113,853	32,970January.. ..	
16,740	-February.. .	
45	23,4303. Exports of	eggs (Canadian	produce) to(a) the United	States, (b) the United King-	
Questions
dom, (c) all other countries, by months, from January, 1927, to February, 1928, inclusive.
	(a)	(b)	(c)
	Exports	Exports Exports to all	
to	to	otherUnited	United	coun-Months	States Kingdom	tries1927-	Dozen	Dozen	DozenJanuary.. ..	.. 36	-	14,075February.. ..	.. 48	-	5,260March	.. 24	-	10,395April	.. 135	52	5.767May	.. 181	300	4,840June	.. 108	-	4.080July	. . 	-	7,230August	. . 	-	19.063September...	.. 330	210	9.860October.. ..	.. 231	22,500	10,515November...	.. 456	90,000	17.340December...	... 162	193,500	31,5081928- January.. ..	.. 14,250	30,000	7,670February.. ..	.. 2,484	-	12,6604. Production	of " farm eggs " in	Canada,
by provinces, 1927.
Province	Quantity
Prince Edward Island	 4,104,160
Nova Scotia	 4,391,537
New Brunswick	 4.591,884
Quebec	 37,054,000
Ontario	 102,099,079
Manitoba	  18.693,055
Saskatchewan	 34,433,633
Alberta	 26,749,466
British Columbia	 20,629,854
Indian Reserves	 530,559
Total	 253 277,227


AMHERSTBURG PUBLIC BUILDING-CARETAKER
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has the position of caretaker of the Dominion government building at Amherstburg, Ontario, been filled?
2.	What caused the vacancy?
3.	How many applications were made for the position?
4. By whom?	_
5.	What qualifications were required?
6.	Was the position under the control of the Civil Service Commission?
7.	Was the position regularly advertised?
8.	How many wrote examinations?
9.	What were examination requirements?
10.	Did party patronage play any part in the appointment ?
11.	Is it the intention of the government to accept a recommendation from any person in advance of examinations, made by the Civil Service Commission?
12.	Is it the policy of the government, the Civil Service Commission, or any department
of state, to accept recommendations from anyone in advance of regular examinations advertised and held for the purpose of filling departmental offices?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.
2.	The resignation of Mr. E. P. Tunnidifl
3.	Twenty-five.
4.	Arner, Albert, Amherstburg, Ont.; Bowman, Frans, Amherstburg, Ont.; Cunliffe, John, Amherstburg, Ont.; Downsborough, Fred. J., Amherstburg, Ont.; Heyden, William [DOT]I., Amherstburg, Ont.; Holdaway, Edwin E., Amherstburg, Ont.; Hunter, Ernest, Amherstburg, Ont.; Kell, George, 616 Parent Ave., Windsor, Ont.; Manson, William A., Amherstburg, Ont.; Mayville, Fred, Amherstburg, Ont.; McCloskey, William H., Harrow, Ont.; Pearce, Edwin H., Amherstburg, Ont.; Read, Harold L., 1069 Sandwich St. E., Windsor, Ont.; Renaud, Victor, Amherstburg, Ont.; Rolinson, Arthur C., Amherstburg, Ont.; Russelo,	Lemuel	S.,	Amherstburg,	Ont.;St. John, Lender, Amherstburg, Ont.; Sample, Stanley C., Amherstburg, Ont.; Scriver, George E., Amherstburg, Ont.; Sills, Thomas, 1106 Wyandotte St. E., Windsor, Ont.; Sinasac,	Melville	A.,	Amherstburg,	Ont.;Sprague,	Ernest	W.,	Amherstburg,	Ont.;
Wells, Charlie V., Amherstburg, Ont.; Wilkinson, George, Amherstburg, Ont.; Wright, Lawrence, Amherstburg, Ont.
5.	"Ability to read and write and preferably primary school education; experience in janitor or related work; knowledge of modern cleaning methods and implements; ability to operate stoves, furnaces, or other minor heating plants; good physical condition."
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes, locally.
8.	No written examination was held.
9.	An oral examination was held in which the following factors were considered:
(a)	The training and experience of the candidate fitting him for employment as caretaker; his record of employment, including record of integrity and sobriety.
(b)	The intelligence and mental alertness of the candidate; elementary education; knowldege of modern cleaning methods and equipment, stores, furnaces and heating plants.
(c)	Manner and personal appearance.
(d)	Physical fitness to perform the duties required.
10.	No.
11.	and 12. The intention and policy of the government is to follow the provisions of the Civil Service Act.

Questions


MR. J. W. DUMOULIN
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Has J. W. Dumoulin, now or formerly customs and excise officer at Notre-Dame des Bois, county of Compton, in the province of Quebec, been dismissed from the service?
2.	If so, what complaints were made against him and by whom were such complaints made?
3.	Did he request that an inquiry into such complaints be made by the department?
4.	Was his request complied with?
5.	If not, why not?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A charge of political partisanship made by a member of parliament.
3.	No, but on his behalf representations were made by the service bureau of the Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. who were informed that Mr. Dumoulin would be given an opportunity to be heard.
4 and 5. No further advice received, and it was understood that Mr. Dumoulin lhad left the district.


WOLFE ISLAND POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	When did the position of postmaster of Wolfe island, Quebec, become vacant, and was it by resignation or otherwise?
2.	Did the Civil Service Commission ask for applications for the position?
3.	From whom were applications received?
4.	Was the present incumbent recommended for the position by the Civil Service Commission?
5.	Was the present incumbent recommended for the position by any person or persons other than Civil Service Commission, and if so, by
whom?
6.	Who is the present postmaster of Wolfe island, Quebec, and what is his remuneration?
7.	Does he devote all his time to the position of postmaster or is he otherwise employed?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	3rd October, 1927. Resignation of postmaster.
2.	Yes.
3.	James Dufferin Cosgrove, Howard Cartwright Tarrant.
4.	Yes.
5.	Postmaster was selected as a result of competition. The only recommendations received were letters of reference submitted with his application.
6.	James Dufferin Cosgrove. Total remuneration including allowances and commissions, $772.84.
7.	Post office conducted in conjunction with
store.	.


MR. F. R. GREGORY-FERTILIZER IMPORTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many carloads of fertilizer were imported into Canada by F. R. Gregory of Leamington, Ontario, during the year 1927?
2.	How many carloads of fertilizer were imported into Canada by F. R. Gregory of Leamington, Ontario, during the year 1926?
3.	How long has F. R. Gregory been importing fertilizer for sale on the Canadian market?
4.	What is the appraised value of same to the importer per ton or carload lots as invoiced?
5.	To how many sections in Canada was it invoiced or unloaded, and what sections?
6.	What is the reported revenue of F. R. Gregory for the years 1920-21-22-23-24-25-26-27, first, as an employee of the Imperial Tobacco Company, second, through the sale of fertilizer, third, other sources?


Mr. EULER:: It is contrary to the practice of the Department of National Revenue tc give information which would disclose the business of an individual concern.


MR. WILLIAM P. MANZEROLLE
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has William P. Manzerolle of Shippigan, New Brunswick, been dismissed from the position of subcollector of customs at Shippigan, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Were any charges laid against Mr. Manzerolle, and was any investigation held? If so, by whom?
4.	Wrho asked for his dismissal?
5.	Who has been appointed to his position, and who recommended his appointment?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For neglect of duty and unsatisfactory service.
3.	Yes. Yes. An assistant inspector.
4.	The assistant inspector recommended his dismissal after investigation.
5.	ALphonse G. Robichaud, appointed by Civil Service Commission.


* GOVERNMENT VESSELS-USE OF CANADIAN COAL
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What reason can the government give for not supplying information in a return tabled on the 6th March, 1928, as sessional papers No. 162, requesting them to specify what proportion of United States coal and what proportion of Canadian coal was used by the Department of National Revenue on government steamers on the Atlantic coast Service during 1927 and up to the present in 1928?
2.	Is the government unable to ascertain what proportion was United States and what proportion Canadian coal, of the 3,623 and 282/2,000 tons supplied for the use of the Department of National Revenue on government steamers on the Atlantic coast service during 1927 and up to the present in 1928?
3.	Did the government, or any department of the government, issue instructions to captains of ships (who were authorized to pur-

Questions as Orders for Returns
chase coal for the use of the Department of relational Revenue on government steamers on the Atlantic coast service during 1927 and up to the present in 1928) to purchase all Canadian coal?


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, the department has no records with regard to the information asked for, but I may say that instructions have been given to all masters of vessels in the preventive service that they use Canadian coal wherever it is possible to do so. As a matter of fact, out of about thirty vessels only one has used American coal. This boat was built for service on the great lakes, and is equipped with force draught furnaces, which apparently makes it necessary to use American coal.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KENNEDY:: 1- What, historic sites have been marked by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board during each of the last ten years?
2.	What was the kind of monument erected in each instance?
3.	What was the cost of each monument?


Charles A. Stewart: Questions No. 1, 2 and 3.-
During 1922
"Cliff Site", Port Dover, Ont.; cross, 3 tablets;	$1,372.99.	Marking	site	of cross
erected by Dollier and Galinee, claiming sovereignty of lands in Lake Erie region in name of King Louis XIV of France.
During 1923
Fort Beausejour, near Saekville, N.B.; cairn, 2 tablets; $723.15.
Fort Monckton, near Port Elgin, N.B.; cairn, tablet; $322.40.
LT.E.L.	Landing,	Shelburne,	N.S.;	boulder,
tablet; $289.05.
U.E.L.	Landing,	St. John,	N.B.;	boulder,
tablet; $453.63.
Fort Lawrence, near Amherst, N.S.; cairn, tablet; $427.95.
St. Maurice Forges, near Three Rivers, P.Q.; cairn, tablet; $411.57.
Battle of Three Rivers, Three Rivers, P.Q.; boulder, tablet; $403.23.
Fort Laprairie, Laprairie, P.Q.; cairn, tablet; $514.37.
Second Battle of Laprairie, La Bataille, P.Q.; cairn, tablet; $424.33.
Old Simcoe House, Kingston, Ont.; tablet affixed to; $164.73.
First meeting place Ex. Council Upper Canada; Whig building.
Glengarry House, near Cornwall, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $475.28.
Battle of the Windmill, near Prescott, Ont.; tablet affixed to lighthouse; $172.70.
Battle of Crysler's Farm, near Morrisburg, Ont.; tablet affixed to large memorial; $156.30.
Mission Ste. Marie II, Christian Island, Ont.; boulder, tablet; $267.85.
56103-113*
Mission St. Ignace, near Midland, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $392.83.
"Wintering Site", Port Dover, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $657. To mark wintering place of Dollier and Galinee, 1669-70. the first Europeans to have ascended the Great Lakes.
Battle of Chippawa, near Chippawa, Ont.; tablet affixed to park memorial; $168.80.
Battle of Frenchman's Creek, near Bridge-tablet affixed to park memorial;

Battle of Cook's Mills, near Welland, Ont ; cairn, tablet; $444.65.
Battle of Fort George. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $460.80.
Beechwoods or Beaver Dams Battlefield, near Tliorold, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $425.90.
Lock Site", Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $473.62, To commemorate the first Sault Ste. Marie Canal in use before 1802.
During 1924
Fort Cliarnisay, St. John, N.B.; boulder, tablet; $394.20.
Champlain's Habitation, Lower Granville, N.S.; cairn, tablet; $363.21.
First Printing Press, Halifax, N.S.; tablet in Province House; $186.88.
First Royal Dockyard, Halifax, N.S.; tablet in dockyard; $178.45.
Fort Crevier, Notre Dame de Pierreville, P.Q.; cairn, tablet; $366.93.
Battle of Odelltown, Odelltown, P.Q.; cairn, tablet; $410.15.
Port Stanley, Port Stanley, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $418.80. To commemorate the early visits of Louis Jolliet, Dollier and Galinee, the Celoron expedition. Sir William Johnson, Colonel Thomas Talbot. Also marks the Bite of the encampment of General Brock's expedition on its way to Detroit in 1812.
Ernestown Shipyard, near Bath, Ont.; cairn, tablet; $345.80.
Welland Ship Canal, Allanburg, Ont.; cairn, tablet, $420.92. Commemorating the turning of the first sod, 1824, which was the inception of establishment of navigation between Lakes Erie and Ontario.
Batoche, Sask.; cairn, tablet; $344.57. Commemorating the engagement of May 9-12, 1885, during the Northwest Rebellion.
Battle of Cut Knife Hill, Sask.; cairn, tablet; $389.28.
Frog Lake Massacre, Frog Lake, Alta.; cairn, tablet; $361.59.
Fort Livingston, near Rosthern, Sask.; cairn, tablet; $681.45.
Battleford, Sask.;' cairn, tablet; $337.71. Commemorating the events which took place there during the Northwest Rebellion.
Fort Langley, Langley, B.C.; cairn, tablet; $413.45.
Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island, B.C.; cairn, tablet; $903.44. Commemorating its discovery by Captain James Cook in 1778, its possession by the Spanish, 1789-95, and the Nootka Convention of 1790.
Prince George, B.C.; cairn, tablet; $432.34. To commemorate the passage of Sir Alexander Mackenzie in June, 1793, on his way to the Pacific coast.
Fort Yale, Cariboo Wagon Road, Yale, B.C.; boulder, tablet; $301.09.
Prospect Point, Vancouver, B.C.; cairn, tablet; $530.19. Commemorating the events


RIDEAU CANAL
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: 1.	How much money was expended on the Rideau canal during each of the years 1922 to 1927. inclusive, (a) at Kingston Mills, (b) at Washburn, (c) at Brewers Mills?
2.	In each of the years mentioned and at each of the places mentioned, how much money was expended for material or supplies in connection with repair or construction work, to whom paid, and the amount in each case?
3.	Were tenders invited for supplies of material required, and from whom were tenders received, and what was the amount of the tender in each case?
4.	If tenders were not asked for, on whose recommendation were the contracts for supplies awarded ?
_ 5. In each of the years and places mentioned in question one, how much was paid in wages to persons engaged in doing the work?
6.	What persons w'ere employed on the work in each year and place, and on whose recommendation were they so employed?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: For a copy of all correspondence memoranda, reports and other documents, in any way relating to the appointment of the present postmaster at Enterprise. Ontario.


ODESSA, ONTARIO POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac);
For a copy of all correspondence memoranda, reports and other documents, in any way relating to the appointment of the present postmaster at Odessa, Ontario.

Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, writings and papers relative to the dismissal of William P. Manzerolle from the position of subcollector of customs at Shippigan, New Brunswick.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Manion:
For a copy of the budget submitted to the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the late Vancouver harbour commission, by R. E. Beattie, of the Vancouver harbour board, in the summer of 1924.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow the motion to stand until the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) is in his seat. In the meantime I would direct his attention to an obvious error. "The late Vancouver Harbour Commission, by R. E. Beattie", evidently should read "The Vancouver Harbour Commission, by the late R. E. Beattie". The word "late" is in the wrong place.
Mr. MAN'ION: It is merely a verbal error.
Motion stands.


INTERNATIONAL PEACE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 20, consideration of the proposed motion of Miss Mapphail:
That, in the opinion of this house, the time has come for the establishment of a government department for the promotion of peace and international understanding.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The mover of the resolution was, I believe, agreeable *to having the matter rest at the point it had reached and not have the house divide upon it. In view of what was stated to be the government's attitude in a general way towards the proposal, perhaps my hon. friend will be prepared to withdraw the motion. I hope it will not be necessary to divide upon it.
1776	COMMONS
International Peace-Sir George Perley


Miss MACPHAIL:: I am satisfied not to have the house divide on the question, but I am not satisfied with the attitude of the government.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: I rise, not to suggest that we should divide on the motion, but, if it is to ibe withdrawn, to say a few words before the matter is disposed of. I was exceedingly interested on Monday in listening to what the hoa. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) had to say on the subject. The resolution proposes the establishment of a government department for the promotion of peace and international understanding, and notwithstanding some of the things that are sometimes said by members of this house, I do not think there is an hon. member who is not in sympathy with the spirit and the purpose behind the motion. Who is there in this house who would suggest that we are not all for the promotion of peace and international understanding? But the great problem is, how best can this be brought about? We on this side of the house are certainly as anxious as those on the other side that we should always have peace in this country. I say that advisedly. I have discussed the question on many platforms and I wish to emphasize that statement here, because this house may be interested to know that in the last election my opponents, not publicly but privately, from house to house, went about trying to persuade people "not to vote for Perley", for the reason that if the Conservatives came into power this country would be at war with Turkey or some other nation within a few months. That was one of the weapons used by my opponents, and I daresay it may have been used in other counties as well. I am therefore glad of this opportunity to express, as I did on every platform in Argenteuil, the opinion that we have all had enough of war. Our boys went to the front, as did the boys from all other parts of this great empire as well as from other countries, and they did so with the conviction that they were waging war to end war. This was the belief voiced in after-dinner speeches in London, where I was at the time, and no doubt in other places, at meetings in the Guildhall and elsewhere. And many of us really believed that this would be the happy outcome of the war.
Now some people may say that we are not all equally desirous of stopping war. I rather think that the hon. lady who moved the resolution (Miss Macphail) had it in mind that perhaps she was more for peace than most of us. I can assure her this is not so. I was on the other side of the water all

through the war, and although I was debarred by age from taking part as a fighting man, I was at the same time in a position to see and to know, and to have brought home to me as fully as it was brought home to anyone else who was not fighting, the horrors and the evils of this dreadful business. I learned then that whoever participates in war loses, no matter who wins. I hope the hon. member for Southeast Grey will not suggest that we did not do our duty in opposing the schemes and plans of the Germans at that time, because it is quite evident to me, as it must be to everyone, that the Germans really contemplated imposing their will, their ideas and their methods upon the rest of mankind. Nor would this country have escaped had they won out. And the fact that the}'' did not win out within the first few weeks of the war was almost a miracle. Indeed, I understand from the best military authorities that the Germans simply overreached themselves in those first few weeks. They went too far; they spread their forces too thin over France; otherwise they might have accomplished their object.
The hon. member referred the other day to the vast cost of the war and she suggested how much we could have done with the money in other directions for the improvement of the social position of our people. Certainly; we are all agreed on that. But while trying to avoid war in the future, let us be thankful that we were able to frustrate the plans of the Germans who wanted to enslave the whole world and that, in consequence of our share in the war, we are now able to meet in this free parliament of ours and discuss peace and the best way to promote it.
Almost the whole of the discussion so far has been along the line of governmental action. There are two phases to this question; one is the government and the other is the people, and I am coming to the question of how we can best educate the people that they may understand these questions as we do who are in public life. I was very much interested in the debate which took place the other afternoon and evening; it started out with the most kindly words and feelings on both sides of the house and again I wish to compliment the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) for the tone and spirit of his words on that occasion. I am sorry that before the debate was concluded, however, I was forced to wonder whether we were not going at this question of peace in a fighting sprit, because my right hon. friend the Prime Minister brought into his speech a great many things which were not germane to the discussion. He did not

International Peace-Sir George Perley
seem to be able to refrain from introducing into his speech matters as to which there is at lease a political difference of opinion, and on which there might be even controversy. Why the occasion of a discussion on a motion such as this should be used by the Prime Minister to introduce matters which have been already discussed many times in this house I do not know, unless it was with the idea of hitting a blow at us on this side of the house. For instance, the right hon. gentleman referred to the Chanak incident, about which he read some extracts, among them one from a speech made by a gentleman whom I am proud to say was a friend of mine. I refer to Mr. Bonar Law, and I am glad to know that his son is in this city just now; it is a pleasure to see him here. The Prime Minister quoted Mr. Bonar Law in regard to the Chanak incident; I am sure no higher authority could be found, but what had that to do with this peace motion? Whether or not some members of the British government sent out a despatch without the knowledge of their confreres in the government is beside this question, and I wondered what my right hon. friend would say as to the joint responsibility of the cabinet with regard to all questions, when he drew the line as between certain members of the cabinet and the cabinet as a whole. He took to himself the glory for having stopped this European war. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope he did, but I do not see the proof of it and I did not see that those quotations proved anything. I am not questioning the action he took at that time; I was not in the house then and I cannot discuss it now, but in his speech the other night I failed to find anyhing to prove his claim that he stopped this European war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend is crediting me with too much; I quoted from the remarks of one of his own friends.


George Halsey Perley: I think if the
right hon. gentleman will read his own speech he will find that he took to himself the credit for having stopped this war. At any rate, be that as it may, that question has been discussed many times; it is a past incident, and I fail to see what it has to do with the subject under discussion at present.
Then my right hon. friend made a reference to a matter in connection! with which I certainly disagree with him; I refer to his claim that the appointment of a minister to Japan is a step in the direction of peace. He brought that forward as one of his reasons for saying that this is a peaceful government, ready to do everything possible in the direction of peace. Far be it from me to say that this government is not doing everything it can to help the cause of peace; I believe it is, as we all are, but I do not agree with the suggestion that the appointment of a minister to Japan is a step in that direction. That is something which we may discuss on another occasion, and I merely refer to it now to show that the right hon. gentleman might well have left out these matters about which there might be some controversy or difference of opinion, in view of the general tone of this debate. My own feeling is that we should have a joint foreign service for the empire, in which we should have our share. In such an organization Canadian boys would have an opportunity equal to that of boys from England or Scotland; we might have a Canadian in the position of ambassador for the British commonwealth in Japan, representing all parts of this empire. I do not think we can have half a dozen ministers in Tokyo representing the British Empire and still maintain that empire permanently, as I for one want it maintained. I believe that the appointment which has been made by the government is a step in the direction of independence. I am not going to argue that now; I mention it simply because I do not think the Prime Minister should have brought it up.
As one of the results of the war we have to-day that organization known as the League of Nations. All through history men have been trying to find a way to settle all kinds of difficulties without fighting; we know very well that putting a stop to duels and the carrying of side arms by individuals was not brought about in a moment but was the growth of years. To-day we are looking forward to the day when nations will settle all their troubles and problems without fighting, but we must not be in a hurry; we must not become impatient, because we cannot bring this result about by a wave of the hand or a nod of the head. I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining to this house what the League of Nations is or what it has done, because you all know that as well as I do. I have been one of the delegates to the assembly of that league, as have my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and other Canadians. I think they will agree with me when I say that the worst friends of the League of Nations are those persons who believe and say that the league can accomplish everything. The League of Nations has done a great deal; but it cannot
1778	COMMONS
International Peace-Sir George Perley
stop all wars now. If it is allowed to develop and if it receives the support, the help and the good will of all nations, some day it may be in a position to stop all wars. To-day it can stop many wars and has already done so, but I am not going to refer to these instances at this time. In addition to that, the League of Nations has considered questions such as slavery, public health and other social problems, and has done a great deal to ameliorate conditions of this kind.
Further than that, the international labour office is a part of its organization and so these questions regarding labour all over the world are discussed from year to year and attempts are made to help the people who work so that they may do so under sanitary conditions, and may receive decent wages for their labour. Now when I went to Geneva as delegate from Canada I must confess that I was very doubtful as to how much the League of Nations could accomplish. I was not very sure whether we were spending money wisely in supporting the league and sending every year our contribution from Canada. However, as a result of what I saw there I am firmly of the opinion that the League of Nations should get our full measure of support, as well as that of every good thinking person and every good-wishing government in this world. I feel that if nothing more were accomplished than the opportunity given the delegates from all parts of the world to sit around a table and discuss the questions that arise, the money that we pay to the support of the league every year is money well spent. We all know how much easier it is to come to an arrangement in business by sitting down face to face with a man and talking things over with him. Half an hour of discussion under these circumstances is better than perhaps a month of correspondence. That applies to the people of the world in the matter of discussions at the League of Nations in exactly the same way.
May I give a further illustration of what I mean? I was a member of the committee which had to decide on the proportion of the expenses of the league to be borne by each country. Now there were forty-five men sitting round that table, each delegate representing a different country, and I do not know that you could suggest any question more knotty, more likely to end in misunderstanding, and as to which there would be greater difficulty in coming to an agreement, than this question of the distribution of the expenses of the league. We met many times and often it looked as though we should never arrive at a settlement. My old friend, Sir Herbert Ames, who was the financial

director of the league, was present at every meeting. He was interested in getting this question settled on a fair basis. He was not particularly anxious as to what percentage each country should contribute so long as he got the money he needed. But Sir Herbert sat there and helped us in his suave way by contributing all the information he possibly could. Now as I say, it looked to me sometimes as though we should never arrive at any settlement. At the table where I sat I had on one side of me the delegate from Great Britain, and on the other side a man from Chili. Opposite me there was a man from Bulgaria, and a man from China. Some of us may have had the idea-some of you still may have it-that in the case of the delegates of some of the countries represented, like the Balkans, you might not care to meet them anywhere unarmed. We found that any such idea was completely erroneous. I was not able to exchange much conversation with the delegate from Bulgaria, who sat opposite me, but we passed each other cigarettes and endeavoured to be as friendly as we could. May I say that I found that every man who spoke on the question of the distribution of expenses was acting in good faith, was putting forward and supporting the position of his own country just as I was doing on behalf of Canada; I saw no signs among those delegates of any desire to take advantage of anybody else. After discussing this question at many meetings we at last came to a vote on various items as to which a difference of opinion existed. The decision reached was not unanimous, but the minority accepted the situation, and when we went with our report on the distribution of expenses to the assembly of the league that report was accepted and passed. The plan was only a tentative one, it was only intended to apply for a year or two. Later the matter was again taken up and discussed and a permanent arrangement arrived at. I feel that it is only fair that 1 should contribute this expression of opinion with respect to the work of the League of Nations.
Now, I wish to say a few words upon the question of action by the people, or endeavour to have them understand better the issues involved. The hon. member for Southeast Grey made one suggestion during her speech that particularly appealed to me. The hon. member, as reported at page 1697 of Hansard, said:
And how little money it would cost the government to make a gift of books for the promotion of peace. These books could be issued to our public and school libraries. We have Rhodes scholarships in this country. We might

International Peace-Sir George Perley
establish peace scholarships on a somewhat similar plan, allotting a scholarship to each province.
I believe, sir, that we should back up the League of Nations. The government places in the estimates every year the amount required to pay our share of the league's expenses, we on this side of the house are happy to support them in so doing. Canadian governments representing both political parties have sent delegates to the assemblies of the League of Nations, and 1 think I am within the mark in saying that on the whole the men we sent there bore themselves well and created a good impression in the assembly itself and at Geneva. In my opinion something should be done to help the people of this country, and the people of other countries as well, to understand this question. Something should be done to bring before them the objects of the League of Nations and the benefits which it seeks to bring about so that they will thoroughly grasp the questions at issue and stand behind their governments in supporting the league to the utmost. The suggestion of the hon. member for Southeast Grey is very much in line with that idea. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that we ought to rely a good deal on voluntary organizations in the matter of educational work. May I point out to the Prime Minister and the government that there is in Canada a voluntary organization called the League of Nations Society. This society has been formed for what purpose? For the purpose of augmenting the numbers of those who support the league, of getting new members to join, and of distributing throughout this country information about the league. It is striving to teach the men, women and children of this city and of this country the objects of the league, pointing out what the league has accomplished and what it hopes to be able to carry out in the future. In other words, that is the organization through which we may hope to obtain the peace and understanding to which the motion refers. In Great Britain they have an exactly similar society called the League of Nations Union which has done splendid work and which has been strongly supported by the people of that country. The League of Nations Union had at its head in the first place Lord Robert Cecil, now Lord Cecil, about whom I need not say very much in this house as his name is well-known throughout the world. He was the most living force in the early years after the war in getting the League of Nations well started and the people of Great Britain to understand its usefulness. He was head of the League of
Nations Union until he became a member of the government and since then Professor Gilbert Murray has been at its head. Both of these gentlemen were at Geneva the year I was there and both of them are almost crusaders for peace and for the idea of stopping wars between nations. In Great Britain this League of Nations Union has been very successful; it has a very large membership: some important men have been identified with it and have gone about the country speaking on its behalf. The other day one of them, Colonel Carnegie, was here speaking at the Chateau Laurier and the Minister of Justice and I were both present among others listening to him telling about the work of the league and what their hopes for it were.
We have in this country the counterpart of the League of Nations Union in this organization called the League of Nations Society of which Sir Robert Borden was originally the head, and over which Sir George Foster now presides. That organization has been endeavouring to put into force exactly the ideas which the hon. member for Southeast Grey spoke of in this quotation I have read in regard to the schools. It has had prepared a pamphlet without bias, without anything in it to offend any person no matter what his race or religion may be, and it hopes to have this pamphlet distributed through the schools in order that the children may learn about the work of the League of Nations. I may say to the Prime Minister that this society has done everything possible to put, and 1 believe has succeeded in putting, its endeavours on a basis that no one objects to, so that nobody can criticize or find fault with any of the various pamphlets the sooiety has distributed or the ideas it has promulgated. That being the case, may I ask the hon. member for Southeast Grey whether she does not think the government might use this League of Nations Society, an organization all ready at their hand, for the purpose of bringing about a better distribution of ideas and information which I believe we ought to have spread throughout the country about the league if we are going to be able to support it as strongly as we should?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the representations of that very sooiety the government has included in the estimates for this year a vote of something like $2,250 to aid the society in the work of which he has spoken.


George Halsey Perley: I realize this and I am very glad of it. I am prepared to support it when it comes up in the house. I
International Peace-Mr. Neill

could not resist the opportunity of giving the house my ideas regarding the distribution throughout the country of information about the work of the league. Governmental action is all very well; the government do and should ask the Governor General to sanction estimates to pay the expenses of the League of Nations; the government dio and should send delegates to the assembly and arrange for the gentleman who is a member of the council of the league to attend that body. Now it was said the other day quite truly that the people have the spirit of peace. No one could get up on a platform to-day and argue in favour of war. But although they have the spirit of peace, they require to be informed as to the best way of bringing about peace, and I say that the best instrument for peace that at present exists is the League of Nations. Therefore I feel that the men, women and children of Canada and of every other country supporting the League of Nations should be provided with the fullest information about its activities and the good which it is doing. The action of the government in inserting in the estimates something for the League of Nations Society is to my mind a wise one. I hope they will consider the matter further and do more in that direction.
Just how the idea of the hon. member for Southeast Grey in regard to the schools can be carried out, I am not sure. That is a matter for the provinces. Each province must decide for itself, whether it will distribute any leaflet at all, and if it decides to do so, it has then to determine what leaflet or papers it will distribute. The little leaflet of the League of Nations Society has been prepared in such a way that I believe it is acceptable to all races and all religions. Therefore it is hoped that the different provinces may see their way to distribute the same leaflet to the various schools within their borders. The hon. member for Southeast Grey muslt remember that the Dominion government has no power in regard to a matter of this kind. It comes entirely within the purview of the provinces. I want to thank the house for the patience with which they have listened to my few remarks on this subject about which I am just as muoh interested as the hon. member for Southeast Grey, although we may not quite agree as to the best method of bringing about what we want. We want no more wars, we want peace always, but I am afraid we cannot expect to get exactly that for some little time. Therefore let us support the League of Nations and its ideas as strongly as we can as being the only organization of its kind the world has ever seen,

or at any rate the only one we have at present, and one that has already done a great deal of good in the way of bringing about that peace among nations which we all desire.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is to be congratulated on the remarks made by the last speaker (Sir George Perley). His observations on the League of Nations, while perhaps not so spectacular as some of the speeches that have been made during the debate on the resolution, have contained more practical and fruitful suggestions regarding the ideals of the resolution than many of the speeches made the other day on this question. There has been sometimes a little reluctance in this house to pass votes for the expenditure of the League of Nations, and I hope that the remarks of the hon. member for Argenteuil will be borne in mind and will prevent any opposition to that vote when it comes down.
Although I would not like to go to the extent of preventing the motion being dropped, I am opposed to dropping it. We have already spent a great deal of time in discussing it. Either the object of the resolution is desirable and necessary, in which case the resolution should be passed or at least pressed to a vote, or else it is unnecessary and its introduction was useless. I am not at all in favour of bringing up these discussions which last for a long time and which end later on in the resolution being withdrawn. Either resolutions of this kind have a purpose, or they do not have a purpose, and if this resolution has a purpose-


Mr. FORKE:: What about the sermon on
Sunday? Do we take a vote on that?


Alan Webster Neill: The Minister of Immigration asks me about the sermon. I will ask him to direct his attention to answering a question which I asked him six weeks ago, to which I have not got an answer yet.


Robert Forke: I will answer it to-morrow.


Alan Webster Neill: That is what you said six
weeks ago.


Robert Forke: That is no answer to my
question, however.


Alan Webster Neill: If we are to deal only with
the academic suggestion that peace is more desirable than war, that is all very well, but it does not get us very far, and it is so absolutely obvious that everyone in this house and in Canada is in favour of peace rather than war that there is no necessity to assert it by means of a resolution in this house. As a matter of fact, the resolution

International Peace-Mr. Hocken
does not assert that, if you will read it carefully. The discussion has wandered off into abstract phases of the question of peace and war, and entirely departed from the terms of the resolution, to which I would draw the attention of the house.
The resolution asks this house to declare that the time has come for the establishment of a government peace department, with all that that involves-a minister, a deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister, and so on all the way down. That, and only that, is what we are asked to do. We certainly would not grudge the expense of such a department, large as it would be, if it would be effective, but I maintain that it would not really be effective.
What is the object of this department when it is put into operation? It is to "promote peace and international understanding". Very good. Well, it cannot be the promotion of peace in Canada, because we have peace in Canada, and there is no need to talk peace in Canada. It therefore must be confined to the promotion of peace with our international neighbours, more particularly, I presume, those in Europe. Let us picture to ourselves that we have got this department established, and that we have appointed a minister, with a deputy minister and all his following behind him. We will say that the Minister of Immigration is at the head of such a department, and that it is his duty to promote international understanding and friendly relations with countries abroad, and so he goes to London and Paris and Berlin. How would he be treated there? He would be treated with the greatest courtesy and politeness, I know, but the idea that would immediately occur to these governments, and which would be conveyed to him, would be that his efforts would be best carried out through the established machinery for that identical purpose, the machinery named by the hon. member for Argenteuil, the League of Nations. It is proposed that we set up a boy to help do a man's work, when that man is apparently fully qualified, as qualified as we can make him at present at any rate, to do that work. But we are to set up a piffling little department to replace the efforts of our representatives in the League of Nations. Would the head of this department be present at and address the League of Nations? Not necessarily, because we have there our own representatives who engage in discussions, as so well said by the hon. member for Argenteuil, that lead to better understandings among the various nations of the world.
I agree with the hon. member for Argenteuil that this resolution had far better have taken
the line of a strong endorsation of Canada's entrance into the League of Nations and a strong endorsation that Canada should remain a member of it, holding up both hands of our representatives there to push forward the objects of peace and international understanding among the nations of the world. That, I think, would have been more effective than to put forward this resolution that we should start, and necessarily in a small way as compared with the League of Nations, a government department of our own to promote peace, with the consequences of sending a man over there to be a sort of fifth wheel to the coach in promoting peace and understanding, when we already have larger and more effective machinery right at our hand in the League of Nations.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: Having regard to the hunger of
many friends of hon. gentlemen opposite for public office, it is rather surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not ready to create this new department. It would take care of a great many of the faithful, at very excellent salaries, and make one more opening for some aspiring member, like the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) perhaps, to become a minister, and then there would be also a deputy minister, with all the usual string down to the stenographer, the messenger, and the office boy. We can catch a beautiful vision of how the government would be able, by creating this department, to satisfy a great many of its friends who are clamouring for more of the sweets of office, and so I think we must give credit to the government for its renunciation of this opportunity to look after so many of its friends. It is not like the government at all, and just why they seek to escape this opportunity I do not know. At the same time it is encouraging to note that a chance to add greatly to the expenditures of the country is resisted.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: They may change their
minds.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That remains to be seen, but after what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said I fancy there is not much likelihood of that.
I think every member of the house will give to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) credit for sincerity, even though we do not agree with her resolution as being necessary. While many of us may think she is wrong in a great many of her views, I think the impression she has left upon the house ever since she came here has been that she is firmly convinced that her

International Peace-Mr. Hocken
views are right and should be put into effect. It is a good thing to have independent members like that in the house. I am sometimes one of those, and I think the member for Southeast Grey has contributed materially to the excellent spirit that pervades the parliament of Canada. But at the same time I think the gesture she proposes -because it cannot be anything more than that-is rather a futile one in any attempt to promote peace. I do not know anybody in Canada who wants war. There is no war spirit in Canada; there never has been since I was born. All the wars that we have been engaged in have been those which threatened the empire, and believing that the destruction of the empire is analogous to the destruction of civilization we have felt it our duty on more than one occasion-although the empire was only partly threatened in 1900-to organize contingents and send them abroad to serve with the imperial army for the preservation of the empire. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that that will always be the spirit of Canada. I do not say that because I am a subject of the king, although that is one reason; I say it because I firmly believe that the strongest agency for peace in the world to-day is the British Empire. I am quite certain that the imperial statesmen have no desire for another war; they are showing evidence of that almost every day in proposing redactions of armaments. I am equally certain that none of the dominions desire war, least of all Canada. We have never had a war on our own account since 1812. We have lived for over one hundred years in amity beside a great nation with an overwhelming population, and through all these years we have grown to be a peaceable people, desiring peace and ensuing it. So I do not think it is necessary for us as a parliament, or as a people, specifically to go on record as being opposed to war. Our whole history attests that without any necessity of our passing a formal resolution in this house.
But, Mr. Speaker, when I survey our situation as a dominion of the empire, I come to the conclusion that there is no likelihood at all of our becoming involved in war on our own account, that so far as we participate in any war in the future we must take the lead from the imperial government. I can easily imagine Great Britain embarking in a war that would not require the assistance of the dominions, or of the cause being such that the dominions should say:	We will not take
part in it. But I feel sure that this country as a whole will be sympathetic towards all military operations that may be conducted by Great Britain.

I recall, sir, last year an incident in which my hon. friend took a small part, and the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) took a large part, when the troubles arose in China. The cry then of a certain section of the people of Canada and of practically the whole soviet government of Russia was: Hands off China! I heard my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre make a speech in Montreal on that theme in which he was associated with many foreigners of different nationalities. Well, what happened on that occasion? This country stood in line with Great Britain-not to enter into war, but our moral suport was with Britain and against the forces of disruption and agitation then operating in China at the instigation of the soviet government. Their part then in fomenting trouble has since been proved as fully as anything can be proved. But the British government, with a wisdom to be admired by every reasonable, peace-loving person, took certain military precautions to protect their nationals in that country. I need not traverse the whole subject, Mr. Speaker; I merely point out that as a result of the policy laid down and carried out by the imperial statesmen, China has ultimately been brought to a comparatively pacific state. Of course I am not familiar with all the steps that were taken; I base my information on what has appeared in the newspapers, but as the lawyers say, the only thing that counts is the verdict; and the verdict on Britain's maintaining her position in China is all to the good, and the stand she took must be admired by every person who desires peace. Because, what would have happened if Britain had adopted the cry of hands off China? The soviet government would have had a free hand, and might have succeeded in starting-what they undoubtedlj attempted there-a revolution that they hoped W'ould spread throughout the world and make the Third Internationale the supreme arbiter of the destinies of mankind. We cannot survey that and other world crises without feeling confident that the men who steered us safely through such trials and perplexities are not going to lead us into disaster. So I say that this Dominion, pacific as it is, and a part of the most pacific power in the world, will be safe in keeping herself from being embroiled in any warlike operations by taking a lead from those men who have such a large experience in statesmanship, and possess facilities for knowing what is happening in every part of the world, the secret as well as the open things.
I am not at all alarmed, Mr. Speaker, at the prospect of the growth of a war spirit

International Peace-Mr. Hocken
in Canada. As I say, I have been here quite a while; I have never discovered such a spirit. If it is in evidence at all it would be manifest, I suppose, in the size of our active militia. But our militia force has never been very large. It was scarcely large enough to repel the incipient invasion that was attempted in 1866. There is no desire now, and there never was, on the part of the people of Canada to embark upon war. In many Canadian homes another war is feared with all the intensity that arises from the losses that were sustained in the last war. Our taxpayers are carrying a burden that reminds them of the war every time the Minister of Finance, through his subordinates, sends them a tax paper. Surely these are sufficient deterrents.
But there is another and still stronger guarantee of peace-the spirit of our people. We are trying to build up a great country, to develop the immeasurable resources that Providence has bestowed upon us. It is a peaceful task and one that engages all our energies, leaving no room for the development of a war spirit. We have no armament manufacturers in the Dominion; at least, I do not know of any. Not that we are incapable of producing armaments, sir, as the late war disclosed. When occasion required it, this country was able to engage successfully in that work. We have the initiative and the genius to defend ourselves, and we have the spirit, when necessary. But the underlying sentiment of the people of Canada is a desire, aye, a passion for peace, and that is very much better, as I think my hon. friend for Southeast Grey will admit, and much more effective than would be the creation of another department of government. The government of this country properly must submit to public sentiment, and any government returned to power here would hesitate to defy that sentiment. Therefore, while the people desire peace so strongly this or any other government would certainly carry out their wishes in that respect.
After all, it is not a government that makes a nation; it is the man and the woman. The individual man and woman doing his or her part to the best of his or her ability day by day is what makes a nation great, prosperous and respected; and with all that is before us nothing could be more unlikely than that there should develop in this Dominion anything that might be said to approach a warlike spirit. The people of this country are determined to live in peace with all nations if possible. I do not think, however, that as a people we are prepared
to accept peace at any price. It is, of course, always possible to have peace. If one surrenders one's convictions politically you will have political peace; if one surrenders one's loyalty or one's convictions as regards self preservation there can be national peace. But peace at any price I regard as an absolute disaster and I am unable to appreciate the spirit of those passive resisters who would take no part in defending their country. I do not think they are numerous in Canada; they are confined to a very small circle. Nor do I say that these people lack courage. But they have a idea that no matter what happens they should turn the other cheek. Now I want to live in harmony with everyone but I am not one of those who turn the other cheek always. I do not think a man is just right unless he is willing to defend his convictions, and a people are not right unless they are willing and able to defend their country. So that peace at any price is not to be thought of. The mother country could have had peace on the occasion of the great war by violating its treaty with Belgium, but that is not the kind of stuff the British people are made of. They entered into an engagement, to Which the German kaiser was a party, and when he violated the treaty there was nothing for honourable people to do but to say, "You must observe that treaty or we will assist those whom you threaten.'' Peace at any price would have saved the British nation something like thirty billions of dollars and a million lives-for a time. But it would ultimately have resulted in the subjection of that nation to the Germans, and that would have been worse both for Great Britain and for Canada, worse than the loss of sixty-five thousand lives we suffered, the million lives lost to Britain, and the vast material treasure wasted in the war. After all, to live your own life and have your own liberty is the greatest thing in the world, that that is what we were fighting for in 1914. We were fighting for that great civilizing agency, the British Empire, in 1900.
I want to pay my compliment to the Prime Minister for his effective reply to this resolution. He pointed out to us, what I think was most convincing, that all departments of government, not only those created specifically for peaceful purposes, like that of the Minister of Labour and the Department of External Affairs, but the whole government, constitute an agency for peace, desiring it, seeking it and willing to have reasonable arbitration in cases of difficulty in order to maintain permanent peace in the country. And that I think is the right policy. That, to my mind, is much better than to have one department set aside

International Peace-Mr. Hocken
which might have some difficulty in securing cooperation at ail times, to do a work which ought to be the work of every minister of the government. It is the joint responsibility of the cabinet to maintain the peace and prosperity of the country; that responsibility rests on every minister and through him upon the individual voter. * That being the case, I think the motion is rather futile. I do not intend that statement at all as a reflection on thehon. member for Southeast Grey, but it does not get us anywhere, and I do not think it could.
If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he suggested that the appointment of an ambassador to Washington was one of the peaceful agencies. I do not believe that the appointment of Mr. Massey to Washington will produce war; I am not at all afraid of that. But we had one hundred years of peace before we had an ambassador at Washington. I do not think we can do much better than that, and I am rather disposed to put less value on the appointment of ambassadors than does the Prime Minister. What I think we should endeavour to avoid is to have our own representatives come in conflict, and create confusion, with the ambassadors of the Imperial government. Our affairs have been well looked after. They may be more intimately looked after now, and as to that time will tell. But I do not think our past history will prove that the appointment of an ambassador to Washington was necessary to maintain peace between the two countries.
I believe, with my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), that the League of Nations is a very interesting attempt to bring about some method by which arbitration will be adopted and permanent peace finally established'. I have not that implicit faith in its possibilities that some people have. At the same time I think a man would be somewhat rash and unwise who attempted to discredit the possibilities that lie within that organization. It is all in the future. There have been instances of disagreement and there probably will be others. While it costs a good deal of money, I presume that is divided up among the different countries, and it is a mere bagatelle compared with the propaganda which is spread throughout the world as a result of the creation of that body. Propaganda for peace is being carried on by the League of Nations perhaps more successfully than it could be carried on by any other agency, and certainly better than could be done by any one nation. Consequently there is a great deal to be hoped for from the work of that organization.

As I have already said, we have had one hundred years of peace with the United States. My explanation of that, sir, is that it is <kue to the fact that we know each other, to the intimate association of Americans with Canadians, the travel to and fro, the social connection between the two nations, the fraternal and even sporting relations which exist. In all the details of our lives we are associated with the United States in some way or other. We take their money and erect great factories to provide work and subsistence for our people; we welcome delegates to their conventions in this country as brothers. There is a community of interest between the people on the one side and the people on the other side of the boundary line. But there is one other thing which I think contributes to that result, although perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite will not agree with me. I offer my opinion with some hesitation, but I think a common language has had as much to do with the maintenance of peace 'between these two countries as anything else. It is a common language which has made our commercial and social relationships so intimate. Such a condition could not exist if we had different languages on each side of the border, and I am convinced that as time goes on and the English language is spread throughout the world at the rate it has been spreading for the last fifty years particularly, the possibility of permanent peace will be greatly enhanced. It is not that the English language is any better than any other language; I am not offering that argument, but it has become the language of commerce, and commerce has a great deal to do with peace between nations. If it were possible to organize a United States of Europe, with a common language, many of the jealousies which now exist would disappear. I know I am suggesting something which is impossible, but those jealousies are created by a lack of knowledge of the other countries.


Mr. CAHAN:: May I ask a question? Is the English language the language of commerce in America, north and south, at the present time? Certainly it is not.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I disagree with my hon. friend, but he may have his opinion while I have mine. I say the 120,000,000 people to our south speak English almost entirely, and I do not think my hon. friend can question that statement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly not, but the
language of commetrce with other nations is the language of the nation with which you deal.

International Peace-Mr. Cahan


Horatio Clarence Hocken: And more and more that is becoming the English language.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not a bit of it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If you knew as much about commerce as I do you would agree with me.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If you knew as much about those states as I do you would not make that statement.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: We certainly
need a department of peace here.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Let me conclude with this statement: It is the intimate knowledge of each other which is most likely to bring about that era of permanent peace which we all so much desire. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Southeast Grey in her desire and passion for peace, but I am unable to see how that end will be advanced by the creation of a .new department of government.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Since this question of peace now before the house enables us to air our own idiosyncrasies in the parliament of Canada, I presume I may add a few words to this peaceful discussion. We are all in sympathy with the efforts made to secure peace in this country and thoughout the world, but I entirely agree with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the organization of a special department of government will do and can do little to promote peace in this country or in the world. The object and purport of the resolution, in a general sense, is acceptable to the whole house, but in its present form, calling for the organization of a new department, I certainly could not approve of it and would have to vote against it.
Among my earliest memories are stories which I heard in my childhood, stories of the Indian Mutiny and of Williams of Kars. Then there were the stories concerning my own grandfather, who was the commander of a British ship, and of his only son who was a lieutenant with him fighting in the Crimean war. The later military incidents which interested, me were the war pictures in the Illustrated London News and in the newspapers containing from day to day the despatches relating to the Franco-German war; the baptism of fire of the Prince Imperial; the siege of Sedan; the communist occupation and domination of Paris. I later remember going each night to the post office when the mail arrived late, as was often the case in the country village where I lived as a lad, to
obtain the latest news of that memorable siege of Plevna, in which every boy of that time took an interest either on one side or the other. Even before that I remember the Canadian boys coming back from the war between the North and the South, in which many of them had enlisted, and from then until the last great war we have had many wars of different kinds. We must recognize the fact that there is an instinct in human nature which insists that men and nations shall fight for the causes which they regard as sacred.
I have had a lot to do with boys; I have brought up two families of boys, yet I have had a perfect contempt for the robust boy who would not fight for his rights at school if those rights were unjustly infringed upon by a neighbour. I find in my experience of life that there are matters of honour and dishonour in connection with which every man in this house would lay down his life rather than sacrifice what he might regard as his own honour, his dignity and his rights as a man. I pray God for peace for Canada, but I pray God that Canada and Canadians may not be so oblivious to their rights as a nation and as a people that in a sacred cause they would refuse to lay down their lives for their country if necessary. Therefore, while we are for peace and while we should exert every effort to maintain peace, I hope the boys and girls of this country will be also taught by their fathers and mothers, as I was taught, that there are sacred causes in which the value of a man's life is as nothing, and that it should be sacrificed, if need be, for the cause of his country, to maintain the rights of his country's government. The maintenance of peace and the preservation of our national life go together, the two principles must be taught together, if we are to become a strong, valiant, self-reliant, Canadian nation, and I think the one element must be emphasized in our teaching as well as the other.
I regret some of the side issues brought in by my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Hocken). I regret that he has brought in the question of language, brought in the idea that the spread of the English language is necessary to promote the cause of peace. I doubt it much. Take the great continent of South America, which is expanding even more rapidly than we are expanding here on the northern half of this continent. Great nations are developing there, nations with courts of law which. I sometimes think, ours do not excel; nations with fine educational institutions and great libraries. In the little city of Bogota, the capital of Colombia, 8,500
17S6
International Peace-Mr. Cahan

feet up in the sky, there is a library with which I do not believe any library in Canada can quite compare. Take their educated men. Whether it be law, whether it be medicine, whether it be literary attainment or commercial endeavour, many of them are superior to us in education and culture-education and culture obtained through a different language and under a southern sky, and with which ours may hardly compare; and we are not likely to wipe out the languages which the peoples of these races learned at their mother's knee and imbibed with their mother's milk.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I did not sugest any such
thing, if the hon. member will allow me to say so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are not likely to wipe out the Spanish language south of the Rio Grande, or the Portuguese language in Brazil, or the French language in Canada.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: All right, now you have
got that off your chest.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well I intend to get it off
my chest every time my hon. friend endeavours, as a representative Canadian, as a representative of the Conservative party in this house, to make it appear that his is the idea which should prevail in this country.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I made no reflection on
the French language. My only statement was that English was becoming the language of commerce, that is all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: English is becoming the
language of internal commerce in America if you call the United States, America.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I say all over the
world.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All over the world it is
not so. The greatest asset this country has in the way of developing trade with South and Central America-to which I firmly believe a great part of our attention should be directed, because the future well being which we may attain in Canada through industrial and commercial endeavour will undoubtedly be attained through commerical intercourse with that southern continent-the greatest asset we have in promoting that trade is the fact that we have 3,000.000 of educated French speaking people in Canada to help to carry it on. Their facility in acquiring other languages is a great asset, and the commercial language of the world is not one language. The commercial company or undertaking that wishes to carry on international trade must be in a position to carry on that trade in the

language of the people with whom it seeks to deal. Moreover a knowledge of more than one language-as we experience in this house, and as we must experience in this country-enables us to understand the thought and mentality of other people in a manner otherwise impossible. And if we want peace and unity in this country-which is more desirable for us than peace and unity in Europe-the best way of promoting it is for English Canadians, so far as possible, at least to learn to read the two languages which prevail in this country in order that they may understand the mentality of the French-speaking people who are our confreres and our brother Canadians, and whose cooperation is absolutely necessary if we are to attain the ideals which we all have in common, if we are to develop a great, stable, Canadian nationality.
One other remark-and I may as well use the .phrase of my hon. friend and "get it off my chest"-and it is this: The League of Nations is an instrument for promoting the peace of the world. In that respect it should have our cordial cooperation as a parliament, and particularly our cordial cooperation as Canadians. But the League of Nations covenant imposes upon the Canadian government and the Canadian people grave responsibilities that we ought, from time to time, to reconsider and discuss. I wish to suggest to the Prime Minister that with regard to the doings of the League of Nations and the action of the delegates whom we send from time to time, either to Geneva to participate in the assembly or to take part in the council of the league, or to serve upon its various committees and at the conferences which are called by that great body, the government should annually clearly enunciate to us what objects it has in view and how far it cordially assents to the resolutions passed from time to time. There are some resolutions adopted from time to time-I am not going to go into that question now-which impose upon this country grave duties and responsibilities, and which I sometimes fear may impose too great a burden upon the government and the people of this country.
I have expressed myself with more ardour than I intended. Because as you all know I am a most peaceful member of the house in every way. It is only when my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) and I- who are the best of friends, and I am sure, drawn together by a bond of mutual respect that could not be shattered-are drawn into personal controversies across the floor of the house that our inherited Irish temper gets the advantage of us. Otherwise I am a most peaceful citizen, as my hon. friend is. But

International Peace-Mr. McGibbon
to resume a rather disjunctive statement, we are in entire sympathy with the member for Southeast Grey. The mentalities of men and women, however, are very divergent; the experiences of life in the case of men and women are very different. I am in cordial sympathy with all the efforts of the member for Southeast Grey, in the way of social reform and have an esteem and respect for her that 1 do not now care to express. But I was brought up in a different atmosphere, trained in business and public affairs in an entirely different way, schooled by entirely different experiences of life, and I must take rather divergent views on many questions from those which she entertains. We are glad the hon. member has brought forward this resolution. Expressed in the form in which it is I would have to vote against it, although I am entirely in sympathy with the object she has in view, There is, however, another side to this subject. Twenty centuries of Christian teaching have not wiped out war. Human nature remains to-day very like it was in the days of the Roman and Greek civilizations. The times are coming, although I believe I may not live to see them, when great conflicts will arise on the Pacific, when the commonwealth with which we are associated will again be in danger. There are times coming which will again try men's souls, when the parliament and people of Canada will again be called upon by this country, by the spirit of devotion to country which is bom within them, to take part in great conflicts, and we shall undoubtedly take part in them. Therefore do not let us, as members of the parliament of Canada, imagine that wars have been abolished forever. They may be no nearer being abolished to-day than they were two thousand years ago. But let us train our people to a devotion to the cause of peace, a desire to promote peace. Let us impose upon our government, if imposition is necessary, the will to peace. Let us watch our Department of External Affairs, the Department of Trade and Commerce and every other department through which we come into contact with other countries, so that we may make sure that we always maintain high-minded and honourable dealings with the nation to the south of us and with all other nations with which we come into contact. But having done that, when the crisis comes and the vital national interests of Canada are again at stake and can be defended only by war, let us pray God that our children and our children's children will be as prepared to fight for this country as the children of this generation have been prepared to do their full duty for their country and for their king.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate; but considering the great latitude which it has assumed and the many subjects which have been discussed under the motion, I thought I might say something. After all this is only a theoretical discussion. As nearly every speaker has said, there is in Canada no war party, there never has been and it is not likely there ever will be. Consequently as we hear these discussions with more or less the same speeches delivered year after year on a subject that is of practically no interest to Canada, as there is not and never has been any fear of war abroad, are we not bound to conclude that this is a great deal of waste of time and money? While I was listening to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) in which he pronounced one of his tirades on the people of Canada in general, I could not help wondering whether, after all, if we have to listen to many such speeches, it was really worth while winning the war. I should like to remind him that had it not been for the forces that fought in the allied army in the last war, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not be able to stand up in this house and deliver such a speech. They fought for his liberty, for his freedom of speech, and for the liberty of the people of this country. Had they not successfully fought, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be to-day jumping at the command of a German sergeant-major rather than rising to speak at the sanction of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
I agree with the last speaker, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), that much as we may hope and pray for peace in this country, we cannot change the disposition of the people overnight, as happened to Saul of Tarsuss, and create a different heaven and a different earth. Therefore the wise people of this country, the wise people of the world to-day are the people who will pray and work for peace and yet be ready for war if it comes. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) referred the other night to England's preparation for war before the last disaster of 1914. I wonder if he knows what position and condition England was in at that time. Had England been properly prepared for the last war, do hon. members think it would ever have occurred? All we have to do is to cast our minds back on the records of this very house. What did we listen to in 1913 and 1914 when the naval debate was in progress? Hon. members in this very chamber or the chamber that preceded it, laughed at the

1788	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. McGibbon
possibility of war, although everybody who knew the inside workings of Germany and the preparations going on in that country knew that war could not be long postponed. What was happening in Germany during those times? She had for years been preparing for war. She had built her strategic railways right up to the very borders of Belgium. She had brought her army in 1912 into a state of perfection. The Kiel canal was to be finished in 1913. France was the only country that, seeming to realize her danger, had reorganized her army, but it would not be at its perfection until 1915, and it is no secret that the military men in England and France predicted that war would come, and that it would come between two definite periods-and it did. Lord Roberts, Sir William Robertson, and many others held that opinion. What was the condition of Great Britain, France and Germany when war broke out? Germany was able to throw into battle 130 divisions inside of sixty days if necessary. France was the next best prepared.


Mr. BROWN:: Might we have the discussion confined to the resolution instead of having recited the history of many years ago?
Mr. MoGIBBON: France, as I said, was the next best prepared. 'She had only seventy-five divisions; Russia had only fifty, and Great Britain, that the hon. member for La-belle said had made such great preparations, had only six. That was the condition in which Great Britain found herself at the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. It is a matter of common knowledge in history that had Great Britain,, France and Russia at that time had armies equal to meet the emergency which was and had been confronting them for some years, no war would have broken out on that occasion and that great catastrophe would have been averted.
It is always well not to get far away from earth, because heaven is a long way from some of us; we have to stay here and face the [practical things of life. As the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George stated, human nature is to-day pretty much what it was before and we cannot deny that fact. What is there today that will draw the vast crowds and gates that a prize fight will? Is there on earth anything else that will do it? Human nature from the dawn of time has had the same instincts and will continue to have them. People will fight for the preservation of their life and liberty whenever necessary. In making that statement I do not mean to infer that people want to do this; but there is always a class that will override the liberties and rights of others, and there are on the other hand people
[Mr. McGibbon.J
who have manhood enough about them to defend their liberties and rights when they are so overridden.
I am not just sure of my ground here, but I rather think I am right when I say that when the message came to this country in connection with the Chanak incident, which we all realize now was more or less of a blunder, information was sought as to whether or not Canada was willing to stand by her treaties. Was not that behind it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no reference to that.


Peter McGibbon: Did we not have a
treaty with Turkey?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was not referred to.


Peter McGibbon: But was not that behind it? Was not that the spirit of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think so.


Peter McGibbon: Was it not necessarily
based on that hypothesis?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Peter McGibbon: Was not that treaty being violated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Peter McGibbon: I take the Prime Minister's word for it because I have not been able to look up the matter although I was inclined to the view that the treaty was being violated and that a request came to this house whether we were willing to abide by the treaty which we had signed. However I accept the correction of the Prime Minister if I am wrong. The Prime Minister said that on that occasion he practically saved the peace of the world or at all events, peace so far as Canada and the empire was concerned. I should like to ask him what he did when a much greater opportunity arose in connection with the treaty of Locarno, a treaty which to my mind surpasses every other effort that has ever been made to preserve the peace of Europe This country stood aside and refused to take any action at all in connection with that pact. I asked the Prime Minister across the floor of the house two sessions ago whether the government were going to take any action in connection with that pact. He gave me an evasive answer, and finally the government did what we knew from the first they would do-they refused to take any action at all.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.

International Peace-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)


Mr. McGTBBON:: The Minister of Justice says, "hear, hear," I agree with him to this extent, that we should not be held responsible for any treaties to which we are not a party and about which we have not been consulted, but for the life of me I cannot see how this country is going to go on as a nation within a nation, so to speak, a nation within the British Empire, and not to some extent at least share the responsibilities of that empire. I think the time is coming, and it must inevitably come, as pointed out by Sir Robert Borden during the war and during the imperial conferences following the war, when we must have joint responsibility as well as joint freedom of action. One must go with the other, and if we are going to work for peace, I agree with those who have said here this afternoon that the greatest agency for peace in the world to-day, or that has ever existed in the world, is the British Empire, and if this country is desirous of securing the peace of the world, there is the channel along which we should work. I say again that in my opinion if the British Empire as a whole had got behind the Locarno pact, that action would have been one of the greatest influences for the peace of Europe and one of the greatest opportunities to work for peace that has ever been presented in my time at least.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) says that she is opposed to force, or at least I inferred that from her remarks. I had in my hand yesterday, although I have mot got it at the moment, an extract from one of her speeches delivered in. the city of Regina in which she said that the only thing to do with this government was to take it by the throat and hold it up against the wall and make it do things. I wonder if that requires any force, or is this government so weak, metaphorically speaking, that all you have to do is to threaten it and it will collapse.
I have a great deal of sympathy, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). He is a man whom I think we all respect and admire, and those who know him best, I believe, think the most of him. I have a great deal of sympathy with him in the position in which he finds himself. He is administering a responsible department, and he has practically on two or three sides of him a hostile following. Although he is not in the house at the moment, I want to assure him that in any reasonable measures he takes towards perfecting that department and bringing it up to standard, so to speak, so that it will be ready for any emergency that may come-and God forbid that it may come-he will have my support.
56103-114i
I believe that as a self-respecting nation we should make adequate preparation for any emergency that may overtake us. I hope that this parliament will never again exhibit the spectacle that it presented before the outbreak of war, when speaker after speaker in this house got up and ridiculed the possibility of this country ever 'being drawn into a European war.
So far as the participation of Canada is concerned, I do not think there is any danger of this country having to send troops out of Canada without the sanction of parliament. I believe from the facts that it would be absolutely impossible. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that should any such emergency arise, there would be no money available for the purpose of sending out troops, and consequently parliament would have to be called and the money voted before any such action could be taken. But I do think that this and any other self-respecting country should lay the foundations sufficiently well that around a skeleton of a military defence organization we could build up the forces neceossary for self-protection in time of emergency.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I shall not occupy the
time of the house for more than two or three minutes. I merely wish to enter my protest against one or two expressions which have been used by previous speakers. But before doing so, I want to say that I stand where I believe every other member of this house stands, and where I believe every citizen of the Dominion of Canada stands, in absolute unanimity in regard to the spirit which prompted this resolution. I do not think there is any division of opinion in Canada at all on that, and I do not think there ever has been, at least not for one hundred years.
In regard to the establishment of a special government department, with all the usual machinery from minister, deputy minister, and so on down, I do not think that is necessary, and I am confirmed in that view by the fact that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has succeeded in stopping one or two wars himself. I think, therefore, that instead of a whole new department being created, if the Prime Minister had as his able assistants the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), forming a committee of three, they would cause all the crowned heads of all the countries in the world to tremble at the very thought of bringing on a war. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that such a department is at all necessary.
1790	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
I cannot, agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) that if such a department were formed, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) should receive the portfolio as minister of peace. With all due regard and respect for the hon. member for Saskatoon, in my humble opinion he has no qualifications whatsoever for that position, I would suggest -I know he will not take this as disrespectful from me-that if the government, following their usual course of unwisdom, should provide such a department, unquestionably the gentleman who should be appointed as minister of peace, and who well deserves the honour, because he is a recent recruit to that side of the house is the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). The hon. member for Lisgar approves that, and by his vociferous applause indicates that in his own mind he is perfectly qualified for the post.
The two points which I wish to deal with are these. In referring to the statement made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) I hope no one will misinterpret my attitude towards him. I !beg to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the house that I entertain no feeling of animus or hostility towards the hon. member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I am glad
that that sentiment meets with the approval of my friends opposite. On the contrary, I pity the hon. member. And, Mr. Speaker, as you know, pity is akin to love. I say at once that the grand passion has not up to the present reached an embarrassing stage so far as I am concerned, and I have an idea that it has not yet inconvenienced the hon. member. But I protest against his use of the expression " warmongers ", There are no warmongers in Canada, and there never have been. There are no warmongers in England. I would venture to say if there is any difference in the degree of zeal of hon. members for peace, then the palm must be given to those who actually participated in the war- to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and to other hon. gentlemen. None are more determined against war and none are more inclined for peace than they. They know what war means much better than those of us who stayed on this side. There is no sentiment for war in this country. It does seem to me that there is a disposition on the part of some hon. members rather to create an impression throughout the country that there are members in this house and people' throughout the Dominion who are trying continually to drive Canada into war, and

that those hon. members who are creating that impression should be put upon a pedestal and lauded to the skies as particular and heaven-sent apostles of peace.
The other expression to which I take exception was uttered by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). She said the peace tower was erected for the glorification of war. Why, sir, you might just as well say that the statues surrounding this building to Mackenzie, Cartier, McGee, Macdonald and Laurier were for the glorification of politics. Not at all. They were placed there by men of all shades of politics to do just honour to great Canadians who had made sacrifices and given to their country worthy service. Is the statue in yonder entrance to the memory of Baker, once a member of this house, erected there in order that the boys and the girls and the men and women of Canada who come to see the parliament buildings of their country should have a higher regard for war than for peace? Not at all. The memorial was placed there because his fellow-members of parliament were proud of the course he pursued. And so with the peace tower. To suggest that it was erected for the glorification of war is an insult to the country and to parliament. It is intended for no such purpose. It is intended to bring to the minds of visitors to this country that we who are today enjoying certain privileges have not forgotten the great sacrifices which many of our sons and brothers made in that great struggle from 1914 to 1918. That is what it is there for. Sir, I have a son who took part in the war. Fortunately he came back. Had it been otherwise I would still be proud indeed that my country did not forget him, but inscribed his name on the glorious roll of the book of remembrance deposited in that tower.
It strikes me as expressing a very perverted idea, to say the least, to refer to yonder tower and the memorials being erected there in the honour of the boys who gave their lives in the great struggle as the glorification of war. The person who entertained such a view would have to fold up the Union Jack, because it has always been associated with the struggles of Great Britain and the dominions-not merely our struggles in time of war, but also our struggles and achievements in times of peace. Why should we erect memorials to those who have written their names on the book of fame in times of peace for great achievements in science, literature and art, and forget or refuse to recognize those who have given their lives in war time in doing what they conceived to be their duty in defence of their country? Quite

International Peace-Mr. Stewart {Leeds)
properly we erect such memorials, but in commemorating those who have fallen on the battlefield we do not glorify war. They did not become soldiers because they wanted to slaughter their fellow men; they fought for their country from a high sense of duty and willingly sacrified their lives in its defence.
I object strongly to the hon. member's suggestion that we have erected the peace tower as a glorification of war. It seems to me it is tantamount to imputing to this house and to the country a lack of appreciation of the value of peace. Nay, sir, it goes further than that, it is indirectly an assertion that the men in whose memory it is erected went overseas and engaged in a slaughter that was congenial to them. The assertion can mean nothing else. The marble brought from the battlefields of Belgium and France and the stones brought from the old country, all so beautifully combined, will never, I am sure, in any sense appeal to us as a glorification of human slaughter in war, but will remain for all time to come to tell future generations of Canadians that between 1914 and 1918 Canada had sons who were worthy of their glorious ancestors.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to occupy a seat in this house for some years. During that time I have heard many resolutions discussed, some at great length and others not so extensively, but I do not think I ever remember a resolution having as its basis such a unity of sentiment as that upon which this resolution is based.
The object of the resolution is the promotion of peace and international understanding. Well, whatever may have been conditions in years gone by, I am sure that at the present time there is but one thought, one desire, one aspiration on the part of the Canadian people, and that is the promotion of peace and international good will. We have in this country, of course, many organizations: we have, for example, the parliament of Canada. Now I venture to say that there cannot be found either in this house or in the senate one member who is not earnestly in favour of the promotion of peace and international good will. We might also go through the nine legislatures of the provinces and I am sure we should find the same condition, the same sentiment actuating the members of those bodies. We might take our municipal councils and all other organizations and find the same spirit prevailing. Take the schools, the thousands of our teachers in Canada: I am sure that not one of them is promoting anything but a desire for peace and international good will.
Assuming, then, that we are all agreed upon the necessity and the desirability of the sentiment embodied in this resolution, it becomes a question of method, a question of how we can best promote and strengthen the sentiment which we all hold in common. As I have said, there is no one I know of who is opposed to this sentiment. Therefore, so far as our internal affairs are concerned, it does not appear that there is necessity for any organization to promote this sentiment in Canada. Nor does there appear to be any danger that Canada is to be involved in the near or in the remote future in any war originating on this continent. If there is any danger from war we are agreed, I think, that it must come from Europe, where there are many divisions, where there are deep-rooted prejudices, where there are misunderstandings -small countries adjoining one another in close rivalry, where there exist old feuds, old quarrels and differences of language and race, which differences are very strong, very keen and sometimes very bitter. A department organized in Canada such as is suggested by this resolution would have very little if any influence upon the situation over there. It would have no influence which we cannot exert through the existing organizations we have in this country. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), we have a Department of External Affairs whose very title reminds us that it deals with our international relations; and as far as we know this department is discharging its duty, is working well, is promoting international good will and friendship. And the appointment of ambassadors or representatives in these foreign countries cannot, I submit, but have some effect.
Them, of course, we have over and above all these, as pointed out, the League of Nations, the greatest effort that has ever been made in human history for the establishment of international good will and the making impossible of war. We all wish that organization success. It is young; it is a new experiment; it is perhaps the only partnership in which so many nations are united with one common purpose and one common object. I repeat, therefore, that we wish it well, for it is an organization through which we can exert the greatest measure of influence in. our common effort for the promotion of peace and good will. That organization is endeavouring to hold up an ideal to the world. I do not think that its proceedings are well enough known to the people at large, and I quite approve of the suggestion that has been made that they should be studied more carefully by the members of this house, that they should
1792	COMMONS
International Peace-Miss Macphail
form the subject of debate, and that there should be a greater dissemination of this information, through the schools of the country.
I submit that everything at the present time tends in the direction of peace and international good will. The experience of the recent war has but one lesson for the world, and that is the failure of war, the horror of it, and the desirability of finding some other method for the solution of international difficulties. The nations are engaged in an endeavour to bring about a large measure of disarmament; they are more and more invoking the method of arbitration for the settlement of international disputes. Commerce is more and more becoming world-wide. Our communications by radio, our rapid transportation systems, are all calculated to promote peace, to bring about better understanding and to make for the object expressed in this resolution. It comes back, therefore, to the question of method and whether we shall for the present allow these influences that are undoubtedly at work to develop, to see how far they may be successful. Such an organization as we might set up under the terms of this resolution would, I think, have very little influence in Europe. I do not think it would have any influence whatever beyond the influence we are able to exert through existing institutions. Therefore, while quite agreeing with the spirit of the resolution, I submit that the method suggested is not calculated to promote the high purpose which the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has in view.
It is well that from time to time we should have discussions such as this. No matter how firmly we believe anything, it is worth while sometimes to restate our convictions, to reaffirm them, to make them known to the world. It does not appear at present that any practical result can come from such an organization as is proposed by the resolution. I am glad that we have had this discussion; I know members of the house are better informed and that we are more firmly resolved, if that be possible, to do everything in our power for the promotion of peace and international understanding. On this continent we are particularly fortunate in that we have no warlike aspirations; the United States have no such desires, and while we have had many questions which in other countries might have led to acute differences of opinion and perhaps to war, by friendly methods we have been able to settle those disputes. I think we have set an example to the world in this respect, and I think Canada occupies the peculiar position

of an interpreter between the conflicting ideas and institutions of the old and new worlds.
We have had a very thorough discussion on this question, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think I can add anything of value to it. I simply wish to state that while I am absolutely in sympathy with the object of the resolution I do not think the establishment of a separate department of this government would contribute anything substantial or really worth while to the purpose of the mover of the resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw her motion?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Of course this reply will
close the debate.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I had not thought of
carrying on the debate to-day, but since it has been carried on I hope I may be allowed to say a few words before asking the house to permit the withdrawal of the motion. It is apparent that there is peace and peace, because with some of the sentiments which have been expressed to-day I find myself in very strong opposition. If they were peace speeches that is not the sort of peace I am seeking. I was almost alarmed on Monday when all the parties in this house were endorsing almost everything in the resolution; I thought times had changed, but I feel more at home to-day.
While we believe we are always right and while we have a superiority complex that nothing can puncture, there is no use talking peace. Of course that goes to show that we should have a department which will try to teach us the truth with regard to our own position. I respect the mentality and the views, or at least the views, of everyone in this house, but I certainly do not understand how they arrive at some of their conclusions. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) dragged in the Crimean war, perhaps unhappily. I believe it was Lord Salisbury of England who said long after the Crimean war that England had backed the wrong horse. I suppose a lot of people died because England backed the wrong horse, but if anyone had said so at the time there would have been a great hullabaloo; they would have been unpatriotic. The hon. member also said that on this subject women have different views from men; I hope to heaven he is right. That should be a good argument why the women of his province should be given the franchise. Half the people of

International Peace-Miss Macphail
Canada are women and there seems no good reason why the voice of the women in regard to peace and war should not be expressed in this house, and also through the actions of the government. We do believe that women have a different point of view in regard to war; women place human life on a higher plane than men have placed it in the past, because women have suffered more that life may be.
I want to say just a word with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), who dealt with what I thought about the boys who went overseas. I can say what I think; I will not ask the hon. member to interpret my mind for me. I will take second place to no one in the respect, the honour and the love I hold for the boys who willingly sacrificed themselves between 1914 and 1918, and I want the sacrifice they made to be crystallized into such action as will prevent the same thing happening again. I certainly do not intend to reflect upon the men themselves or upon their relatives and friends, whose hearts were torn and bleeding and who naturally sought to do the thing that has always been done when they commemorated in marble and stone the brave acts of the men of this country. If that were all they did I should wholly agree with it, but other than that I cannot qualify the statement which I made the other day. I believe I spoke the truth, although others may not so believe.
Then for a moment I would like to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am wondering to-day how he likes the company he is in. Everyone who spoke to-day considered that the Prime Minister made a very good speech. I have heard him make good speeches, but I did not consider that to be one of them. The statement of the government, through the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, is something like this: "We want security, and we are trying to win it in two ways; through education, which we leave to all the departments, and through military preparedness, which we carefully organize and put under the direction of one of the ablest men, if not the most able man, in the cabinet. But the idea that security can be obtained by wiping out suspicion, fear, and ignorance we leave to everybody, and what is everybody's business will be well done." That was the argument advanced by those gentlemen. The Prime Minister said my view was narrow, that I should not have asked for a department to promote peace because that was a narrow or limited view. The Prime Minister's idea that all the departments will promote peace is so broad that it is flat. The Prime Minister is a sensible and clever man, and he knows as well as I do that what is left to all the departments will not be done by any. He might have said equally well, "Why have a department of Justice?" Surely the Prime Minister is not going to say that all the departments of the government are not striving for law and order. If that is the case, why have a Department of Justice with a minister at its head?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask
my hon. friend if she would wish a special department for law and order? That is the very point I was making.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What is the Department of Justice for? We have a department for law and order. I would say that the spirit of the government is in favour of law and order, so why have that department? All the departments are interested in agriculture, especially at election time, yet we have a department to promote the welfare of agriculture. All the departments are interested in labour, yet we have a Department of Labour. I am afraid that argument does not hold water.
The Prime Minister also stated that I said I would be satisfied if the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) were at the head of the department suggested, and he asked if I realized that he would be bound by the solidarity of the government. If the Prime Minister reads my speech he will find that I said I would be satisfied to have the Minister of Justice at the head of this department if he were free of the cabinet; I was not taking a chance in the world.
For military preparedness we will spend
818.000.	000 this year; for the League of Nations $2,000 and for the Inter-parliamentary Union about $200, or some such small amount. We will spend a total of $2,200 for peace, the thing which is everybody's business, in support of which 245 members raise their voices while they give their votes and influence for military preparedness and the security obtained in that way. I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister again, and to the government, that they listen to the suggestion made by the member- for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that we would be satisfied for the time being if one hundredth part of the amount that is spent for military preparedness this year be expended in promoting international peace and good will. That would give us this year the sum of
818.000.	. Then if someone were placed in
1794	COMMONS
International Peace-Miss Macphail
charge of the expenditure of that sum of money who really believe in the idea of achieving security through better international understanding, very much could be accomplished even during the present year. Some of the statements made in the house to-day, as well as some that were uttered on Monday, make me think that a deep knowledge of the causes of war and of the part the nations of the world have played in bringing about war, is very much needed in Canada. It certainly is not true that our cause is always right. If it were we never could go wrong, and we need never worry. But it is not true, it cannot be true, that an individual is always right. The same is true of some gentlemen to my right who have spoken to-day-they are not always right. Neither can a nation be always right. Why do we not look at this matter in a commonsense sort of way?
I enjoyed the address of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). It was a very kindly address, and in it the hon. member said that the schools are promoting peace. I wish that statement were true. I do not think it could be true unless our schools had most exceptional teachers. The text books at present in use do not tend to promote peace. During the last half dozen years the churches have been awakening to the importance of this matter and I think they are now striving to promote peace. But until we can get the people in the several provinces of Canada to demand from their governments that the text books used in the schools be absolutely fair, I do not believe the cause of peace will advance very far. If only the Dominion government were willing -they are not at the moment, and in the present temper of the house I am not sure that I want them to set up a department- but if they were willing set up a department to promote peace energetically, we could make a great advance in the desired direction. Soon we should have action on the part of the provincial governments to see that the text books used in the schools are absolutely fair and impartial and that the statements they contain are absolutely accurate.
We have had, I believe, a valuable discussion and it has done some good. It has disclosed that we do not all look at the question of peace in the same light and it also denotes that public opinion in this country is pretty strongly in favour of peace. Had this resolution been introduced seven or even five years ago, I fancy it would not have been met in the same kind manner that it has now. I ask to be allowed to withdraw

the motion, hoping that in the recess the government may see fit to set up some agency, possibly in the Department of External Affairs, to acquaint the people of Canada with the steps which they have taken to bring about international peace and good will. Even these facts are not known to the Canadian people. If the government do not see fit to do anything in the direction indicated between now and next session, the question can be reintroduced in some other form.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house that the hon. member have leave to withdraw the motion?
Motion withdrawn.


ROYAL ASSENT
Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, March 28, 1928.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber to-morrow, Thursday, 29th of March, at 6 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
James F. Ceowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the
Governor General.


PENALTY OF THE LASH
John Livingstone Brown: That, in the opinion of this house, when a judge imposes the penalty of the lash in addition to a term of imprisonment, the full penalty of the lash should be inflicted at the beginning rather than at or near the end of the term of imprisonment.
He said: I think I am entitled to the sympathy of the' house-


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I beg to refer you, sir, to the votes and proceedings of January 30th last in which it will be found that the motion is worded differently from the manner in which it appears here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: The motion which appears in the votes and proceedings on the date in question reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, when a judge imposes the penalty of the lash in addition to a term of imprisonment, the full penalty and the lash should be inflicted at the beginning rather than at or near the end of the term of imprisonment.

Penally oj the Lash-Mr. Brown
The wording of the present motion has been changed, the word " of " having been substituted for the word " and I submit that is a material change in the sense of the resolution. As originally worded the motion was utter nonsense; now there is some1 sense in it. I do not believe that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George could vote for the motion as originally worded, and I do not say that he would do so now. At least the motion is more sensible in form, and it is possible to commend it to the consideration of the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General who were deeply concerned with changes in the w-ording of certain resolutions a short time ago. I should also like to commend it to the Minister of Railways, if he were here, and point out to him that it is his duty to get up and speak on behalf of. those who have motions lower down on the order paper and see that they are not unfairly superseded. As I say, the resolution has been materially changed. Manifestly it would be utterly impossible to inflict the full penalty and the lash at the beginning of a sentence. If a man were sentenced to three years imprisonment and the lash he could not be given the full penalty and the lash at the beginning of his term; he could not receive the lash and undergo three years' imprisonment at the same time. So far as I am concerned, I should be quite willing not to press the matter if I could divest my mind of any possible thought that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General would favour the hon. member for Lisgar even if they were not disposed to favour me.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for
Frontenac-Addington has correctly stated the facts. This resolution is not exactly in the form in which it first appeared. I put the resolution on the order paper very early in the session, and did not read it until some considerable time afterwards. Then I noticed that the word "and" appeared instead of the word "of" in the document which I had sent to the Clerk of the House. I did not change it for a considerable time. I thought probably the best way w'ould be to wait until the resolution was moved in the house and then make a correction of what was very obviously a printer's error. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that any member who could not see that that was obviously a printer's error is lacking in ordinary intelligence. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington either has not that sufficient intelligence, or else he credits me with very little ability to express my thoughts in plain
English. The fact that this argument has been raised reminds me of a certain class of people that lived in the east about 1.900 years ago. They were spoken of as "scribes, pharisees and hypocrites." They were people who were supposed-


John Wesley Edwards: I rise to a . point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hewitt Bostock: Order, please.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
think the accusation means anything with respect to this side of the house, but still I had entertained the idea-


Hewitt Bostock: I did not hear the phrase employed by the hon. gentleman.


John Livingstone Brown: I said I was reminded of
a class of people who, 1,900 years ago were spoken of as "scribes, pharisees and hypocrites," and their distinguishing characteristic was their regard for the exact letter of the law.


Hewitt Bostock: Although it is far fetched, yet the hon. gentleman is too familiar with parliamentary rules to use such expressions, Bourinot is very clear on the subject.
As to the point of order, I do not think it is necessary to argue it at any further length. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington said that he did not press it. There is evidently a misprint; the word "and" should be "of". Now that the word "of" is substituted, we will let the matter stand at that.


John Livingstone Brown: At this late stage in the
afternoon I would not have thought of proceeding with this motion were it not for the fact that I do not expect to be here when the next private members' day comes, and consequently my motion would go off the order paper altogether, so that I should not have an opportunity of presenting what seems to me to be a most important resolution, because if we were able to have a proper discussion, indeed if I had only half an hour to speak, I think I could show that there is a necessity for taking action and for amending our law in this regard. In the nature of the case I must shorten my speech very materially. I wish it to be understood in the first place that I am not dealing with the question of corporal punishment as such. I am neither supporting nor opposing the idea of inflicting the lash. I want the house to fix their attention entirely upon the one point and that is that when the lash is administered as a part of the penalty,, the full penalty of the lash should
1796	COMMONS
Penalty of the Lash-Mr. Brovm
be administered at the beginning rather than at the close of the sentence. This was brought to my notice because of an item that appeared in a newspaper last fall. The item reads:
Convicted of holding up and robbing a branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia at Campbellville, Ontario, last month while under arms, and stealing $1,100. Jack Walker, Arthur Williams and Clarence Thomas were to-day sentenced to 15 years in the Portsmouth penitentiary. For participation in the same crime, William Duncan was given 10 years in the penitentiary.
The men, who are all from Toronto, will, with the exception of Walker, receive 20 lashes. Ten of these will be given one month after they enter the prison, and the other ten one month before the expiration of their sentence. Walker, who has already been sentenced to 40 lashes in connection with another robbery, will not be lashed.
I am not objecting to the idea that is held that society should protect itself from the criminally minded. Society owes it to itself to protect itself from the criminal, but that idea is not inconsistent with the idea tha we should do all that lies in our power to reform the criminal, to make him again a useful member of society. There is one class of effenders against which we have decreed, whether rightly or wrongly, that we can protect ourselves only by taking away the life of the criminal. That is a subject all by itself that I will not deal with. There is another class that it has been thought we can protect ourselves against only by shutting them up for the period of their natural lives. These are important matters to deal with but they are not the subject of our immediate discussion.
If we put aside these classes and those offences for which a monetary fine is deemed adequate penalty, there remains that large class of offences that are punished by a term of imprisonment longer or shorter, with or without hard labour, and with or without corporal punishment. From one point of view it is more important that we should have a proper method of dealing with this class than with the others for the reason that, having paid the penalty for their offences, they are again returned to society. It is a matter of primary importance to us that these men who are again returned to society, if they are to become good citizens, if they are again to occupy useful places in the community, should come back to us in an attitude of mind that will lead them to feel that society is their friend and not their enemy. That is all-important, and therefore I wish to emphasize that aspect of the question-the welfare of society. I am not unmindful of the interests of the individual. I am not unmindful of the tragic conse-

quences to the human being who gives himself to a life of crime. I am not unmindful of the duty of the state to co-operate as far as possible with all those other agencies that are seeking to bring about the reformation of the criminal. But when we look at the matter from the standpoint of society, or of the individual, what folly it is to pursue a course that is calculated to nullify all the influences that are brought to bear upon a man during the time of his imprisonment and turn him out again upon society worse than when he went in!
I have been looking up the Auditor-General's reports, and I find that we spend large sums of money annually on our penitentiaries. We spend money for chaplains, trade instructors, teachers of various kinds. That is a - very proper expenditure; but again I ask: Is it not folly for us to spend money in an endeavour to promote the moral and spiritual welfare of the prisoner and then follow a course that is calculated to nullify all those influences? The fact that we spend that money constitutes on our part a recognition that we have obligations to the prisoner and to society. We may be under an obligation to visit retribution on the prisoner, but we are under an obligation to seek to bring about his reform so that he can again become a useful citizen. When a man is sen, tenced to a long term of imprisonment, with the lash if you like, and when that penalty is inflicted upon him at the beginning of the imprisonment, I can understand there is a possibility of that man coming to a sense of the error of his ways. Yes, Mr. Speaker, with all reverence I can understand such a man saying: "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before Thee", and I can understand the possibility, during his term of imprisonment, of his yielding to the influences that are brought to bear upon him when he knows that he has already endured and suffered the penalty that was imposed upon him. But can anyone who has given a moment's thought to the matter believe that it is possible for a man to respond to any influences for good when he has that sentence hanging over him? He must go out from prison embittered. He feels that his hand is against every man and every man's hand is against him, or that every man's hand is against him and therefore his hand is against every man. It is not long before he comes into contact with criminal associates; he commits a burglarly; he goes armed although he does not intend to commit murder, but he is prepared to commit murder if necessary to accomplish his purpose and the end of the tragedy is the scaffold.

Alhabaska Election-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


John Livingstone Brown: No. I have only a few minutes to speak. I have had to shorten my speech very much already. I said that such a man must go out embittered in his whole attitude towards society. I have discussed this matter with a number of people who have expressed themselves in hearty sympathy with the proposal I have made. Indeed I have not heard a single dissenting word. I took the matter up with the -chaplain of one of our penitentiaries, and he expressed himself as in perfect accord with me, and gave me two other reasons why we should adopt the course that I am now urging. One was that the presence of such a prisoner in a penal institution was a menace to the well-being of the institution; his whole attitude was a menace. He so feared the punishment of the laslh that he was prepared to do anything to escape that penalty, and consequently was always looking for a way of escape, with danger to the guards. The other reason he gave me was this. He pointed out to me that by good conduct a prisoner might be granted as much as ten days in a month off his sentence. You see then the absurdity of sayin-g to a prisoner, "If your conduct is good, you will be released sooner, but at the same time that will bring you just that much nearer the time when the remainder of the penalty of the lash will be inflicted on you." I think it is absolutely absurd.
I should like to have quoted from the Winnipeg Tribune, which took notice of my motion when it was first put on the order papeT, and in which Mr. Justice Fullerton and Mr. Justice Stubbs expressed themselves as in favour of the principle I am advocating. The particular case that brought this matter to my attention was an appeal in which the judge sustained the sentence of imprisonment, but reversed that part of the sentence that inflicted the lash at the end of the term of imprisonment, and he expressed himself in very strong terms as disapproving of the lash.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that circumstances have compelled me to omit much thait I wished to say. I think that a great many things were said in -the previous discussion which might just as well have been left unsaid, but before I sit down I am going to ask the Minister of Justice to consider the matter very seriously, and even at this late date to bring in an amendment to the criminal code
that will give effect to the purpose I have in view. I am sorry that under the circumstances I can do no more than I have done. The fault is not mine, but that of a large number of previous speakers who spoke at considerable length.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 29, 1928