1934-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the first report of the select standing 'committee on standing orders and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. OOTNAM:: 1.	How many men have been employed on relief project No. 40 at Petawawa?
2.	How many men are employed there at the present time?
3.	What amount of money has been spent on the said project?
4.	What amount of money has been spent on material and supplies?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	2,597 up to February 28, 1934.
2.	1,008 on March 15, 1934.
3.	$272,710 up to February 28, 1934.
4.	$168,610 up to February 28, 1934.


Mr. COTNAM:: What amount of money was spent on the surfacing of roads at the Petawawa military camp under the emergency legislation of 1930?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: No money was spent on the surfacing of roads at the Petawawa military camp under the emergency legislation of 1930; but $25,868 was spent on this account out of the appropriation of the Department of National Defence during the fiscal year 1930-31.



GREEN RIVER, N.B., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying His Majesty's mail from post office, Green River, to railway station?
2.	When was contract awarded?
3.	At what price?
4.	When does such contract expire?
5.	Has there been a change in the contract?
6.	Has the preesnt contractor been notified that the contract will be abrogated or cancelled in the near future?
7.	If so, for what cause or reason, if any?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	Martha Theriault.
2.	July 1, 1926.
3.	$132 per annum.
4.	June 30, 1934.
5.	No.
6 and 7. The contract will expire on the 30th June, 1934 and a new contract was authorized with Mr. Camille Azzard from July 1, 1934.



PARENT, N .11., POSTMASTER

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at Parent, Madawaska, New Brunswick?
2.	What is his age?

Questions
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	Has there been any complaint against him regarding the way he discharged his duty?
5.	Has any recommendation been made for his removal?
6.	If so, by whom, and for what cause?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	Michel Lebel.
2.	About 87 years.	.
3.	August 1, 1880.
4.	Not recently.
5 and 6. See answer to question 4.



THREE RIVERS POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Does one of the government members of this house occupy an office in the post office building at Three Rivers?
2.	If so, how many rooms does he occupy, and are such room or rooms furnished?
3.	If so, where and from whom were the furnishings purchased, on what date, by whom, and what price was paid for same?
4.	Is the said building the property of the dominion government?
5.	Does the occupant pay rent; if so, how much ?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Office space in the public building at Three Rivers, which was vacant and not required for public purposes, is temporarily occupied by the member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice for the transaction of public business only and for the convenience of the public.
2.	(a) Two; (b) yes.
3.	No new furniture purchased. That supplied was surplus used furniture on hand.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) No; (b) answered by (a).



COUTURIER, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Mr. Edmond Levesque still postmaster at Couturier, county of Temiscouata?
2.	If not, when did he cease holding such position, why and upon whose request?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) February 7, .1934; (b) on account of unsatisfactory location; (c) C. E. Dube.



DES ETROITS, QUE., POSTMISTRESS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is Miss Aurore Boisvert still postmistress at des Etroits, county of Temiscouata?
2.	If not, on what date did she cease occupying such a position, and why?
3.	By whom was she replaced?
4.	Upon whose request was the new postmaster appointed?
74726-107^


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) December 6, 1933; (b) following her marriage she tendered her resignation in accordance with the terms of order in council PC. 517, dated March 12, 1921.
3.	Achille Ratte.
4.	Recommended by C. E. Dube.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1- What amount of insurance was carried on crown property under the control of the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners for the year 1933?
. 2. What was the total premium paid on said insurance ?
3.	With what companies was the said insurance placed, and who were the agents of the companies with whom said insurance wag placed?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, CONTRIBUTIONS BY PROVINCES
Ira Delbert Cotnam: What amount of money was contributed by each province under the Unemployment Relief Act for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, respectively?


POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were inquiries regarding political partisanship held since 1930, respecting the following postmasters, Johnny April, of Gironde; N. Ouellet, of Lamy South; J. Michaud, of La Richardiere; M. Saint-Pierre, of Le Petit Bois Franc; D. Lebel, of Montagne Ronde; Antoine Landry, of Notre-Dame du Lac; C. Saint-Pierre, of Pied du Lac; Andre Beaulieu, of Raudot; Joseph Viel, of Squatteck, and J. B. Plourde, of Sully?
2.	If so, were they dismissed following such inquiries?
3.	Upon whose request was each of such inquiries granted?


Mr. POULIOT:: Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth


VALIDATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow on the following proposed resolution:
That the orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 9th day of September, 1932, and the 31st day of December, 1933, in accordance with the provisions of section 75 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 113, R.S., 1927, and which were laid on the table on the 26th day of January, 1934, be approved.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Explain.


Mr. MURPHY:: This is more or less of a
formal motion which has passed in similar form at each session of parliament, and is in accordance with the provisions of section 75 of the Dominion Lands Act. As the resolution states, the act provides that all regulations passed during the year shall be approved by resolution. The orders in council referred to were tabled in the house on January 26, 1934.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
NICKEL-PROPOSED CONTROL OF PRIVATE armament manufacture and of

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I should like to discuss the control uf nickel, and I beg leave to move the following amendment:
That all the words after "that' be struck out and the following substituted:
Whereas, nickel is an important material in the manufacture of armaments;
Whereas, Canada furnishes ninety per cent of the -world's nickel;	)
Whereas, according to the League of Nations reports the activities of the armament manufacturing concerns have been a considerable factor in causing unrest between nations;
And whereas, the League of Nations has set up cooperative machinery for the control ot the production and distribution of narcotics.
Therefore be it resolved, that, the Dominion government be requested to forbid the expoit of nickel to be used for war purposes, and also that the Dominion government request the League of Nations council to set up the necessary machinery for controlling the manufacture of 'armaments by private companies, and the exchange of raw materials used m the manufacture0 of armaments.

I had hoped to be able to introduce this matter in the regular way as a private member's motion, but since private members' days have been taken away I find myself compelled to introduce it under this order. I do this with no desire to move a vote of want of confidence in the government, but rather to present what seems to me to be a very important question.
At the beginning of this year, in conjunction with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), I signed an appeal to Canadians to study and work for peace. This was called Canada and World Peace, and I quote from it as follows;
The aim of Canadian foreign policy- Perhaps this should more properly have read; The declared aim of Canadian foreign policy
-is peace and that aim expresses the desire of every Canadian. But peace cannot be maintained without knowledge and a conscious effort on the part of democratic peoples. For this reason we believe all Canadians should study the position of our country in the world and the contribution Canada may make towards strengthening the agencies designed to ensure world peace and economic stability.
And again:
Without doubt world peace is menaced today as at no time since the close of the great war. Canadians did their part nobly in that war and know only too -well its horror and its cost in blood and treasure. Another such conflict might imperil western civilization.
The people of this country worked together in war. We ask them now to work together in the nobler task of helping to substitute for the use of violence and force in international relations, the principles of law and justice upon which a world society as well as a national society must rest.
It is with the desire of implementing this appeal by something concrete and to make it more than a pious wish that I place before the house the amendment which I have moved. It is well that we should remember the warning given a few months ago by Sir Norman Angell. Speaking in Winnipeg in November he said:
Canada is as important as any other country when it comes to hostilities. Aou will have to play your part, you people here. Aou control about 95 per cent of an element of munitions, without which no nation can go to war. It you people in Canada decide that there shall be no future wars, you will be a mighty factor in insuring that there are none. There is nothing inevitable about war, but if things are allowed to drift the inevitable, as a result ot such a policy, will happen.

Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth
I recognize quite clearly that to many this question may seem to be rather remote, but I would1 point out that the same was true of the troubles which were occurring in Europe a few months before the world war broke out. To-day nothing in the world is remote from us. There are two questions which I think will occur immediately to every hon. member of the house. The first is: Can we be sure that any large proportion of the nickel produced in Canada is going into armaments? The second is: Is there any feasible method of control? I propose to attempt to answer these questions.
It may be said that as Canada is such a small nation numerically, she by herself can do very little in world affairs, but the possession of nickel gives us a strategic importance. Through her virtual monopoly of nickel Canada may speak with a voice that may be heard around the world. Canada might make a gesture offering to cooperate with the league in the control of nickel, whfch might at this critical juncture produce the most far-reaching effects.
I need hardly pause to remind the house of the serious conditions that prevail to-day in the world at large. In the far east Japan and China have been fighting an undeclared war. More recently we have had the threat of war between Japan and Russia. In South America we have had war between Bolivia and Paraguay over the Gran Chaco dispute. We have had war between Peru and Colombia over the Leticia dispute. In Europe the League of Nations has been practically set at defiance; the disarmament conference has virtually broken down. In Germany we have had tremendous upheavals and unbelievable atrocities. In France even there have been riots. The Balkans, always a dangerous spot, have been in recent months showing signs of again breaking into fire. In Austria we have had what might almost be termed a civil war. Arising from the unsettled world conditions it would seem as if we are in for a new race in armaments. In England Vickers-Armstrong are increasing their staffs and their shares are soaring. In France the Hotchkiss Armament Works and the Schneider plant at Le Creusot; in Czechoslovakia, the Skoda works at Pilsen and the state arsenal at Brunn have all been working as they have never done before. In Holland there is a boom in Dutch munitions. In Finland they have been buying bombing planes. In Germany there are daily reports of secret rearmament. In Japan, buyers for Mitsubishi are
in Germany purchasing nitrogen for explosives. In the United States they are launching the greatest shipbuilding program in the history of that country. Fifty-two battle ships are to be built at a cost of $258,000,000, twenty-two of these ordered from private firms.
Arms and munitions are intended in part for home consumption, but to a considerable degree they are being prepared for export, chiefly to the far east, to South America and to southern European countries. The British government's gesture to restrict shipments of arms during the far eastern conflict fell through, causing only very temporary inconvenience to the armament manufacturers. Not only because sales of British arms overseas are good for trade and prestige but also because a high armament export trade enables the firms to keep up to date by working at greater capacity than would be possible if they relied only on the purchasing power of their own governments, the plants are kept ready to meet the sudden demands of war. In this connection I might quote from Sir Herbert Lawrence, chairman of Vickers Limited, in his annual speech recorded in the Financial Times, April 4, 1933. He said:
It is true that Vickers-Armstrongs Limited relies largely on armament orders for its existence. On the other hand, the safety of the empire, in the event of aggression by some other power, also depends on the capacity of the country to increase the production of armaments at short notice.
The question may naturally arise'-Do the manufacturers of armaments consciously foster war? I think we have an answer to this in the report of the first subcommittee of the temporary mixed commission of the League of Nations after investigation of the private production of war equipment. That was back in 1921. The report reads in part as follows:
Whereas the League of Nations has definitely declared in the league covenant that private production of war equipment is open to grave objection. . . .
Then they state:
1.	That armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares, and in persuading their own countries to adopt warlike policies and to increase their armament.
2.	That armament firms have attempted to bribe government officials both at home and abroad.
3.	That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programs of various countries in order to stimulate armament expenditure.
4.	That armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.
1692	COMMONS
Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth
5.	That armament firms have organized international armament rings, through which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.
6.	That armament firms have organized international armament trusts that have increased the price of armaments to the governments.
Thirteen years have substantiated these unanswered charges, and big business manages, as someone has suggested, to maintain a nice balance between commercial ambition and national patriotism. Mr. Sopwith, chairman and joint managing director of Hawker Engineering Company Limited and Hawker Aircraft Limited, in the Daily Express of London of November 12, 1932, said:
The government is interested in disarmament while still wishing to keep some standard of aircraft production alive in this country. How can that standard be kept alive unless our manufacturers sell to the foreigner? If trading in armaments were illegal, like trading in drugs,-
I hope the house will mark that sentence.
If trading in armaments were illegal, like trading in drugs, there would be a question of moral responsibility. As it is, there is only a question of open competition. . . .
We believe our machines and engines are the best, since all countries, except France, Italy and America, buy from the British manufacturer. But Great Britain runs a grave danger *in being thus outnumbered. Not a country but looks to the air for its defence.
I think such a statement as that undoubtedly justifies the rather cynical remark in Aeroplane, the unofficial voice of the British air ministry, on March 15, 1933:
The manufacturers of both aeroplanes and engines may hope for increased turnover and' profits a year or so hence when the disarmament conference has faded out and the program of expansion is allowed to proceed.
Unfortunately, it would seem that this has been something of a prophecy, for the disarmament conference has still further faded away and the race in air equipment is proceeding at an accelerated pace.
Now, having referred to these general matters, I should like to come particularly to the question of nickel, which seems to be an essential raw material in the manufacture of armaments. There are two propositions which I think may be regarded as generally true: first, that nickel is indispensable, and second, that Canada has a virtual monopoly of it. This was an important question during the great world war. In 1926 the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) urged control on the ground that nickel was used for armaments. I refer the house to Hansard of January 29, 1926, at page 550. The hon. member for Labelle was criticized on technical

grounds by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). The latter hon. member argued that steel alloy suitable for armament purposes can be made with manganese, chromium, tungsten, vanadium and molybdenum, all of which are available in Canada. He concluded his remarks by saying:
were the Germans entirely deprived of nickel they could still put ships in the battle line and confront our armies with all types of artillery. Nickel is of much more importance in industry than it is in war, and it really seems silly to get excited over its distribution either to the Germans or to anyone else.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Quite true.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member
for Pictou believes that to be still true, but I would point out that the government metallurgists, while admitting that nickel is not the sole suitable alloy, say it is the only practicable one. This, of course, is a technical question, and I should like to hear that point answered by the hon. member for Pictou, but that I have on very good authority. First of all, nickel is cheap and, second, it is found in large quantities, whereas the other metals are largely prohibitive in price.
Is there any connection between the boom in the armament industry and the rise in nickel exports? That, of course, is a question that is fundamental to our argument. Nickel industry executives, though they admitted it earlier, now say that there is no connection whatever. We have the following statement by the Mond Nickel Company, a partner in the International Nickel Company, as given in the Daily Express of October 31, 1933:
It has no reason to think that the increased nickel consumption in Europe is due, to any substantial extent, for armament purposes. Stainless steels, automobiles, radio, cast iron and coinage-all these are improving fields for the use of nickel.
Mr. J. Ireland of London, English executive of the International Nickel Company, according to a Canadian Press dispatch from Victoria, British Columbia, of November 7, 1933, had this to say when he was en route from the orient to England:
If Canada placed a ban on the export of nickel intended for the manufacture of armaments, such action would lead only to stimulate development of other deposits which as a substitute might prove equal if not superior to nickel for the toughening of steel.
Of course, such a statement coming from an interested party is not, I submit, altogether convincing. I believe it is agreed on all sides that the major use of nickel in armaments is for armour plate, for which purpose its value depends on the fact that it greatly increases the strength, toughness, hardness, and impact

Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth
resistance of steel without a corresponding decrease in ductility. It also increases the heat treatment range. According to Sir William Berry, director of naval construction of the British Admiralty, the average composition of armour plate is:
Nickel..	.
Chromium. Manganese Silicon.. . Carbon..
Per cent
3.5	to 4
1.5	to 2.5 0.4
0.15
0.35 to 0.5
When used fourteen inches thick, it constitutes good protection against twelve-inch, 700-pound armour-piercing shells travelling at a speed of 2,000 feet per second. The same authority states that no important developments in armour plate took place during or since the war.
My point is this, in answer to the contentions advanced some years ago by the hon. member for Pictou: If there is no practicable substitute for nickel, what are we going to do about armour plate? It would seem as if my hon. friend's German ships, unless supplied at almost prohibitive prices with tungsten, molybdenum and so forth, would be shot through like cardboard. According to the authorities, nickel would seem to be essential. I quite freely admit that only a small quantity, some four to six per cent, is required to make a good alloy, but even at that, an immense quantity would be required even in a single battleship.
Let me go back for a few moments to the Canadian history of nickel. There was a great increase in the Canadian production in 1905 and immediately preceding and during the war, partly due to increased industrial activity, but no doubt mainly on account of the demands for war purposes. After that there was a drop in production in 1921 and 1922 to less than one-fourth of the previous maximum. Of course one cannot prove that curves are always obedient to one set of factors, but when one sees a great productivity during the war and an immediate drop after the war, it is at least very significant. The fact is that the Washington conference for the limitation of naval armaments wiped out the major demand for nickel. I want to be fair in this matter and I would say when the bottom dropped out of nickel at the end of the war, the companies operating the mines in Canada immediately began to intensify research to discover any new uses for nickel and any new applications of uses already known. The success of their combined effort is shown in the almost vertical rise in the curve of production from 1922 to 1929. It
is remarkable that during each of the years 1928 to 1930 production exceeded the maximum of the war period. To-day the uses for nickel in the industrial field are innumerable. A partial list includes structural steel, monel metal, nickel silver for automobiles, heat-resistant alloys, iron and steel castings, coinage, storage batteries, catalysts in the chemical industries, lead-in wires for electric light bulbs.
Summing up the period between 1922 and the depression, I think it is safe to say that by far the larger proportion of all nickel went into industry. In this connection an interesting statement was made in 1928 by the late J. L. Agnew, then president of the International Nickel Company. Referring to the great war he said:
Prior to hostility and throughout the duration of that conflict sixty per cent of the nickel went into war materials; now only about three per cent is so used.
That was true at the time. Does it still hold good? The depression hit the nickel industry badly. The demand fell steadily until in 1930 we find the following situation- I shall give the totals for several years:
Year-[DOT]	Total pounds
1929		 110,275.912
1930		 103,768,857
1931		 65.666,320
1932		 30,327,968
1933	(excluding December) ..	74,319,198
These figures indicate that the sudden rise following the decrease subsequent to 1929 began in June of last year. It is a striking fact that since then the production has been maintained on a scale higher than the peak of 1929. Shares which undoubtedly had dropped to very low prices began to rise. I have a statement given by the Canadian Press on March 12, in connection with the report of the International Nickel Company of Canada for the year ended March 31, 1932, which shows a net profit of $9,662,583.64, after all charges, including the provision of $3,551,653.32 for depreciation and mine depletion. Recently there has been an announcement of a new smelter to be built at Copper Cliff at a cost of somewhere under $1,000,000. It would seem as if we are justified in concluding that there is some new demand that has led to this very great increase in the production of nickel.
Where is the nickel going? Some statistics in this connection were furnished at the request of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) for the years 1932 and 1933.

Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth
The return was given on February 5, 1934. The countries to which nickel was being consigned were as follows:
1932	1933
Country-	(Hundredweight)
United Kingdom	
68,530	262,978United States	
165,344	419,023Belgium	
2,781Germany	
2,136	5,535Japan	
3,705	6,363Norway	
58,376	91,963
Other countries on the list are Australia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Newfoundland and Spain.
The increased exports, particularly in the case of the United Kingdom, the United States and Norway, are striking. It was said at the time that this settled the whole matter, that undoubtedly all this nickel is going to four countries that were formerly allied countries. But I think we forget that nickel so imported may be reexported. Before coming to that may I point out that the total amounts exported to the twelve countries with which Canada did business during those two years are: in 1932, 320,719 hundredweight, and in 1933, 880,821; or, valued in dollars, $7,283,964 in 1932 and $22,795,968 in 1933.
The United Kingdom, the United States and Norway all reexported large quantities of nickel. Of the three only Norway produced any. In December last year the Hon. Mr. Runciman, chairman of the British board of trade, gave the following official figures for the reexport of nickel during the first ten months of last year. The reference will be found in British Hansard of December 5, 1933,
pages 1462-3:
Tons
Total imports	 1,073
Domestic exports	 3,955
Tonnage consigned to Germany-
Germany	 1,131
Japan	 802
Soviet Union	 523
And lesser amounts to France, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, and other countries. Export figures for the United States and Norway are not available, but we learn that there were very large exports from both these countries.
If anything further were needed in regard to the very sudden increase in the production of nickel I do not think I could do better than give the most recent report published by the Canadian Press on March 19, the preliminary report of Ontario's mineral production, released by the Department of Mines:
In 1932 only 30,327,968 pounds of nickel with a value of $7,179,862 was produced, but last year that total jumped to 82,264,658 pounds valued at $20,129,480 and it is indicated that practically all the nickel produced was exported.
[Mr. Woodsworth.1
In the Canadian figures and more particularly the United Kingdom reexport figures it will be seen that in the last few months Germany has been importing very considerable quantities of nickel. This is extremely interesting in view of the rumours floating all over Europe to the effect that Germany is secretly rearming. I have no wish whatever to create anything like anti-German sentiment or war hysteria, but if indeed Germany is rearming, we in Canada will have to take our share of the responsibility for making it possible. A comparison of German nickel imports from the United States during the years 1910 to 1914 with the present upward trend is revealing. Statistics furnished by the United States foreign commerce and navigation department show a rise of from 348,509 pounds in 1910 to 2,346,325 pounds in 1913. It is quite possible that all this was going into nickel coins or bathroom fixtures, but most of us will very much doubt whether that is a true explanation. In the year of the war imports of nickel into Germany jumped to 11,084,366 pounds. A similar trend is shown in the tables for manganese ore, tin, brass, sulphur, mica, graphite and crude asbestos.
Only last October considerable stir was created in newspapers across Canada by reports that a representative of one of the great German dye and chemical corporations was in Canada on his way to Sudbury to negotiate the immediate purchase of 10,000 tons of nickel matte. This huge order by a single company was almost equivalent to the entire Canadian export of nickel to Germany in 1933. When questioned by reporters the German representative of course ridiculed the suggestion that his proposed purchase might be connected with the rearming of Germany, a reply that seems to have been taken with a grain of salt by a great many of the newspapers, and, I think I may add, by the Canadian public generally.
But my purpose to-day is not to go into the probabilities of such shipments being used for war purposes. I content myself here with simply pointing out that if Canadians are in any way opposed to German rearmament or are in any way interested in the disarmament problem as a whole they may very well have an important voice in the matter. My resolution reads:
Canada furnishes over ninety per cent of the world's nickel-


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: Too high.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Someone says that is too high. In the resolution I had on the order paper for several weeks I had placed the proportion at eighty-two per cent-

Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth


Bernard Munroe Stitt: That is better.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -because I had
taken the figures of the year book. But later figures furnished by the bureau of statistics show that it is almost precisely ninety per cent, so I have put the figure at ninety per cent in the resolution as it stands. My point is that Canada has a virtual monopoly. In 1929 she produced 49,320 tons of the total world production of 55,000 long tons, or almost ninety per cent. These figures can be secured from the bureau of statistics. There are other deposits in New Caledonia, India, Norway and Greece, and recently some discoveries have been made in Russia, but all these are insignificant in comparison with the enormous ore deposits in the Sudbury district, the total reserves of which have been officially estimated at 200,000,000 tons, or some 4,000,000 tons of metallic ore. This, it was stated in April of last year by R. C. Stanley, president of the International Nickel Company, would enable the industry to carry on production at its peak level for the next hundred years.
I realize very clearly that this is a big industry and that it would be a very serious matter to interfere in any way with the growth of such a Canadian industry. I recognize, too, that we have at the head of this industry certain directors who have very great influence in Canada. We also have shareholders who have certain rights, but I submit that in a national emergency the interests of private concerns or even of shareholders must be given a subordinate place to the welfare of the country at large. The shareholders may have certain rights; the Canadian public have greater rights and I cannot imagine even the shareholders, if they really believed that this nickel was going into the making of armaments which might be used to shoot down their own children, willing to take dividends so acquired. It would be blood money.
The practical question, however, is one of control. I would point out that control of nickel in Canada is not new. At the outbreak of the war Canada cooperated with the British government in controlling the export of the metal. By December, 1914, with the assistance of the nickel producers, a system had been worked out which was regarded as perfect. It is quite true that there were persistent rumours that it was not perfect, and we also have the undeniable fact that from some source or other large quantities of nickel did reach Germany, but the point is that in that emergency Canada did act and did attempt to set up control. Several times
since the war the question has been raised. In February of last year, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister stated that although all nickel was mined in provinces that had control of their resources it might be possible for the federal government to pass an export act. He did not go into the matter at all, and the question was dropped. That will be found in Hansard for February 22, 1933. More recently we had the visit to this country of two noted British publicists, Sir Norman Angell and Professor Alfred Zimmern. Both advanced the idea that the control of nickel was a necessary and thoroughly practical step, and both drew attention to the similarity of the problem with that of narcotic drugs.
The question, of course, is tied up with that of sanctions, and as to the efficacy of sanctions may I quote E. N. Hurley, the former president of the United States shipping board, at the meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce in 1930. He said:
-any modern nation could be paralyzed by the refusal of business organizations in other countries to sell it the ten or twelve essential raw materials, such as iron ore, rubber, manganese, nickel, aluminum, newsprint pulp, copper, oils, tungsten, chronium and mercury.
Various concrete suggestions have been offered as to how these raw materials might be controlled. During the armistice Great Britain suggested the continuation of the control of raw materials supplied to the central powers, and recently this has been revived in a modified form. Sir Thomas Holland, in his presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1929, proposed that each country should add a rider to its Kellogg treaty with the United States giving its government the power, if and when necessary, to prohibit the export of mineral products to any country that breaks the peace with any other member of the pact. The very existence of any such power in itself would be sufficient automatically to enforce the submission of the matters in dispute to the international court of justice.
A detailed report showing the analogies between the narcotic drugs traffic and the trade in the manufacture of armaments has been drawn up by the secretariat of the League of Nations. At the seventy-fourth meeting of the general commission of the disarmament conference in June of last year a concrete proposal to limit the manufacture of arms and the trade in war material along these lines was made by Senor de Madariaga, the Spanish delegate. He said, first, that everything connected with the manufacture of and
1696	COMMONS
Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth
trade in arms should be the sole responsibility of the state and, secondly, in exactly the same way as narcotics are controlled, that a national licensing system with supervision centralized at Geneva is necessary. It does seem to me that these suggestions by Senor de Madariaga, who for so many years has had such an influence at Geneva, who knows so intimately the workings of the league and who is so thoroughly conversant with international arrangements generally, should be taken very seriously. I think they are eminently practical. The general details of the plan drawn up by the secretariat and subscribed to by Senor de Madariaga will be found at pages 598 and 599 of volume 11 of the conference reports. Referring to this plan, the delegate said it would be seen that the problem had been studied and solved, and there was no reason why the commission should continue to waste its. time and read voluminous reports. The only thing remaining to be done was to draft some comparatively short texts, sign them, ratify them and inaugurate the system. Mr. Norman Davis, United States delegate, stated that he was in substantial agreement with Senor de Madariaga's views and Doctor Riddell, who as everyone knows is Canada's official representative at Geneva, took the same view. His speech, as reported at page 602 of the conference reports, included these words:
The conference for the limitation of the manufacture of narcotic drugs, 1931, at which Mr. Riddell had been one of the representatives of his country, had had a task somewhat similar to the one with which the general commission was at present confronted. Irrespective of whether it was under state or private control the conference set out to limit the manufacture of narcotic drugs to the world's needs.
I quote further:
Once a limit had been fixed, in the draft disarmament convention, to the quantities of munitions and armaments which a country might possess, there woidd seem to be no insuperable difficulty in the way of applying certain of the principles laid down in the 1931 narcotic drugs convention to the trade in and manufacture of arms and munitions. The proposal to apply these principles to that problem, which had already received support from the Spanish and United States delegations, should, in the opinion of the Canadian delegation, be thoroughly explored, with the least possible delay.
I am glad that in bringing forward this motion to-day I am acting, I think, entirely in harmony with the suggestion of our representative at Geneva.
The question is as to what extent there should be control. I would not suggest the immediate cessation of all production or all

export of nickel. That is quite unnecessary, and undoubtedly it would be highly disastrous to the industry. I think we may all admit that large quantities of nickel are used in ordinary industry and that under a system of quotas and licensing, shipments for industrial purposes could continue to be made. There is no doubt of that. I would point out that because of the very wide demand in the industrial field at the present time for nickel, unless war is actually declared and in progress a large proportion of all nickel imports into any country will continue to be used in industry. I am seeking to limit only that destined for the manufacture of war munitions. Undoubtedly we will continue to produce and continue to export. The nickel firms themselves assert that most of our nickel is to-day going into industry. Well then, if they are correct-and in this instance I should like to think that they are correct-a resolution such as the one I have proposed to-day would not affect them. Any control over nickel for purely armament purposes would not affect the ordinary trade. But if any large proportion of the nickel now being produced and exported from this country is ultimately finding its way into the making of munitions it seems to me that surely we have reached a stage in civilization when Canada ought to have some voice in the matter.
It is very doubtful whether it is possible to allow production of nickel to continue on the present unprecedented scale without a full inquiry into the whole situation. Surely if we in Canada do not find it possible to trace the ultimate destination of our nickel we, by calling in the assistance of the League of Nations and the various member nations of the league, would find it quite practicable to trace this nickel to its ultimate destination. In the past the Canadian government has given very considerable support to the mining industry and especially to the production of nickel. I need not go over the history of that. Surely if the Canadian government has done so much to assist this industry in the days of its earlier development it has the same right now, in a time of international emergency, to ensure that its control will come under an appropriate international body.
I know that there are a good many arguments which may be advanced against the proposal. I feel however that I may leave it largely to others to make those arguments. It may be said, in brief, that the league is very ineffective. May I point out that in this, as in other matters, the league can be effective only as it is given power. If the nations of the world hand over to it the

Nickel Control-Mr. Woodsworth
power to control the raw material in armaments that body would be as effective in the control of armaments as they have proved themselves to be in the control of the drug traffic. I know that even in connection with drugs the control has not been one hundred per cent perfect, but I think it has had most beneficial effects. In my view the same would be true if we would give authority to the league in regard to the raw material which goes into munitions. In the past Canada has played a leading and worthy role in the league. Now it seems to me that Canada has an unparalleled opportunity which might prove to be of very great significance. There is no use of us sending representatives to the league-as the country sent the Minister of Railways over last year-and our representatives adhering in a general way to the principle of peace, unless we are prepared, as a country, to implement our professions by some very definite and practical arrangements.
It may be said that the control of the nickel industry in the interests of the limitation of arms is unpractical at this late date, as already Germany and other nations have piled up their supplies. Well, I would point out that if that is so Germany and those other countries would not be seeking such large fresh stocks. Evidently they have not yet enough. The control of nickel too may be difficult, because there are other allied metals which should also be controlled. But I do not see that it would be impossible for a commission charged with power to work out the practical details involved. The control of nickel would go far at least to hamper the activities of huge and threatening war industries which seem to be on the way to driving the world to international suicide.
In conclusion may I urge that the vast majority of the Canadian people would agree that lethal weapons should not be manufactured and distributed without some sort of public control. We have already reached that point in our thinking, and we are very careful indeed as to who shall own arms within our own country. Surely the manufacture of war munitions and the raw material which goes into the manufacture of such munitions should be under state control. I think that as a country we have urged the public control of the actual making of munitions; why can we not go one step farther and urge that the raw material which is absolutely essential to the manufacture of munitions be placed under similar control. It is all very well for us to
urge peace, but if world peace is to be maintained there must be some sort of international control over the instruments of warfare.
I know it is hard for the nations of the world to get over the earlier ideals of sovereignty. I know that even Canada, through her representatives, has said that we want to retain exclusive control over our raw materials. I do not think that such a position can finally be justified, and especially when it comes to materials essential to the manufacture of war munitions. It seems to me that sooner or later we shall have to adopt a larger view.
I am not bringing this motion before the house to-day with the idea that nickel is the one and only matter of importance in connection with the disarmament question. But I do think that because of our possession of nickel we have a right and a duty to act. I think we are placed in a position of strategic importance. Further, I frankly confess there are other factors which lead to war which are more important than munitions; I quite frankly concede that. In this war- if I may use the phrase-in this great war against war we must fight on a dozen different fronts; we must try where we can to correct glaring economic injustices; we must endeavour to promote a better understanding between the peoples of the various nations, but I urge that we must not neglect to do that which lies right at our hands, namely, to prevent the extension of private interests in the making of munitions which will ultimately be used for the destruction of human life. Let me repeat that it is not sufficient to say that we stand for peace; we must adopt those constructive policies that make for peace. The proposal advanced in my resolution may not be the most important matter, but it is one which lies within our powers to act upon. I should dearly like to think that in this matter Canada would take the lead. We are glad to think of Canada leading in a great many other things; we are glad to think of the large exports of all commodities which are made from this country; we are glad to think of the history of this country, but if Canada could do anything to give a lead to the nations of the world at a time when war threatens everywhere, it would seem to me to be our most glorious achievement.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker, this is the second outbreak of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in connection with this ques-

Nickel Control-Mr. Cantley
tion. In the early part of this session he stated:
Undoubtedly a large proportion of the nickel mined in this country is destined ultimately for the manufacture of war munitions; I do not think anyone can seriously question that.
Well, I do. At that time the hon. member urged the government to take over the control of the export of nickel or, in the alternative, to make nickel mining a government monopoly. This misapprehension as to the importance of nickel in warfare was first voiced in this house in 1926 by that veteran, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). As the hon. member has said, it was dealt with by me during the following year. Error dies hard and ignorance of the material facts in connection with the properties and uses of nickel persists. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre now takes up the hunt on a cold trail long since abandoned by the more experienced and practical member for Labelle.
May I again be permitted to set before the house certain facts with perhaps the vain hope of correcting the cherished delusions of the hon. member in the northeast corner of the house as to the value and use of nickel in the manufacture of munitions and the engines of war. It is surely a matter of regret that an hon. member of this house who is the leader of a party and who aspires to lead this dominion into a wider, safer, fairer and more prosperous existence, should not be better informed. May I suggest that he should refrain from such exhibitions of fundamental ignorance as were evidenced in this house a few weeks ago and again to-day.
But Mr. Speaker, it may be asked:	Why
the increase in the exports of nickel? This increase has been due to the revival of world trade and to the fact that the research work of the metallurgical experts of the nickel corporations has demonstrated that ordinary cupola or common gray iron castings can be toughened and strengthened greatly by the addition of from one to one and a half per cent of nickel. This discovery is largely, although not wholly responsible for the recent increased use of Canadian nickel. It should be noted that this increased use is not for war materials; it is being used in the arts of peace, in the construction of structural materials, machine parts, engine construction and a thousand other things which require the use of moulded gray iron castings and steel forgings. I would remind the hon. member and the house that the International Nickel Company is a great Canadian industry whose products reach the whole industrial world. Ninety-eight per cent of those products are used in

the arts and materials of commerce and not of war. The hon. member has stated that six per cent is used for munitions, battleships and other agencies of war, but I venture to say that the correct figure is under two per cent.
Zeal without knowledge is perhaps the outstanding characteristic of the leader of the Canadian Commonwealth Federation. He seems to be obsessed with the idea that nickel is essential to war operations, but may I tell him that copper is many times more important. Germany's experience during the late war gives ample proof of this fact. During that war the Germans stripped the copper roofs from every church cathedral and other building in Germany, and Belgium, and everywhere else where they could get at them. They melted down their church bells and they hunted up door and lock knobs and every other piece of copper available. Why did they do this? Simiply because copper was at that time fifty times more important than nickel. The driving bands of their shells of every calibre were made of copper as long as that commodity was available, but when during the latter two years of the war they finally had to turn to the use of soft iron, the result was that a gun which would ordinarily fire three hundred rounds with one rifling was worn out after twenty or thirty shots had been fired. The importance of nickel, so far as munitions were concerned, was a mere bagatelle compared with copper. So much as to the military value of nickel.
In the matter of rayon production, nickel enters the picture because caustic soda used in rayon manufacture is too corrosive to be handled in any of the usual metal containers. These are now being constructed of nickel clad steel. Then if we turn to telephone communication we find that here nickel iron alloys which are highly magnetic fulfil a special function, particularly in connection with long distance transmission.
We find that the present growing standard practice for the construction of railway equipment calls for nickel alloyed steel boiler plates, locomotive frames, side frames, side rods and other component parts of the modern locomotive. The construction of modern passenger equipment also now calls for a certain proportion of nickel. In the automotive field, the average amount of nickel an a car produced five years ago was 1.6 pounds, but during the last three years the amount of nickel so used has doubled and now amounts to more than 8,000,000 pounds, or more than double the amount used ten years ago. The nickel used in 1933 in manufacturing the products of the rolling mills of England,

Nickel Control-Mr. Hurtubise
Scotland and West Virginia, and the foundries of Bayonne, New Jersey, amounted to 13,003,474 pounds. This is roughly 6,500 tons, an increase of thirty-five per cent over the previous year, 1932.
The post war developments which have taken place in the nickel industry have proved to be of invaluable help not only to railway operations but to practically all the mechanical arts. The demand for nickel for arms and armaments is but a mere bagatelle when compared to the demands of industry generally. Notwithstanding these facts, I am afraid that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and perhaps some of his disciples will still maintain that the chief use of nickel is in the production of armaments.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure the hon. gentleman will admit that I said that.


Thomas Cantley: I regret that I cannot hear the hon. gentleman distinctly, but I do not know that it makes much difference.
I would point out that in the calendar year 1913 Canada exported 253,056 tons of nickel. Let us see where this nickel went. The United Kingdom took 14,721 tons; the United States took 23,465 tons; the Netherlands took 4,995 tons; Norway, 5,150 tons; Japan, now supposed to be a very warlike nation took only 356 tons; Germany took 320 tons; Belgium took 156 tons; Italy took 139 tons; France took 26 tons, for armaments, if you please; Australia took 3 tons and Newfoundland 330 pounds.
Canada is not the only country in the world producing nickel. Up to thirty or forty years ago New Caledonia supplied the great bulk of the nickel used in the world, and that was supplemented by a certain quantity from Norway, where the only refining of nickel in the world was carried on at that time. Referring again to the figures I quoted in regard to the importation of nickel last year by the countries mentioned, it will there be noted that the so-called militaristic countries, France and Germany, are among the smallest importers and users of the eleven indicated. But that fact will doubtless have no tendency in any way to dispel the hallucinations of the hon. member who has just spoken. These are the simple facts in regard to nickel. I ask this house, Mr. Speaker, why the government should take any action to lessen the export of nickel to any country in view of the undoubted facts I have already submitted, facts which cannot be controverted by the hon. gentleman or anyone else; for facts are chiels which will na ding. I thank the house for the kindly attention given me.


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: I
fully concur in what has been said in reference to this question by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley). I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who has quoted so many large figures in regard to the production and export of nickel. The hon. member advises the control of the export of nickel from Canada, but after all he has said I fail to see how we could control the exportation of nickel in so far as armaments are concerned. According to the figures I have, it is evident that nickel production had been very high until the depression came. At the time of the depression it took a slump and then came up again owing to the demand, not for armaments, but for the various industries in the different countries. When the depression came the International Nickel Company considered it a good time, after having made necessary experiments, to search for new fields for the employment of nickel. They exhibited to the different nations the results of the tests they had made with nickel and started to develop the product, so that soon after the depression had come on we saw in the various countries an increasing demand for the use of nickel in the industrial field.
The hon. member for Pictou has mentioned many of the uses of nickel and the comparatively small amount used for armaments. I think he is quite correct and I fully concur in what he says.
In his speech at the close of the fiscal year 1932, Mr. Robert C. Stanley, president of the International Nickel Company of Canada Limited, referring to the search for new uses for nickel, made this statement:
In this search for better products, nickel in combination with iron and steel and with nonferrous metals as well, has come to be a common denominator of the move towards alloys. Thus a metal which once was dependent on armaments for its market and which later won a great market in the post-war expansion of automobile production, now is enjoying increasingly diversified commercial applications throughout world industry ... an important reason for the improvement has been the increased industrial activity stimulated by the NRA in the United States which consumes more than half of Canada's production of nickel. . . .
In 1929 the world consumption of nickel was 112,481,600 pounds; in 1932 it was 49,500000 pounds, and in 1933 it was 77,609,280 pounds. In 1932, when there was a world consumption of 49,000,000 pounds, more than half of the nickel was exported to the United States where we find the greatest industrial centres.

Nickel Control-Mr. Hurtubise
As the hon. member for Pictou has said, the greatest use for nickel is as an alloy in the different industries. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred laughingly to the amount of nickel used in hotels, restaurants and breweries; he did not use these words, but I believe he was referring to consumption of nickel along these lines. Perhaps I might point out some of the uses to which the metal is put. For instance, to-day it is used almost exclusively in breweries as in many other industries because it is rustless; it is not as easily corroded as other metals. It is therefore used in filter streams, pump rods, coolers and other equipment. Again, it finds to-day an almost exclusive use in hotels and restaurants. It is used in the dairy industry and in connection with farm implements and household furniture, as well as in sinks, kitchen cabinets, gas and electric stoves, storage tanks, boilers and pans of various descriptions. The automotive industry is using it in considerable quantities as an alloy. It is used, too, in the marine field, and in airplanes. It might be worth noting that nickel is also used in twenty-seven countries for coinage, some three billion pieces of nickel weighing fourteen thousand tons having been produced. These figures would appear to be small in comparison with the total production. But if we consider the great development of industry to-day and the quantity mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as the total consumption, there is very little left for armaments. When he expresses fear as to the exportation of nickel being for the purposes of armaments I think, as was mentioned, it is only a nightmare. The International Nickel Company have men intelligent enough to see that their production of nickel is not going for armaments, because they know very well that in that case the exportation would be curtailed forcibly sooner or later. That is why at the time of the depression they had throughout this and other countries great advertisements in regard to the new uses of nickel, and those advertisements proved very effective because in those fields there is a greater demand to-day than ever there was.
Personally I do not see how the government could control the exportation of nickel, because the greatest demand is for the purposes of industry, and if the export were controlled, it would hurt one of the biggest industries we have in this country. We must remember that before the depression this company was employing 7,000 men. The number was reduced to as low as 2,000, but to-day it has risen to 4,700. I believe the

control of exportation of nickel would cause embarrassment to that company and would produce an effect contrary to that which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants, because it would increase unemployment. Therefore I hope no embarrassment will be caused to that industry, and we can have faith in the ability of the intelligent directors of that company.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to make it very clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that any criticism I have to offer is not in any sense of the word personal. I think, however, his resolution is ill-timed and does not reflect on his part very much study of the nickel industry. It is true that in the early stages of that industry it depended almost entirely upon the manufacture of armaments. But that picture does not present itself to-day. After the war the nickel companies put their metallurgists to work, spending a million dollars or more a year-and they are still doing this to-day-to find new uses for that metal. Consequently ninety-six per cent of all the nickel used in the world goes to industry.
The whole argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was based on the assumption that all we have to do to end war is to prohibit Canada from exporting nickel.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest I
expressly stated that that was not my position.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Well, that was my interpretation. I have always been of the opinion, in fact my information is to the effect that in Canada we produce eighty-five per cent of the nickel of the world, but I am quite willing to accept the hon, member's statement that we produce ninety per cent. Even at that, only four and a half per cent goes into armaments.


Thomas Cantley: Not half that.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: Ten per cent of
the nickel production of the world is outside Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I ask the
hon. gentleman where he gets the information that four and a half per cent goes into armaments?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I got it from the
Department of Mines.
Only recently Russia stated that large bodies of nickel bearing ore had been discovered in that country. Does the hon.

Nickel Control-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
member for Winnipeg North Centre for one minute think Russia would not export nickel if she got a chance after she had developed those deposits, refined the nickel and was ready to export? Surely he would not go that far. The figures given by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) would appear to indicate that the country in the far east about which the hon. member is worrying most in regard to war is about the lowest user of nickel in the whole list. It has been stated, and it is quite true, that fifty per cent of our production goes to the United States and about twenty or twenty-two per cent to Great Britain. The hon. member enlarged somewhat on our great exports to Norway. It is evident again that he had not studied the situation very much or he would have known that one of the large nickel producers in Canada, the Falconbridge Mining Company, owns a refinery in Norway and does all its refining there. That is the reason such large exports go to Norway; the Falconbridge Mining Company sends its whole output there to be refined.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and to reexport.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: From there no doubt it is distributed to wherever they can find purchasers, but I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to presume that the output of that nickel refinery in Norway is going to Japan or Russia or any other country to be used for armament purposes. If he wants to prevent war, why stop at nickel? Napoleon once said that an army fights on its stomach. Why not stop the export of wheat?
The hon. member for Pictou enlarged on the subject of copper, and I agree with him that copper is very much more important than nickel so far as the manufacture of armaments is concerned. Why not stop the manufacture of meat, clothing, boots, shoes, lead, zinc and other items I could mention that are used in war? I do not need to remind the hon. gentleman that wars were fought long before nickel was produced and will be fought again even if the production of nicker is prohibited. In no time science would find a substitute for it. I have been through a couple of skirmishes in a couple of wars, and if I have to be shot to-morrow, I would very much prefer to be shot by a nice clean nickel bullet than by one of those old lead balls, if the house wants to get down to the human side of this matter.
Nickel production is one of our most important industries. It suffered, of course,
during the depression along with all other industries, and has recently started to pick up, due to the fact that all other industries in the world have also started to improve. Industries are increasing their production by the help of the NfR.A. in the United States, and probably, to some extent, by similar methods in Great Britain. What do we find in connection with this great industry in Canada? I have the figures for only ten months and I find in ten months the industry paid out:	.
Wages and salaries	 $7,700,000
Capital expenditure	 2,580,000
Supplies and upkeep	 6,650,000
Railways and utilities		3,300,000
In the last seven years it has paid out in plant and equipment $55,000,000, and it uses in its mines 2,000,000 feet of Canadian lumber per month. Surely as the leader of a great party-I do not think it is a great party but I expect the hon. gentleman does; he would be a poor leader if he did not-as leader of a party that is continually damning this government for not finding work for our unemployed, the hon. gentleman must see that this resolution is ill-timed, and, I think, should be withdrawn. I do not know how he is going to face these workingmen in the town of Sudbury where, as the hon. member for that riding just told you, about three-quarters of the miners have for the last four years been almost on the verge of starvation, a lot of them on relief. The industry now is just getting back its stride and starting its men back to work. Surely the hon. member as a labour leader does not want to do anything to cripple that great industry and drive the business to some other country. Because it is very clear that if only 4J per cent of Canada's exports of nickel goes into armaments, other countries capable of producing 10 per cent of the nickel supply could provide the nickel needed for armament purposes. I know the hon. member has achieved his objective in getting this material before the house. I am not questioning his sincerity for one moment, but I think the resolution has served its purpose and I hope he will withdraw it in the interests of that great industry that means so much to Canada.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: I have been quite interested in the discussion of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworkh). I believe that every member in the house will pay tribute to the honesty of the hon. gentleman in bringing this resolution before the house-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.
1702	COMMONS
Nickel Control-Mr. White (London)


John Franklin White: I think his honesty of purpose is unquestioned, and his interest in humanity. Also I have every sympathy with his efforts to prevent the further manufacture of armaments. But, sir, I cannot see that the idea he has presented will have much influence on the manufacture of armaments or on wars which may occur in the future. As to the desirability of curtailing the manufacture of armaments, we need no other evidence than was presented in this city last week when the annual convention of the Canadian Legion was held here. No man could go to that convention, or see the members of the legion going about the streets, and not come to the conclusion that war is hell.
The hon. gentleman has assumed in his discourse that most of the nickel produced comes from Canada, 90 per cent he said, others say 82 to 85 per cent. He has assumed that most of it is used in armaments and things of that kind, and for that reason he proposes to forbid its export.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, Mr. Chairman, not all nickel; I expressly said merely nickel to be used for armament purposes.


John Franklin White: I understood the
hon. gentleman to say just what he has said now. But the question arises, can we prevent the export? We have 85 per cent of the world's nickel as at present known, and there is a very considerable world demand for this product, no doubt developed by the International Nickel Company metallurgists and the results achieved by the users of nickel. The question of forbidding the export for armament purposes may be a very serious one and lead to international complications; but I do not intend to proceed further with that. The main question, it seems to me is, would the prevention of export have the desired effect? The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has shown on other occasions and again to-day that there are other alloys that can be used in the manufacture of steel which produce the same qualities as nickel. The argument has been advanced: " Perhaps so, but it will cost more." But our experience in recent years has shown that the cost of war is not a very great consideration while the war is being conducted; that comes later. The quality which is given to steel by the use of nickel is toughness, practically that only. Other alloys are used to secure other effects. I have the report of the International Nickel Company, for the year ending Decem-

ber 31, 1933, in which they say in part that the improvement in sales- has been well spread among all consuming fields and that nearly every buyer took more nickel than in 1932.
Then it goes on to cite the world's consumption in various years. It also refers to the uses to which nickel is put. Then I quote the following passages:
The channels through which nickel has passed to the ultimate consumer have continued to be mainly those industrial applications, either old-established or of more recent development, which have been the principal support of the industry since 1921. Many of the more recently developed uses for nickel have, however, made even greater strides during 1933 than the industry as a whole. . . .
The automotive industry was the outstanding consumer of nickel steel in 1933. . . . Nickel steel has been used in other fields as well,- in locomotive equipment particularly in Europe, in oil-drilling and oil-refining equipment and in the machinery field generally. Several thousand tons of 3-5 per cent nickel steel are specified for the new San Francisco-Oakland bridge. . . .
Under the stimulus of orders from an important railroad, nickel steel boiler plate is now manufactured in Great Britain, and this has led to the adoption of nickel steel by another leading British railroad. . . .
The amount of nickel in use throughout the world for subsidiary coinage was increased quite substantially in 1933. Three new governments. those of the city of Danzig, of Iraq and of Japan, were added' to the list of those which have issued such coins, comprising now some 27 countries in all. ... It is estimated that there are now about three billion pure nickel coins in circulation, employing about 15,000 tons of nickel in all.
So	that you	will see,	Mr. Speaker,	thatthere	are many	uses for	nickel.	There	is afurther feature, that nickel once incorporated in steel always remains. In that fact is a partial answer to the question propounded by the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion as to what happens to nickel. He quoted figures to show that the termination of the war was accountable for the drop in the sales	of nickel.	I offer	another	reason	forthat;	I think it	is largely owing	to the	fact
that scrap material had been gathered from all the battlefields of Europe, and re-melted, and as I said, the nickel content always remains. Further melting or manipulation in the way of rolling and so on causes very little disappearance of nickel, in fact nothing like the percentage that disappears of the steel itself. So we have the presence of scrap containing nickel which on many occasions helped certain countries over a hard spot in their need for nickel. Nickel is used largely in automobiles; automobiles are scattered throughout the

Nickel Control-Mr. White (London)
world, there is always an export trade going on in automobile scrap which is a source of supply of nickel steel. Nickel is also used in heat resisting metals, for purposes such as locomotive grate bars and things of that kind. It is impossible to keep track of nickel after it has once been put into steel.
Now, sir, it seems to me that in view of all these facts the adoption of this resolution would have a very damaging effect on Canadian industry. To begin with, we cannot prevent wars, we cannot prevent war material being made even if we curtail the export of nickel. But we should consider the amount of work being done and employment being given in Canada by the International Nickel Company and the Falconbridge Company. I suppose the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), being a labour representative, will appreciate these figures, though perhaps he may not appreciate my first statement. Roughly speaking there are one hundred thousand shareholders of the International Nickel Company. According to the last report the company has 8,300 employees, of whom 4,800 reside in Canada. The company has plants in the United States and in England. Even to curtail the export of nickel would affect Canadian industry as a whole and, as I have said, would not achieve the desired object.
Something has been said with regard to the different countries that import nickel. During the last year the United States has been our best customer, with the United Kingdom next. There are two countries whose exports of nickel cannot be tagged. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) I think referred to the fact that the Falconbridge Nickel Company refined their ore in Norway. My information is that in its early development the Falconbridge Company endeavoured to have the International Nickel Company refine its ore in Canada. The International Nickel Company were not particularly interested in helping to develop the property and business of a rival, and the two companies could not come to any arrangement in that regard. About that time, owing to the exhaustion of certain ores in Norway, a nickel refinery was for sale or for rent, and I am told that the Falconbridge Nickel Company rented or in some way acquired this refinery and with it certain very desirable processes in the refining of nickel. So any exports from Norway really are Canadian nickel sent out in the raw state, refined in Norway and then shipped to wherever they can be sold. It may be that, therefore, the nickel which goes to the Netherlands and to Norway may ultimately find its way to the countries of Europe that 747:3-108
are perhaps interested in the development of armaments. The bald fact remains, however, that the United States and Great Britain are the two countries that consume the greater part of the nickel produced in Canada.
Now I should like to say a word as to the actual object of this resolution. I do not believe anything can be done along the line desired by the hon. gentleman through the reduction of exports. I do think, however, that a great deal can be done by constantly advocating that the governments of the various countries take over the production of war material. I think it is a great mistake to have private enterprise interested in such production. We have heard from many quarters that disputes are fostered and animosities engendered all for the sake of business. If the various manufacturing countries of the worid would take over the manufacture of all armaments and war supplies I think a great forward step would be taken in the promotion of peace. How far our present machinery will carry us in that direction I am unable to say. The League of Nations has done some good, perhaps, but in many instances it seems powerless to prevent conflict. Perhaps a rejuvenation of the ideas which prompted the establishment of the League of Nations might have some effect; I believe it would, and I am glad to know that the influence of the League of Nations has been sufficient to bring about renewed interest on the part of the people of this country, and incidentally the people of my own city, in the reduction of armaments and the ultimate elimination of war.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take just a few moments to discuss this matter. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North 'Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is quite sincere in introducing this question, but his amendment means nothing unless back of it is the idea of lessening the possibilities of war. I think that must be the whole purpose behind it. So far the arguments have been that the export of nickel cannot be prevented without crippling the industrial activities of a great many countries, and in these days that is not desirable. We must bear in mind the important fact, however, that armaments are no longer produced in arsenals; to-day countries do not depend upon local arsenals for the production of armaments.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, I gave a short talk here as to the nature of a modem war, and I pointed out that the next war would be determined by air activities. In that connection nickel will play a very small part indeed.

Nickel Control-Mr. Ross

The supplies for the next war will come from the materials used in the industrial life of all countries. 'Glycerine, which is used in the manufacture of soap, is one of the necessaay ingredients of explosives; benzine, which is used in a great many factories, is the source of some gases; picric acid, another explosive, is a product of chemistry and is used in so many industrial processes that it could not be controlled. So I think these materials deserve far more attention than nickel, and that is why I say that if the amendment is not based on the idea of reducing the possibilities of war, it means nothing.
In the next place, I do not think you will get very far unless you can get all the nations interested. At a meeting of the nations before the great war it was resolved that bombs and gases should not be used. Great Britain and Germany signed that pact, but the United States refused to sign, and when the move was not unanimous nothing resulted. To-day, however, poison gas and aeroplanes are the important elements of war, and nickel has no part whatever in their production.
I rose principally, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt.). Perhaps I have seen more destruction and more wounded men than any man in the house. I have seen 5,900 cases go through our hands in one day. If you are going to have war you must remember that nickel is one of the most humane things that can be used. Before the introduction of nickel we had nothing but lead bullets; to-day the nickel-plated bullet is one of the most humane instruments of warfare. To show how slight is the damage that can be done by a nickel plated bullet I need only point to my finger; it was struck by a nickel plated bullet. I have seen a w'ounded man who was struck by a nickel plated bullet; it went through the bone and left a hole but did not cause a fracture. I have risen to say simply this, that science which produces so many destructive things has also produced industrial activity, and I say that we cannot have a great mass of destruction without chemical factors behind it. Here is one factor which is humane in its use, and it would be a sad day for us if we had to return to the old lead bullet, if we could have the protection and the possibility of lesser injury from the nickel plated one.
Nickel-plated armaments to-day are positively out of date. The nickel-plated and steel-protected cruisers about which hon. members have been talking, are obsolete. The amount which would be spent in building a battleship or a cruiser would to-day build hundreds and hundreds of aeroplanes. No nation to-day having in mind the possibilities
IMr. A. E. Ross.]
of modem warfare is using the same number of nickel-plated cruisers and battleships as it used before.
In conclusion may I say that the motion now before the house amounts to very little, so far as tlhe prevention or possibility of war is concerned. The day of the steel cruiser is past; the armoured train is gone; the old guns are out of date. Infantry travelling along at twenty miles an hour is out of the picture altogether. The tank which was used in the late war is obsolete, when it is faced with the potential strength of aerial activity. The air battleship which can race upon its enemy at the rate of 150 miles per hour is taking the place of all these things, and removes the necessity for heavy expenditures on nickel. I believe that if we tried to understand the attitude of the people, and remembered, tihat year after year conventions, leagues and other bodies are trying to prevent war, and that those who have suffered more than others are definitely opposed to modern warfare, we might accomplish something.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, with the purpose which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has in mind, I am in deep sympathy, and I am sure every hon. member in the house is sympathetically inclined, although some may differ as to the effectiveness of the means he has suggested. There is no hon. member for whom I have more affection than the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley).


Thomas Cantley: Thank you.


Ernest Lapointe: He told me on one occasion that although he could not share my views and did not like some of my opinions he had a sneaking affection for me which I heartily reciprocate. But my hon. friend is a man who holds strong views of his own, and one who is rather impatient of views different from his own. I believe all hon. members will agree, however, that the hon. member who has moved this resolution is sincere, and that he devotes much thought, energy and activity to the solution of the problems he has at heart. I believe the difficulty is one of facts. As a member of the national executive of the League of Nations Society may I say that this question was discussed at the annual meeting held last November, and upon that occasion the same difference of opinion occurred as has been expressed to-day. We had received resolutions from different associations throughout Canada asking that a resolution similar to

Nickel Control-Mr. Lapointe
the present one should be adopted and sent to the government. One member of the executive, who is a scientific expert, took the view which the hon. member for Pictou has expressed, and said that to state that the great increase in the export of nickel which has taken place in recent months was due to the increase in armaments, was not in accordance with the facts. Secondly, if nations or manufacturers of armaments were deprived of using nickel they have substitutes which they could use in its place. The result was that the national executive adopted a resolution asking the government to investigate those various questions concerning the production and export of nickel. I suppose the investigation is still taking place, because to my question of yesterday as to whether or not a report had been received the reply was in the negative.
I agree with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) that to be effective a move of this kind should be the subject of an agreement with other nations; there should be international agreement. In that respect the fact that Canada is the largest exporter of nickel in the world gives her a position of great influence in any conference or any meeting where the question might be discussed. I am in agreement with the view expressed in a remarkable study by Mr. Escott Reid entitled Canada and the League in which he states with regard to this particular matter:
In order to show her good faith, however, Canada should state that she is willing to accept such international regulation of the nickel industry as the permanent disarmament commission considered desirable.
The permanent disarmament commission might recommend that it should, from time to time, for each country, set an annual quota of so many hundredweight of fine nickel for all purposes, industrial, monetary and' armaments. The commission could grant permission for imports in excess of this quota on proof being furnished that the increase was desired for purposes other than the manufacture of armaments. Under such a scheme export from all countries would be by licences similar to the licences granted for the export of narcotic drugs. The annual world production of nickel might also be set from time to time and each producing nation be given a quota. Canada, would, of course, be given about 90 per cent of the total world quota.
A similar control might be exerted over other raw materials essential to the manufacture of munitions such as manganese, tungsten, tin, chromite, mercury and mica. This control in the interests of disarmament might be made part of the general international control over the distribution of raw materials, which has already been recommended.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, at the conclusion of his remarks, 74726-10?J
rather adopted that view and stated that international control is most desirable. I think it is not only most desirable but it is the only way to reach the goal we have in view. As to the private manufacture of armaments of course, we, in common with other member nations of the league, have all said, in the covenant of the league we agree that the pi'ivate manufacture of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objection and that the council shall advise how the evils attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented. On various occasions Canada has expressed its unanimous support of the control or even prohibition of the private manufacture of armaments. This matter is now before the league. In his motion the hon. member suggests that we should request the League of Nations to set up the necessary machinery. This question has been discussed most extensively by both the council and the assembly of the league, and the matter is still before these bodies. In 1931 the council adopted a resolution which linked up this question with the questions to be discussed at the disarmament conference. I am glad that that conference has not been abandoned entirely, as my hon. friend suggests; I have hopes that it will be revived.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for London (Mr. White) express himself so emphatically in favour of the control of the private manufacture of armaments. Canada has expressed herself as being in favour of such control and has given a leadership to the world. I must say with some regret that apparently the British representatives at the conference were not so enthusiastic as those lrom Canada. France and other countries have expressed themselves as being in favour of such control and I think Canada should exert her influence to convince the other members of the British commonwealth of nations. We did convince them in connection with the acceptance of the optional clause of the statute setting up the court of international justice. Great Britain was very reluctant to accept this clause but Canada urged that it should be accepted and it was finally accepted by Great Britain and the other members of the commonwealth. This demonstrates that action by Canada may have some influence and a great deal of effect upon the other countries of the commonwealth. I think Canada should express herself in no uncertain terms on this question, and I am sure such action will have good effects.
Nickel Control-Mr. Lapointe

There is no doubt that the private manufacture of armaments is an evil, and this is stated in the covenant of the league. One has only to remember what has taken place during recent years. Everyone regretted the civil war which took place in China but the manufacturers of armaments were competing with one another to sell the munitions with which that war could be carried on. The same thing happened recently in the conflict between China and Japan. Nations were quarrelling with one another in their efforts to sell their armaments at the highest possible price. This is an evil which all nations should combine together to end.
I desire to congratulate the leaders of the nations for the work they have done, especially during the last few months, for the promotion of peace. The New Year's message of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), issued jointly with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), has done a great deal of good in Canada and has offered a great inducement to all those who would work in harmony for the promotion of peace. I desire also to congratulate the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). I have listened with great interest to his speeches over the radio; although I do not attend the meetings at which he speaks-perhaps he forgets to invite me-I have read the reports and I realize that during the last few months he has done a good work. I should like to see something practical done, something which would signify to the league and to the world that Canada has taken a stand and is more than ever willing to help to promote international control of armaments. I hope the government is investigating all the phases of the production and export of nickel and will let the house have all the facts before the end of this session.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Mines):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to those who have addressed the house on this resolution. I do not think I need dwell upon the fact-I think it is a fact-that no hon. member of this house and but very few people throughout the country desire to see an occasion arise when difference between nations must be adjusted by force. I regret that there is a vocal class- I make no reference to any hon. member in this house-not only in this but in other countries which is constantly talking about war. It would seem that those who were farthest removed from actual contact with the last war are perhaps more vocal than those who

were actually concerned with it. Many hon. members are returned soldiers, but it is rarely indeed that we hear any reference to war made by any of them. If you attend the meetings of the Canadian legion you will not find any member talking about war or the fear of war. Their minds are turned to the betterment of their fellowmen through the channels of peace. I cannot help but observe that it would be much better if the newspapers and public men of this country would desist from talking about the fear of war and things of that character. They should devote themselves to the advancement of the position and the condition of their fellow men instead of creating fears and anxieties in the minds of the people.
With respect particularly to this resolution, if I thought that the prohibition of the export of nickel would result in the abolition of war or the postponement of war, then I most certainly would vote for the resolution. But would it? Are we not just playing around with the larger question? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) described a battleship with fourteen inch armour toughened by the introduction of nickel, which would protect those on board against destruction from huge shells. It is curious, if that would be the effect, that we should even think about banning the export of nickel. I would say, let everybody have nickel and save everybody, rather than ban it at all. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) says that wars were fought before nickel was ever heard of, very destructive wars, and I have no doubt that is true; and again I say, following the observations of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that if we are to make any considerable impression, if we are to make advances in international affairs that have to do with war, then let the League of Nations or any other international body pursue its course and bring the nations together, and, if they are driven to the point where by international action they think that they can stop war by the prohibition of the export amongst the nations of the instruments of war, let them do it. But without international action how is it possible?
We have of course a great industry at Sudbury and mills in other parts of Ontario, and there are mills in Britain and in the United States that have to do with the refining of this metal, and so far as I can learn from the best informed sources, at the outside there is not more, some say less, than probably four per cent of the nickel going into armaments. Now, it is well known that

Nickel Control-Mr. Gordon
a much greater percentage than that is produced outside Canada over which Canadians have no control. The development of the nickel industry in this country has gone on for a long period of years and huge expenditures of money have been made, many hundreds of millions of dollars; and until very recent years the fate of that industry was by no means bright. A huge sum of money has been lost in the development of the industry because the science of metallurgy had not solved the intricate questions associated with the development of nickel alloys that could be turned into the arts of peace.
The International Nickel Company of Canada since 1922 have devoted a considerable annual sum, probably more than a million dollars, to the development of metallurgical practices designed to discover nickel alloys that could be used successfully in industrial life, and great advances have been made in the last half dozen years. It is one of the large and major individual units of industry in Canada. The city of Sudbury is totally dependent upon its success. When the nickel industry is prosperous many thousands of Canadian miners are prosperous; when the nickel industry is prosperous it provides a great sum of money yearly-the figures have been mentioned and I will not go over them-in our transportation business. Last year the nickel company at Sudbury consumed 90,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal. This coming year I am hopeful that the nickel mines at Sudbury and the refineries and smelters there will consume over 135,000 tons of the same coal.
The development of the Sudbury nickel field and the practices in the refining of their ore, as well as their mining practices, have been so perfected that there is little fear to-day that the other known nickel deposits of the world will be developed. But there are other nickel deposits outside of Canada, apart from Caledonia and some places in Europe. There are known nickel deposits in Russia. Supposing we, by some governmental action, put a ban on the activities of the International Nickel 'Company, of such a kind as would inspire the Russians to develop in their country nickel mines and refineries: I wonder whom we would send there as emissary to convince the soviet that they should adopt such an altruistic course as has been suggested.


Thomas Cantley: The member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, I would not say that; but we should have to search with care to
find anyone in this country who would be able to convince the soviet that they, with their nickel production, should adopt the course suggested in this resolution.
Mr. WOO'DSWORTH:	May I point out
to the minister that it is not suggested in any way that nickel production would cease at Sudbury.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is quite true; but once let a government start on the course suggested in this resolution and I greatly fear that we should find the business of that company seriously hampered, because there are so many people uninformed concerning the activities and hazards that surround that business, that one thing would lead to another. I say this 'because of the obvious difficulty, if not impossibility, of identifying the nickel that actually goes into armaments. This is probably the first time since I have been a member of the house that I have ever referred to a newspaper, but I have before me a clipping from the Northern Miner of November 23, 1933. This, paper which is published in Toronto, is certainly the oldest mining paper in Canada if not on the continent. Discussing this question, it says in part as follows:
A part of the Canadian public has seized on the erroneous idea that nickel is some sort of sinister metal when there is war talk. People profess to become alarmed, even somewhat horrified, over the prospect of this country supplying metals to belligerent nations and they speak of restricting or controlling production and exports of a metal of which Canada has a practical monopoly.
Actually nickel is not half as important in war operations as copper. In the last great war there was not nearly the employment for nickel that had been anticipated. Significantly, nations that could not secure it in quantity got along well enough without. Germany was practically shut off from supplies and the warmaking of that nation lingers in the memory.
The principal war use for this war metal in the great conflict was as a covering for lead bullets that would have torn our troops to pieces unless so protected. It acted in a merciful rather than in a sinister role. It deserved a red cross.
That is probably in keeping with the observations made by the faon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). The article continues:
How could war be conducted without copper, lead and' zinc? They are absolutely essential metals in war operations. Has there been any talk of restricting production or export of these metals in time of war? Certainly not.
And the article goes on. Then the hon. member for Quebec East in discussing what was taking place in the League of Nations, in substance made this Observation, that the nations of the world, at least some and probably all of them, were quite content to con-

Nickel Control-Mr. Luchkovich
trol the exportation of nickel, and on the other hand Canada was quite content that the manufacture of armaments should be done under governmental supervision. It will be noted that the nations which wanted to control the export of nickel do not produce any and Canada does not manufacture any armaments, so that the representatives to the League of Nations, I should say, should put the matter very bluntly to the nations of the world when they sit around the council table.
The products of the International Nickel Company to-day enter into almost every industrial activity where steel is used, from kitchen sinks to bathtubs. I do not know whether all hon. members are aware of the uses to which nickel is now being devoted. Monel metal is only one of the alloys; there are a dozen of them that during the last eight or ten years have been discovered and are peculiarly adapted to some sort of industrial activity. How is it possible, even if it would be effective, for anyone without impeding the wheels of industry to earmark nickel that might get into armaments?-because it is a comparatively simple matter to take the scrap into which nickel is introduced, refine it and reintroduce the nickel into armaments.
In conclusion, let us not for the sake of publicity or otherwise, for the sake of having our observations recorded in Hansard, fool around with a prdblem that is so serious, namely that of the settlement of men's differences by force. Do not let us fool around with the question whether we will ban nickel or not, but let us continue to support the only international tribunal that is at present available and Canada need take no second position to any other nation in the world in that respect. Let us continue to support the League of Nations so long as that body can command the respect and is entitled to the support of this country, in the hope that those who sit around the international council table will be able to devise some scheme or method whereby in the future nations will be constrained to submit their differences to that or some other tribunal for a peaceful solution. If we do not adopt that attitude, then if nations get into a clash where one concludes for some reason that another nation is not dealing fairly with it, probably at some time we may have some more war.
Every time anybody talks about war and every time a paper puts in a scare headline in regard to it, there is always a certain section of the community, irresponsible at first it is true, but in an ever growing circle which simply lends itself to the support of the idea. I would say in great sincerity: Stop talking about war.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: 
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
whether I have the job of talking this question out, but I agree entirely with the direction in which the proposer of this resolution is moving. Like the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) I had some practical experience in the war. In the navy we always used to say that what one man stuck up the next one could knock down. I remember vividly in connection with mines, the British invented a paravane which carried on the front of the ship permitted that ship to steam through a mine field. Thereupon for some time it was possible for us to steam through these mine fields and nip off the mines without any danger to the ships, but then the Germans brought out a mine with jaws in the anchor that cut the paravane adrift. I think some such thing probably would happen if we did away entirely with nickel in the manufacture of armaments-I mean some substitute would be found. Frankly I believe it is not a question of material; it is a psychological, a mental question. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) said:	Do not talk about war. I
think if he, like myself and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), had been in Europe
this summer, he would have heard a lot about war. When I was in Moscow I observed that the Russians, who have a great war psychology, seem to think everyone wants to go to war with them, and I believe they have certain grounds for thinking that way in view of what has taken place in the last seventeen years. A newspaperman concocted a story that even the Americans wanted to go to war with the Russians. I said:	I know nothing
about the policy of the American government, neither do I know anything about the official policy of the Canadian government, but I do know the viewpoint of the man in the street in America towards the next war in Europe, that is, "cash on delivery." I think that reflects the viewpoint of our people. I speak now more from the viewpoint of their mental attitude because a change in the men tality of the people in Europe is essential When I was in Brussels I gave a picture of the conditions on the North American continent, told them we have an international boundary 3,600 miles long without a gun on it, yet within the confines of our nations we have all the bloodstreams that exist in Europe to-day, notwithstanding which we are able to get along in peace in the new world; I said, you people should exemplify the spirit of peace which we have proven practicable on the North American continent. The situation is, whether we like it or not, that there is possibly goiDg to be war in the east as soon as the snow thaws; I think it is a reasonable analysis of the situation that there will be war. A system of dictatorships exists in Europe at the moment-dictatorship in its very essence is predicated on war. You have Mussolini telling the Italian people his dreams of an empire and power recreating the glories of ancient Rome. In the carrying out of that policy the British people will have something to say. Then there is Hitler, half-clown and half-fanatic, who tells the German people that one of the policies necessary to meet the present economic problems confronting that country is an expansion of the boundaries of Germany into Poland and the Ukraine. Of course Russia and Poland will have something to say about that. The same old diplomatic game is going on in Europe. After all it does not matter whether it is civil servants or nations, ambition makes strange bedfellows. You see Stalin saying to Pilsudski: Come to Moscow and talk things over; in other words "Come up and see me sometime," yet six months ago he was calling Pilsudski a

Nickel Control-Mr. Mitchell
butcher. You see Herriot, the radical French socialist, going to Russia recently and saying to the Russian people all the nice things he could say and in my judgment making observations absolutely contrary to the facts, whereas only six months ago the attitude of the French government was directly the opposite in regard to the Russian government. You see the emissaries of Mussolini coming to Paris and saying nice things about the French, whereas these countries have been at loggerheads ever since the close of the great war. We have seen the development of a gigantic vise around Germany, ready to crush out her very national life if the German people should move in the direction of carrying out the policies enunciated by Hitler prior to the last election in that country. So I believe sincerely that it is far more than a mere material problem; it touches the very mainsprings of the individual nations themselves. It is a psychological problem, and I think it can be said that North America has made a magnificent contribution in the last seventeen years in its approach to international problems in Europe. It would be different if we were fifty years away from the last war; if the people of these countries had not lived through the carnage and the physical, mental and material suffering; if they had not experienced all that. They have the exemplification of the utter futility of war in the enormous cemeteries that exist at their back doors and in the maimed and crippled such as we saw in Ottawa last week during the convention held in this city.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that no one would welcome international cooperation in connection with the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre more than I would welcome it. I believe Canada is making its contribution. It was pointed out by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that there must be some form of international agreement in connection with this matter. I believe he was on absolutely sound ground in making that statement; I do not think there can be any argument against it. After all is said and done you cannot justify bad judgment on the grounds of good intentions; I think your premises must be sound. I think we have exemplified, through the representatives of the Canadian government at Geneva, the attitude of this dominion towards war in Europe. It is rather disheartening to go to those countries and see that almost every 
other man is a soldier; to go to Russia, where they have snuffed out the lives of millions of people in the last ten or fifteen years but where their greatest contribution-I am speaking now, of course, of the territory within the confines of their own country-is the creation of an army possibly second to none in Europe to-day. Of course they argue that it is to be used for defensive purposes. Frankly I would rather follow the policies that reflect the mentality of the Canadian people.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the proper approach to this problem, apart from the mental viewpoint, is that the governments themselves should control the munitions factories within their own countries. Put the children on the doorsteps where they properly belong. Then, of course, I think no government has a right to lead its people into a great war without first crystallizing the viewpoint of the people in relation to that war. I think a referendum should be taken in each country. If that were a part of the machinery of the league; if it were provided that this must be done in any country contemplating carrying on a war, I believe that in the interval that would elapse between the declaration and the actual carrying on of the war the people would find that their spirit would cool down and they would reflect upon suffering that would result if their country should embark upon a war.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am heartily in accord with the purport of this resolution in the direction of controlling, by national and international action, the warlike forces of this and every other country in the civilized world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If no one else wishes to speak-


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, there is no reply open to my hon. friend. I was going to suggest that perhaps his purpose has been accomplished by bringing about this discussion, which has been illuminating and, we trust, informative, and which we hope has served some useful purpose. I was going to suggest that perhaps it would meet the wishes of my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand that I have no reply, Mr. Speaker. May I say that originally my purpose was to introduce this matter to the house in the way of a

Questions
private motion, but the only way I could introduce it to-day was by means of an amendment. I very gladly withdraw the amendment as it now stands.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committeie of supply, Mr. Gott in the chair.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 22, 1934