1935-04-01

[Stage Direction]
3.	What was the number and average value of motor trucks produced in Canada and exported in each of the years, 1933 and 1934.
4.	What was the number and average value of motor trucks produced in Canada for home consumption in each of the years, 1933 and 1934?
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) presented the second report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations.

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

Mr. SPENCER:: What was the total amount paid by the dominion government in the way of pensions during the last fiscal year:	(a) old age pensions; (b) soldiers' pensions; (c) civil servants' pensions; (d) judges' pensions; (e) all others?


Mr. SAUVE:: (a)	$12,313,594.93.
(b)	$41339,830.90.
(c)	$3,612,932.89.
(d)	$276,930.58.
(e)	$237,322.00.


HERMENEGILDE BOULAT
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was Hermenegilde Boulay employed in any capacity by the Public Works department from 1930 to 1935?
2.	Did Hermenegilde Boulay ever do any work, either as a contractor for the Public Works of Canada at Rimouski or other point, from June, 1930, to January 1, 1935?
3.	If Mr. Boulay was employed, in what capacity; at what rate of pay; and what was the total amount received by Mr. Boulay for his services, or salary through the Department of Public Works?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Production
Calendar Years:	No.	$1933	
53,849	32,568.2681934	
92,157 Not available
Domestic Calendar Years:
1933		
1934		
2.	Calendar Years:
1933		
1934		
Exports No.	$
15,828	6,812,989
31.274	12,988.365
No.	$
37.274	Not available 59,534 Not-available
Production
Calendar Years:
1933		
1934		
Domestic Calendar Years:
1933		
1934		
4.	Calendar Years:
1933		
1934		
No.	$
12.003	6.062,195
24,773 Not available
Exports No.	$
4,575	1,693.070
12.094	4515,429
No.	$
5,904 Not available 12.947 Not available


FORT QU'APPELLE, SASK., INDIAN HOSPITAL
Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	Was any land purchased by the government for the Indian hospital at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, from whom was it purchased and what was the price paid to each of the vendors?


Mr. MURPHY:: 


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. Yes.
1.	Yes.	Amount2.	Not as contractor.	2. Purchased from	paid3.	(a) Inspector of construction at Rimouski	Central Lands Limited	$ 100 00and Father Point from September 29,	1931, to	Plus	outstanding taxes	
160	74February 10, 1932.	Mrs. E. C. MacDonald	
1,482 72(b)	$5 per day.	Plus	arrears of taxes	
334	58(c)	$560.	Hudson	Bay company	
300	00


MOTOR CAR PRODUCTION AND EXPORT
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the number and average value of passenger motor cars produced in Canada and exported in each of the years, 1933 and 1934?
2.	What was the number and average value of passenger motor cars produced in Canada for home consumption in each of the years, 1933 and 1934?


BUTTER RETURNED FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	From 1930 to date, was Canadian butter shipped back from the United Kingdom to Canada ?
2.	If so, why and what quantity each year?
3.	Same question for cheese.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1,	2 and 3. Information not available.

Questions


NOTRE-DAME DE L'lSLE-VERTE, QUE., WHARF
Mr. POULIOT:: 
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $2,935.07; (b) $941.40.
3.	1,180 feet long by 24 feet wide.


WATERLOO, QUEV POST OFFICE
Mr. HOWARD:: 
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$732.80 to March 28, 1935.
2.	(a) yes; (b) $12.
3.	No (paid living and travelling expenses only amounting to $83-December 20-29 1934)
4.	$637.80.
5.	(a) No, account not yet received; (b) P. E. Delaney, Granby, P.Q.


AIRMAIL CHARGES
Mr. DUPUIS:: Referring to a question asked verbally to the Hon. the Postmaster General, as reported on page 2077, of Hansard of March 21, 1935.
1.	What is the cost of each letter carried by the airmail service of the Post Office Department?
2.	What was the total cost of maintenance to the Post Office department of the airmail service for each of the years, 1930, 1931. 1932, 1933, and 1934?
3.	How many letters and postal parcels were carried by the airmail service for each of the above-mentioned years?
4.	What was the gross revenue of the airmail service for each of the above-mentioned years?


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 3. All classes of mail matter are carried on airmail routes, i.e., letters, newspapers, printed matter and parcel post. No permanent check is kept of the number of each class carried. Periodical checks however lead to the conclusion that the following weights and percentages are reasonably accurate:
1st class matter-letters	
2nd class matter-newspapers.. . 3rd class matter-printed matter 4th class matter-parcel post.. .
2 and 4.
Calendar	Airmail	Estimatedyear	expenditure	gross revenue1930	$1,284,652 99	$506,445 201931	1,085,129 24	505.670 201932	311,249 94	316.195 131933	199,279 30	320.776 971934	223,864 29	357,897 69


SUGAR TAX
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	At what date did the special tax on sugar come into force?
2.	What was the initial rate thereof?
3.	What is the present rate?
4.	What revenue was derived from this tax for each year separately since it came into force?
5.	What revenue was derived from the said tax during the first months of 1935?
92582-145J
38% or 234.746 pounds carried during 1934 37% or 226.790 pounds carried during 1934 3% or 21,312 pounds carried during 1934 22% or 139,482 pounds carried during 1934
100%	622.330 pounds


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	March 22nd, 1933.
2.	2c. per lb.
3.	lc. per lb.
4.	1933-34. $14,723,321.32.
1934-35 to Feb. 28th 1935, $9,942,886.75.
5.	January and February 1935, $1,396,767.76.



SAINT-CANUT, QUE., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has Mr. Arthur Robert a contract with the Post Office department for the carrying of the mail in the parish of Saint-Canut, in the county of Laval-Two Mountains?
2.	If so, what remuneration does he receive per year?
3.	What were the terms of the contract held by his predecessor. Mr. William O'Connor, for doing the same work?
Questions


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$700.00 per annum.
3.	$700.00 per annum.



MONTREAL, QTJE., MAIL CONTRACTS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who has carried the mail from the railway stations and boat landings to the post offices in the city of Montreal, since 1930?
2.	What amount was paid to each contractor in connection with such work since that date.
3.	Who has been carrying the mail between the various post offices in the city of Montreal, since August, 1930?
4.	What amount was paid to each contractor in connection with such work since that date?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	The Canadian Transfer Company, Limited.
2.	$204,866.66.
3.	The Canadian Transfer Company, Limited and J. E. Laurent.
4.	The Canadian Transfer Co., S740,607.15. J. E. Laurent, $2,800.00.



MONTREAL MAIL CONTRACT-J. E. LAURENT

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did J. E. Laurent hold any contract whatsoever from the Post Office department, from the month of August, 1930, to the month of May, 1932?
2.	If so, what was the contract price, what was he required to do under the terms of such contract and what amount was paid to him?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	70c. per hour from 28th October, 1930, and 80c. per hour from 1st October, 1931. He delivered parcel post to addressees in the city of Montreal. From the 2Sth October, 1930, to 1st May, 1932, he received the sum of $39,831.65.



H. W. MIX, POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. PERE:
1.	Is H. W. Mix, Postmaster at Ottawa, the £ame man as H. W. Mix, District Director of Postal Service in the city of Ottawa?
2.	If so, in addition to his quarters in the Ottawa post office building, does he have an office in the transportation building, Rideau and Sussex streets?
3.	How does he divide his time to perform both hities?
4.	How much does he receive in respect of
each position?
5.	What is the amount of the rent for his office n the transportation building and who pavs for it?
C. S lice what date has lie acted at District Director of Postal Service?
(Mr Pouliot.]
7.	What was his salary as postmaster before and after the date mentioned in the preceding paragraph?
8.	When he is in the post office building, who replaces him in the transportation building, and vice versa?
9.	(a) how old is he; (b) was his age verified by the department on his certificate of birth?
10.	Who appointed him to both positions and who recommended him each time to the department?
Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	It is the policy of the department to amalgamate the positions of postmaster and district Superintendent of postal service at centres where these two positions exist and to proceed with the amalgamation when either position becomes vacant. When the District Superintendent of Postal Service, Ottawa, died, the Civil Service Commission combined the two positions mentioned into one, with the title o.f District Director of Postal Services and promoted the remaining officer, Mr. H. W. Mix, formerly postmaster, to the new position.
2.	In addition to his office in the Ottawa post office building, Mr. Mix has desk space in a room in the transportation building, pending the availability of sufficient space in one building to accommodate all the staffs and activities under his control.
3.	According bo the requirements of the service.
4.	He occupies only one (position and receives $4,500 a year.
5.	See answer to No. 2.
6.	19th October, 1934.
7.	Mr. Mix received $4,200 a year as postmaster.
8.	The district director moves from one office to the other according to the exigencies of the postal service. He is not replaced in either office.
9.	(a) 64 (b) verified by affidavit.
10.	See answer to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DUFF:: 1 WThen was George Adamson appointed Fisheries Inspector at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	Who were the other applicants for the
p| 9
3.	Was due notice given calling for applications for the place?	.
4	If so. what notice was given?
5	Was any notice given directly or indirectly to the officers of the Returned Men's Organization at Pictou?
G. If so, in what way?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION-EXPENDITURES
Mr. GOLDING:: 1.	Does the sum of $354,951.38 quoted in the return No. 228 as the total cost of the price spreads and mass buying investigation (as to March 14, 1935) include cost of printing, telegraph and telephone service, messengers, stenographers, secretaries, clerks and all other government employees who in any way assisted the committee or commission in their work?
2.	If not, what was the additional cost of this service?
3.	How many witnesses received expense allowance or other remuneration?
4.	What are the names of the witnesses who received such allowance or remuneration?
5.	What is the total amount voted by parliament for this investigation to this date?


CANADIAN IMPORTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	From 1930 to 1934 inclusive, did Canada
import:	(a) apples; (b) honey; (c) eggs;
(d)	dressed beef; (e) bacon and hams; (f) concentrated milk; (g) butter; (h) cheese; (i) potatoes; (j) peas; (k) oats; (1) barley; (m) wheat, and (n) wheat flour?
2.	If so, from what countries and what was the total amount of imports of each of -the above-mentioned commodities from each country during that period?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Return
tabled herewith.


CANADIAN EXPORTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	To what countries did Canada export: (a) apples; (b) honey; (c) eggs; (d) dressed beef;
(e)	bacon and hams; (f) concentrated milk; (g) butter; (h) cheese; (i) potatoes; (j) peas; (k) oats; (1) barley; (m) wheat, and (n) wheat flour, each year from 1930 to 1934 inclusive?
2.	During that period, what wras the total amount of exports of each of the above-mentioned commodities to each one of those countries?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Return
tabled herewith.
.	GASPE BIOLOGICAL STATION


Mr. M A ROIL:: 1.	Has a site been chosen for the Biological Station which it is proposed to erect on the Gaspe coast?
2.	If so, where is it situated?
3.	What is the name of the French speaking scientist who is at present being given the necessary training at the Experimental Station at Halifax?
4.	On whose recommendation was he appointed, and was an opportunity given to all and any, to qualify, who might be anxious to fill this position?
5.	What is the salary paid and is the appointment of a temporary or permanent character?
6.	Will there be more than one French speaking scientist appointed and what will be the mode of appointment?
7.	Will the instruction to be given at the new station be bilingual?
8.	Will it be dependent on the Halifax station, or will it be independent of that station ?


Mr. STIRLING:: Return tabled herewith.


ROYAL 22ND REGIMENT, QUEBEC
Mr. BOULANGER :: 1. What is the present effective force, officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the Royal 22nd Regiment of Quebec, with the exception of the band?
2.	Who is the present commanding officer of the regiment, and when will his term of command expire?
3.	Who is the second in command of the regiment?
4. What are the names of the officers commanding companies?
5.	What are the names of the officers who left the regiment since January 1, 1930, to date, and to what unit were they attached after their departure?
6.	What are the names of the new officers attached! to the regiment since January 1, 1930, to date?


Grote Stirling: Return tabled herewith.


POTATO SUBSIDY
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Since January 1, 1935, has the government, the Department of Agriculture or the marketing board granted or promised assistance or relief to the potato-growers of New Brunswick, or the Hatfield Company, or any other person or persons of New Brunswick, by way of a subsidy or grant for the manufacture of potato products?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the arrangement, the amount granted, promised or guaranteed, and to whom?


CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I., PORT PHYSICIAN
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What is the name and address of the port physician at the Port of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and the amount which he receives for medical services in connection with his work?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the physician or physicians employed in connection with .the Indian reserves at Rocky Point. Seotehfort and Tracadie, or any reserve in Prince Edward' Island, and the amount which each receives for his services?
3.	Is there a physician in the employ of the Canadian National Railways at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; if so, what is his name and address, and the amount which he receives for his services yearly?


SMUGGLING-ATTORNEYS RETAINED
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	What attorneys were employed by the federal government in connection with the prosecution of smugglers in Quebec during the year 1934?
2.	How much was paid to each?
2274	COMMONS
Motions jor Payers


FLOXJR IMPORTS
Mr. GERSHAW:: 1.	What was the amount and value of flour imported into Canada in the years 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2.	From what countries did these imports come, and through what Canadian ports?
3.	What duty, if any, was paid on these importations?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Return tabled herewith.
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS single men's unemployment relief camps


Mr. GERSHAW (for Mr. Gray):: For a copy of all orders, rules and regulations issued:	(a) by the Department of
National Defence; (b) by the Department of Labour; (c) by the Department of the Interior, in any way relating to the operation of single men's unemployment relief camps.


BANK OF CANADA-APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda or written representations, exchanged between any member of the government or the Deputy Minister of Finance and any chartered bank with reference to the appointment of any officer of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. RHODES:: There is no objection to
this motion passing, but may I point out to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that I rather fear it will be barren of results, because so far as I know there is no such correspondence. The same observations apply with respect to the next motion.
For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda or written representations, exchanged between any member of the government or the Deputy Minister of Finance and any member of the House of Commons or of the Senate with reference to the appointment of any officer of the Bank of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.

William Duff: For a copy of all correspondence or memoranda exchanged between any member of the government and any chartered bank of Canada with reference to the quantity of gold which the said chartered banks or any of them were obligated to turn over to the Bank of Canada at the time of its opening for business.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion will have to
be accepted with marked reservations. So far as the information with respect to the quantity of gold is concerned there is no objection to that information being given. I must say however that the correspondence deals with intimate details of foreign exchange accounts of customers of the bank, and it would not be in the public interest to dis-[Mr. Bouchard-J
close that intimate information. Subject to this reservation I am content that the motion should pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of the correspondence exchanged between the attorney general of the province of New Brunswick and the Department of National Revenue of Canada, or the Department of Justice, with reference to the destruction of the Paul T, her cargo of liquor and her ship's stores.
Also a copy of the order for the destruction of the cargo of liquor of the Paul T, the destruction of the said Paul T and the destruction of her ship's stores.


INSTRUCTIONS TO LONDON OFFICIALS
Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of the instructions given by the ministers of the departments concerned to their officers in London to bring them more effectively under the supervision of the high commissioner since 1930, and also of all the correspondence in the possession of the government in that connection.


HERMENEGILDE BOULAY
Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams and other documents, relating to claim of Mr. Hermenegilde Boulay and others for compensation for destruction of their properties by fire, at Oliver Siding, county of Restigouehe, New Brunswick, due to alleged negligence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


UPPER PORT LA TOUR, N.S., WHARF
William Duff: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, bills, paylists and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works with respect to any _ work^ done or material furnished in connection with wharf repairs at Upper Port La Tour, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia, during the year 1934.


ILLNESS OF PRIME MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to be able to inform the house that yesterday I had a long talk with the Prime Minister and found that he is making continued progress towards recovery. We are expecting his time in bed will be over next Thursday, and that he will then be able to move about in his room for a few days after which he will be able to get out. The doctor handed me the following statement this morning which I will read so that it may be on Hansard:
The Prime Minister's convalescence _ has proceeded satisfactorily and without incident during the past week. It is expected that he will leave his bed some day this week.
April I, 1935.	R- s- Stevens.

B.NA. Act-Interpretation


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
am* sure that the country as well as the house will be pleased to receive this favourable word of the Prime Minister's convalescence, and I hope that the acting leader of the government will convey to the Prime Minister from all of us our pleasure at knowing that he is making such a splendid recovery.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Thank you.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	May I ask a
question of the ministry with a view to removing a doubt as to the meaning of section 50 of the British North America Act and its bearing upon the duration of the present session of parliament. I shall not expect an answer from the ministry at the moment, but the question might perhaps stand as a notice of motion. I would like to make clear before asking the question that I am aware of the rule which provides that members are not to seek legal opinions from the government. I am not seeking a legal opinion. The matter is one that concerns the proceedings of this house and is of great public interest and therefore I hope the government will be able to give a definite reply.
Sestion 50 of the British North America Act reads as follws:
Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the house (subject to be sooner dissolved by the governor general), and no longer.
In the minds of some there is an ambiguity in the words "the day of the return of the writs" as to whether they mean the day fixed in the proclamation of the election for the return of the writs, or the day of the receipt by the chief electoral officer of the last writ to be received.
The proclamation that was issued on May 30, 1930, ordered that writs were to issue in due form for calling a parliament "which writs" it set forth, "are to bear date of the 30th day of May, 1930; and to be returnable on the 18th day of August." If the construction of the government is that the day referred to in the expression used in the proclamation with regard to the election "returnable on the 18th day of August" is that of the day referred to as the cessation of the continuance of this House of Commons that I believe will accord
with the view which is most generally held and which I believe to be the correct view. On the other hand, as I have said, there are some who believe the date is that on which the last writ was received by the chief electoral officer. No doubt the chief electoral officer himself will be able to give a definite opinion on the matter.
The questions which I wish to ask in the circumstances are the following.
In the opinion of the government:
(1)	Which was the day of the return of the writs for choosing the present House of Commons?
(2)	When does the present House of Commons cease to continue?
(3)	Is it necessary that the writs 'for a general election be issued during the duration of the House of Commons?
(4)	Is there a limit to the period of time which may elapse between the date of the issue of the writs for a general election and the day of polling?
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think those are
proper questions and the replies will be submitted in due course. I will make inquiry to-morrow in regard to the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unemployment relief measure expiring yesterday, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he has any announcement to make with respect to new measures to be taken in the situation?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the act of 1934 expired by the effluxion of time at the end of March. The bill which went through this house a few days ago has not yet passed the Senate or received royal assent, but I do not anticipate that there will be any considerable delay in the bill passing through the other house and receiving royal assent. I do not anticipate that there will be any confusion in the meantime because there will be a very short interval between the expiration of the one act and the coming into force of the other.



EASTERN POTATO GROWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, with further reference to a question that was asked on Monday last
C.N.R.-Branch Line

by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) if I had any information as to whether Quebec was wishing to come in under the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme, for his information I advise that I received this morning official notification from the Hon. J. A. Godbout, Minister of Agriculture for Quebec, which translated reads as follows:
In reply to the requests of a large number of interested growers, I am enclosing herewith a memo, in which I recommend the application of the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme to the province of Quebec.
I trust that you will see your way clear to grant the above request, and I remain,
Yours very truly,
J. Adelard Godbout,
.	. Minister of Agriculture for Quebec.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, for the
information of the house I should like to say that I had hoped to be able to table to-day the reports of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National Steamships, and the auditors' reports connected therewith, but through some slip-up they were not quite ready. I shall table them to-morrow. My reason for mentioning the matter is this. If it is satisfactory to the members of the special railway committee which deals with these matters I shall ask the officers of the railways and the steamships to be here for a meeting of the committee on Wednesday morning, and we can hold the meetings of that committee from that day on for the length of time that is necessary. If there should be any objection from the members of the committee to that date, we can change the date to suit them. I am merely giving this notice in order to give the members of that committee an opportunity to express their opinion as to the date, and if I hear nothing to the contrary I shall ask the officers to be here on Wednesday morning next.


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: I would remind the minister that Wednesday morning will probably be the last caucus held by the Liberal party before the general election, and we have much to discuss.


William Duff: May I suggest to the minister
that the meeting be called for Thursday instead of Wednesday?


Robert James Manion: I have no objection. I
shall be glad to make it Thursday instead of Wednesday. It makes it rather a short week, but I certainly wish to meet the desires of hon. members, so if it is the wish of the committee we will make it Thursday instead of Wednesday.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question to direct to the Minister of Railways. It is based on a telegram dated Loon Lake, Saskatchewan, March, 27, via Meadow Lake, and reads as follows:
C. R. McIntosh, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Telegrams have been forwarded to the following: Hon. Doctor Manion, M.P., John Vallance, M.P., F. R. MacMillan, M.P., advising that petitions are being mailed from residents of Bar-thel, Loon Lake, Loon River, Makwa, Flat Valley, Goodsoil, Beacon Hill, Pierceland in northwestern Saskatchewan, and Cherry Grove. Beaver Crossing and Cold Lake in northern Alberta, asking completion of railway and steel on St. Walburg-Edmonton branch Canadian National Railways.
Northern Railways Development Association, Charles F. Marshall, President.
The question I want to ask is this. May I inquire of the minister if he can, for the information of parliament and the country, add anything to his answer to a similar question of Wednesday, March 6, when he intimated that there might be some action taken and a sum of money set aside for this pressing railway project?
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I intimated that there would be any money set aside. As a matter of fact I am not in control of that matter. The management of the railways make their own estimates. However, the hon. gentleman has just heard me announce a meeting of the special railway committee for Thursday next, and I invite him now to come before that committee and ask the officers of the railway what their recommendation will probably be. My hon. friend will be very welcome to come before the committee so far as I am concerned, and I do not think there will be any objection from anyone.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Mr. Speaker, I shall accept that invitation.

The King's Silver Jubilee



RELIEF PAYMENTS TO ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. P. MULOCK (North York):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour when I may expect an answer to the question standing as No. 1 under Questions of March 11, and reading as follows:
What contributions, if any, did the dominion government give to the province of Ontario for relief expenditures in each of the months of July to December inclusive, 1933, the month of January, 1934; the months of July to December inclusive, 1934; the month of January, 1935?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the form of the question has caused any delay which has occurred in its being answered. It is very difficult to allocate to any month the amount of money which has been contributed to any province. The books of the department indicate the contributions which have been made in connection with approvals given under particular statutes, whether it be 1930, 1931, 1932,1933 or 1934 and an effort is being made to allocate these amounts to the different months as nearly as possible. I had hoped that I would be alble to table an appropriate explanation to-day ibut on inquiry this morning I find it is not yet complete. I hope to do this tomorrow.



SEED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) asked if any requests had been received from the province of Saskatchewan for the guaranteeing of accounts for seed oats and wheat. I saw the hon. member later on and he told me he was leaving town. I told him I would submit an answer in his absence but I have been unable to do so until now. A telegram was received from the premier of Saskatchewan, I believe shortly after the hon. member asked his question although at that time it was no doubt en route. At the request of the government of Saskatchewan last autumn this government agreed to arrange for the purchase by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited of options covering a large quantity of wheat and oats and at the present time is in communication by telegram with the premier of Saskatchewan to ascertain to what extent the province proposes to exercise these options. A definite answer cannot be given to the hon. member's question until a further reply is received from the premier of Saskatchewan.



THE KING'S SILVER JUBILEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the house to make a statement in connection with the celebration throughout Canada of the King's silver jubilee. On February 27 last a proclamation was issued by His Excellency the Governor-General, requesting the heads of the clergy of all religious denominations throughout Canada to have appropriate references to His Majesty's silver jubilee made at church services on Sunday, May 5th. Special orders of service have been arranged by the heads of some of the religious denominations and intimations have been received from the heads of other churches that appropriate measures will be taken to give effect to the request contained in the proclamation.
The proclamation of the 27th February also proclaimed Monday, the 6th May, to be observed throughout the dominion as a day of general thanksgiving and rejoicing on the occasion of the jubilee. It is, therefore, proclaimed a public holiday throughout Canada and it will undoubtedly be observed accordingly throughout the country.
On Monday, May 6th, a ceremony will take place on parliament hill in Ottawa, which will be attended by His Excellency the Governor-General. At the various provincial capitals similar ceremonies are being arranged which will be attended by the lieutenant-governors of the provinces. In other cities, towns and municipalities throughout the dominion, Local celebrations will be arranged by the mayors or other civic authorities. The ceremony at Ottawa will, it is expected, be broadcast by the Canadian radio commission and will commence at eleven o'clock, Ottawa daylight saving time.
On parliament hill the units of the defence forces, veterans and ex-service men, police force, firemen, school children, boy scouts, girl guides and other organizations and formed bodies will be assembled in front of the peace tower. It is planned to arrange, if possible, that there shall be a massed choir to lead in the singing. While the audience is assembling, commencing at 10.30, there will be a program of appropriate music on the carillon. At 11.00 o'clock a 21-gun salute will be fired, and church bells well be rung and church chimes played. At 11.07, the massed choir will lead in the singing of "God Save the King".
The King's Silver Jubilee

This will be followed by the address of His Excellency the Governor General. The massed choir will then lead in the singing of "Land of Hope and Glory". Then will follow the address of the Right Honourable, the Prime Minister or, in his absence, the minister who speaks for His Majesty's government in Canada, and an address by the Right Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.
His Excellency the Governor General will then present His Majesty's silver jubilee medals to some of those residents of Ottawa to whom they will be awarded. As the number may be considerable, it is not expected that all the presentations will be made at the ceremony. The massed choir will then lead in the singing of "O Canada", and this will be followed by the "March Past" of the formed bodies.
His worship the mayor of Ottawa and the city council have kindly offered to cooperate in the arrangements for the ceremony, and their assistance in the arrangements is greatly appreciated.
The ceremonies in the other communities will likely follow the outline of the program at Ottawa. It is earnestly hoped that the civic authorities in the cities, towns and other municipalities throughout the country will take early steps to arrange appropriate programs for the celebration, and that members of parliament will communicate with the civic and municipal authorities in their several electoral districts soliciting their cordial cooperation.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is any part of that program to be in French?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not now know the
details.


Charles Marcil: There are two or three
million Canadians who speak the French language and it would be a compliment to them to have part of this program in French.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This announcement is being made both in French and English and I have no doubt that in all communities where there is a considerable population speaking French arrangements will be made to have the whole or a part of the programs in French.


Charles Marcil: I am referring to the
federal program.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The announcement I have
made refers only to the celebration at Ottawa. The government of Quebec will no doubt arrange for its provincial program and there will be celebrations in the different communities.


Charles Marcil: I should like the federal
program to be part French and part English. No doubt there will be a large number of French speaking Canadians who will be present and if they do not understand English they will not be able to enjoy the program.


Right Hon.   S@: The hon. gentleman may rest
assured that every care will be taken to see that the celebration of the King's silver jubilee will be satisfactory to both of our old races.


William Duff: No reference was made as to
the part to be played by the members of the Senate and House of Commons. I should like to know why that omission has been made.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am simply making an
announcement but later on a special program will be printed and distributed. This program will provide for the presence of members of the Senate and House of Commons. However, it is quite possible that on that day the members of the Senate and House of Commons may be in their own constituencies where it is hoped they will take a special part in the local celebrations.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to table copy of order in council P.C. 861, dated to-day and to make a short statement in connection therewith. This order in council provides for the setting up of a commission to inquire into the complaints which have been made with respect to the administration and management of the relief camps established by the Department of National Defence in British Columbia. The dominion government has held the view that as these camps have been set up in aid of the province of British Columbia it was proper for the members of the British Columbia government to visit them and satisfy themselves and the public as to conditions existing therein. On many occasions they have been invited to do so but have repeatedly declined the invitation. The government has therefore decided to appoint a commission, to listen to complaints from men who are or were in these camps, to investigate and report, the purpose being to inform the public of conditions obtaining in the camps. The commission consists of the Hon. W. A. Macdonald, late of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, chairman; Mr. Charles T. McHattie, vice president, Gaults Limited, and chairman, board of directors of the Van-

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
couver Welfare Federation; and the Reverend E. D. Braden, organizing chairman and United Church representative on the joint committee of relief camp religious work.



FARM LOAN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: In consequence of several letters I have received, may I ask the Minister of Finance when he anticipates that the federal farm loan legislation will be available to applicants from Saskatchewan.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend can inform me when the bill which is now before the Senate will pass and receive the royal assent I can answer him; otherwise I am not in a position to do so, because the machinery cannot function until the amending bill is passed.


Peter John Veniot: Will it apply at the same time to all the provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.



OYSTER FISHERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: May I
ask the government whether parts of East river, North river and West river, Prince Edward Island, are closed or will be closed to oyster fishing for the season of 1935?


Grote Stirling: I shall be very glad to
look into the matter raised by my hon. friend and see that he gets an answer.



EXECUTION OF THOMASINA SARAO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Guthrie: May I be permitted to mention a
matter which has received a great deal of prominence in the press and caused a great many inquiries of the Department of Justice in regard to the unfortunate incident which occurred in Montreal on Friday last during the execution by capital punishment of a woman by the name of Sarao. It has been stated in some of the newspapers, and certainly has been intimated to me in a good many telephone messages, that in some way or other the Department of Justice should take this matter up and have an inquiry into
it. For the information of those in the house and out of it, may I say that the administration of law in Canada, both civil and criminal, is under the jurisdiction of the various provinces and not of the dominion. This dominion has nothing to do with executions or with capital punishment; that is a matter entirely under the jurisdiction of the provinces. While we pass the criminal code the law is carried out in all respects by the provincial authorities. I believe that in the province of Quebec, as in other provinces, the sheriff is the official who is charged with the carrying out of such sentences. I know nothing about the matter, but I see by the paper to-day that complaint has been made to me by a Mr. Lattoni, who was counsel engaged for the unfortunate woman at her trial. He says in his letter, as I read it in the newspapers-because the letter has not yet been received by the department:
In view of the unusual circumstances above mentioned, I earnestly request that a complete investigation be made of all the facts surrounding the execution of Mrs. Sarao.
All I can do in regard to tlhe matter is to refer the letter, when it does come, to the attorney general's department of Quebec.



SUPPLY-EUROPEAN SITUATION AMENDMENT BY MR. BOURASSA REAFFIRMING ADHESION TO TREATY FOR RENUNCIATION OF WAR

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
["No more money! Well, we have found over $200,000,000 for unemployment relief; we have found money to guarantee the wheat pool operations, yes, and we have found money to guarantee the loans of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That matter is very easily explained to the people of Canada. I stated that this government was not afraid of public criticism; that it was not afraid of vested interests. Moreover it was not afraid to come to the assistance of a great corporation when it was necessary for the welfare of Canada that it should do so. What was the situation in connection with the $60,000,000 guarantee for the Canadian Pacific Railway? Its bonds were falling due in the\n\nUnited States, and under the laws of that country it was impossible for that company to refloat loans in order to pay back its obligations. What would have happened had the government not come to the assistance of the Canadian Pacific Railway and enabled it to borrow money from the banks?-for let it be remembered that the Canadian Pacific has passed its dividends and has been losing money. The Canadian Pacific would have gone into the hands of a receiver; it would have gone into the possession of foreign investors. What would have happened to labour on the Canadian Pacific; what would have happened to the rates of pay; what would have happened to the business fabric of this country, had the government not had the courage, in spite of the political criticism that could be raised against such an action, to come to the aid of that great corporation, one that means almost the very life of the country?\nTaxation of higher incomes! This budget has been described as a brave budget. The Minister of Finance must be complimented upon the manner of its presentation and the comprehensive review he has made of Canadian affairs. We have the policy of reform and the eight hour day, minimum wage and unemployment insurance measures. I told my constituents when I was elected that I would support an unemployment insurance bill. Whoever supposed that a Conservative government would enact a measure of unemployment insurance? If the Liberal party had enacted such a measure, the press of the country would have hailed it as a great work of reform, a great law of social justice. Surely it is about time that the people of Canada realize the services which this government has rendered to the nation.\nBefore the eleven o'clock adjournment, I ought to thank the Conservative party for the liberty they have given me, the freedom I have had within the party. I wonder how many members of the Liberal opposition have ever had the freedom that the member for Selkirk has had. Last year from my place I asked for reduction of interest rates, for the issuance of $100,000,000 of new money, for $50,000,000 worth of public works. What is the answer? We have had the policy of reform; we have had reduction of interest rates; we have had the issuance of new money to the extent of $50,000,000, and we have had an unemployment relief works policy aggregating $40,000,000.\nOn motion of Mr. Stitt (Selkirk) the debate was adjourned."]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Before we proceed with this order of business I would ask the patience of the house while I endeavour to impress upon hon. members, irrespective of party, the gravity of the situation that now exists in Europe, threatening the peace of the world, with its possible consequences to our own country. In the name of all the true friends of peace in Canada, I thank the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) for having given me this opportunity. I wish it had fallen to the lot of one higher in authority and with more power; though perhaps that defect will be compensated by the fact, which I think is generally acknowledged now, that, being detached from all parties, I am perhaps in a better position to submit this question to the house without any party consideration, either for or against the government or for or against the opposition.

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
Ever since the opening of the session I have received communications from various provinces of Canada asking me to take this initiative. Some of these communications. I may say, are from men who played a valorous part in the last war, both officers and privates. Had I followed their advice, the motion that I am going to present would be couched in much stronger terms. However, I thought it preferable, while making clear the object in which I will crave the concurrence of the house, to put it in the mildest terms possible, so as to make it easy for all men of good will to cooperate towards-the end I have in view. The motion I will submit at the close of my speech will read:
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house reiterates the adhesion of Canada to the general treaty for the renunciation of war signed at Paris on the 27th day of August, 1928. and approved by this house on the 22nd day of February, 1929."
It invites the government to lend its support to all effective measures to ensure the world's peace, either through the League of Nations or otherwise, in cooperation with other governments pledged to the cause of peace.
That Canada stands pledged to the cause of peace need not be argued. At almost every meeting of the League of Nations, the authorized representatives of this dominion have asserted unequivocally, not only the wish, but the decision of the Canadian people to renounce war. May I mention the remarks made at the first meeting of the league, in 1920, by Mr. Rowell; then a pronouncement by Mr. Doherty at the second meting in 1921; declarations made by Senator Dan-durand, as a member of the government, in 1924 and 1925; then after the signing of the pact, remarks made by Sir George Foster in 1929 and by Sir Robert Borden in 1930. But I wish especially to quote, unfortunately not as much as I would like, parts of the very eloquent speech delivered at the general assembly of the league on September 27, 1933, by the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion):
It appears to me that at no time in the history of the world have so many agreements and pacts guaranteeing the security of nations been in existence; and yet it also appears to me that at no time since the armistice has there been quite so much uncertainty and fear in the world as there is at the present moment.
Could not those words be repeated to-day?
The pact of Paris expresses the Canadian attitude towards war almost completely. In other words, we believe that war as a method of settling international disputes should be outlawed. and that all disputes, whatever their kind, should be settled by pacific means. Until that pact is accepted in principle and adopted in practice among the nations of the world, it

would appear that civilization as we know it is in great danger of complete destruction....
Canada., in its dealings with the league, has been in the habit of putting first things first, and it is felt very generally among Canadians that, while there are both primary and secondary functions of the league, the primary function, the main objective, the real goal of the League of Nations is to preserve international peace; in other words, to prevent war among the nations of the world.
And then he said, I think, in conclusion:
Let us remember this individually, and let us at the same time keep in mind as a motto among ourselves these splendid words of Goethe written from Rome over a century ago: "I am a man of peace and I want to preserve peace constantly."
But, without being unjust to anyone, may I say that the one Canadian statesman who has done most for the cause of peace, not only in words but in deeds, is the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he was Prime Minister of Canada. Is it necessary to refer to his firm attitude at the time of the Chanak incident, in 1922, when he resisted on the one hand the frantic appeals of two ministers of the crown in England, and on the other an equally frantic appeal launched in Canada, an appeal which I might call the last cry of blatant imperialism? In doing so, the then Prime Minister, not only did his duty by Canada, but rendered to Great Britain, the British empire and the world at large the best service that it was in his capacity to render; and all leading men in England, irrespective of party, have since admitted that.
Not only did he assume that attitude then; but when the terms of the then so-called Briand-Kellogg pact were being discussed, be-for the signing of the treaty, the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, wrote to the United States minister at Ottawa, Mr. Phillips, to express his unreserved adherence to the proposal. From that letter I want to extract and put on record these two short sentences:
The preeminent value of the league lies in its positive and preventive action. It is true that the covenant also contemplates the application of sanctions in the event of a member state going to war, if in so doing it has broken the pledges of the covenant to seek a peaceful solution of disputes. Canada has always opposed any interpretation of the covenant which would involve the application of these sanctions automatically or by the decision of other states.
In that short sentence the Prime Minister of the day took away from that covenant one of its most equivocal and dangerous dispositions, as far as Canada and other countries were concerned. In that respect also he has deserved the gratitude of the people of Can-

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
ada and of all friends of peace in the world. That unequivocal acceptance of the spirit of the pact, on the part of the then Prime Minister of Canada, stood in contrast to a singular reservation expressed by the Foreign Secretary in London, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, to which I shall refer in another part of my remarks.
The treaty was signed at Paris on August 27, 1928. A few days later the League of Nations was again convened, and on the 7th of September, at one of the plenary sittings, dealing. I think, with the arbitration court, the then Prime Minister, who represented Canada at that meeting, made these statements:
Our country is a land of reconciliation. In achieving racial concord within our borders, we have for more than a century successfully exemplified the fulfilment of at least one fundamental principal of the league.
In another particular, namely, in achieving international peace with our great neighbour, we have fulfilled for more than a century another fundamental principle of the league....
For a distance of over three thousand miles, stretching from the waters of the Atlantic ocean on the east to those of the Pacific ocean on the west, the frontier of Canada is divided from that of the United States by a boundary which is undefended from coast to coast....
Of that undefended frontier of more than three thousand miles, I should like to say just a word, for it is intimately related to the subject matter of the treaty recently signed at Paris. It symbolizes the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.
And toward the conclusion of his remarks, he said:
There, I believe, is the key to our prosperity. That is why we believe as we do in disarmament. not only as a means of preventing war and maintaining peace, hut as an essential of prosperity. It is the reason why we are proud to he numbered among those nations which belong to the League of Nations which aims at providing effective guarantees for the peace of the world; it is the reason why we welcome, from any and every source, any and every instrument which gives promise of eliminating fear and establishing confidence in the relations of nations with each other.
I just mention in passing, because quoting it would carry us too far, the speech delivered by the then Prime Minister in this house on February 19, 1929, when he moved that the house approve of the treaty. Now let us come to the treaty itself, the gist of which is contained in two short articles:
I.	-The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
II.	-The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be solved except by pacific means.
Now, sir, to that solemn profession of faith in peace we have committed ourselves, first by the signature of the Prime Minister of Canada given at Paris on the 27th August, 1928, then by the formal and unanimous approval of that treaty by the Senate of Canada on the 15th February, 1929, after six months of reflection, and again by the unanimous approval of this house on the 22nd February, 1929. If those speeches were made in all sincerity; if the Prime Minister of Canada spoke for the Canadian nation at Paris and Geneva; if the Senate and House of Commons spoke for this nation, through the speeches of some of their members and by their unanimous votes, when they declared that this country renounced war forever and never would have recourse to war under any pretence, whatever the cause or the origin might be, I say the time is upon us when those words must be made good and declared to the world as being the standing policy of Canada and the declared policy of its government, or rather of its parliament as representing the will of the Canadian nation. If we were sincere, and I believe, I know, we were sincere, we must do all we can in our humble capacity as a weak nation, but in our strength as a nation unfettered with any alliance, holy or unholy, for war, to take means or help other nations to take means to prevent war.
If that cannot be done we have another duty to perform; it is to take means now to preserve Canada from being engulfed once more in the turmoil of war. To accomplish that purpose we have four methods to pursue, not parallel, not divergent, but converging. The first method is to define and frame our own policy for peace. The second is to cooperate as much as we can with the government of the United Kingdom, provided, of course, we are sure that the government of Great Britain works for peace. The third is to cooperate if possible with the government of the United States, with the same object. And the fourth is to do all we can, through the League of Nations, to attain that same object, if that league is still willing to maintain and capable of maintaining peace.
With regard to Canada's policy I will state my views quite simply; but in order to make them more acceptable I will express them in the terms used in the Senate last year by a gentleman who once occupied a seat in this house, a gentleman who I think is still one of the leaders of the Conservative party and who, which is more to my purpose to-day. proved on the field of battle that he was not a slacker. I am referring to
2282	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
Senator McRae, who on the 17th April, 1934, in one of the most eloquent denunciations of war I have ever read, made this statement, to which I direct the attention of all hon. members of this house:
The horrors of the last war have not been forgotten. That the next war will be infinitely worse is generally appreciated. People, as always, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and in the circumstances there will be war in Europe. The situation presents this remarkable paradox, that while the nations all agree that another war will mean the end of European civilization, the same nations are to-day preoccupied in preparing for that war!
As I said a moment ago, in referring to the speech delivered in Geneva by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), could not those words be uttered this week? Then General McRae went on:
Doctor Nicholas Murray Butler says, "The safest nations in the world are the unarmed nations, the Switzerlands, the Denmarks, the Norways and the Swedens."
To which he added these few but pregnant words:
Let us add Canada to the list.
If there are any members of this house who are disposed to be astonished at the suggestion that Canada should proclaim her neutrality to the world at large, may I remind hon. members that this is no new suggestion. As far back as 1862. one of the founders of confederation, to whom a monument has been erected at the back of this building, facing the Ottawa river and the Laurentian mountains, looking over a broad horizon on which his eagle eye gazed as he thought of the great future of Canada, brought forward this suggestion. I am referring to D'Arcy McGee. What did he suggest as a counter-proposition to the proposal of the then government to organize the defence of Canada? He suggested that Canada should proclaim her neutrality to the world at large, and on that stand he was reelected for his constituency of Montreal West and invited by John A. Macdonald and George Etienne Cartier to become a member of the coalition government which brought about confederation. Surely if one of the founders of confederation could propose Canada's neutrality in 1862, and if in 1934 one of the most distinguished officers of the Canadian army could proclaim the same thing, are we not on safe ground in saying that this should be the basis of our national policy?
For a century after the conquest of Canada by England, the whole policy, first of England, and then of the growing co'onies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, then Lower and Upper Canada, was directed with one thought in mind: arming Canada to

defend herself against the United States. That was the idea that D'Arcy McGee denounced as being both absurd and irrational. His voice remained unheard at the time, but as time went on common sense prevailed. To-day it has come to the point when all parties, all governments, all leaders boast of the fact that as against the only powerful nation whose attack we may dread we have not a single fort, not a single cannon, not a single arm of defence. Again I could quote the leader of the opposition, when in Geneva he cited that example as being an illustration, a century in advance, of the attitude of Canada with regard to the renunciation of war. Why not make this true for the rest of the world? If it has been found that the safest defence for Canada against the only nation which may think of attacking us is to disarm, why should we arm against Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China or any other country?
Suppose we had in the last fifty years educated and directed the public opinion of Canada towards the goal which has been realized on paper-but I am afraid not otherwise-in the terms of this great treaty; had we thus directed the thoughts, the aspirations and the common sense of all classes of Canadians, do you not think, sir, that we would now be proud to boast that Canada stands disarmed in the midst of nations armed to the teeth? Had we done that, had public opinion been educated along those lines twenty years ago, would 50,000 of the best sons of Canada lie buried to-day in the soil of Flanders? Would hundreds of thousands of Canadians, young men and women, have been unrooted from the fertile soil of the plains of Canada to become human wrecks and dole receivers in our large cities? I was going to say it would take fifty years to repair the evils-but no, the evil will never be repaired. Those dead men will never resurrect. Those hopes will always be buried in the soil of a foreign land with which Canada had nothing to do. Generations of Canadians will remain under the yoke of debts, public and private, which we have incurred to kill, to destroy, to brutify the world.
But at least, if we cannot repair the past, shall we not think of the future? I appeal to the fathers of families, inside and beyond the walls of this house, to the hearts of the mothers: Shall we not do something now tc save our children and our grandchildren the agonies through which the generation of today has passed? Yes, let us here and now signify to the world that the words pronounced a year and a half ago in Geneva by the Minister of Railways and Canals were true, that we stand by them, that we are

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
men of peace and that we are ready to help maintain peace. Let us also serve to the world as a notice this second declaration of Senator McRae:
It is bad enough to send our boys to kill in defence of their country. It is unthinkable that Canadian sons should be sent to Europe to war with these nation-mad sons of a decaying civilization.
Had I to express those words in my own terms I would change the two last words. I do not believe European nations are any more decayed than we are. Those who know the circumstances-historic, geographic, ethnical, economic-through which those great and antiquated nations have passed in the centuries should be sober in the judgment they pronounce. But surely we ought to stand behind the rest of the statement and say that we have no reason to risk the lives of our sons and the future of our country through quarrels in Europe over which we have no control whatever-in their origin, in their direction or in their conclusion.
My second point is that in order to accomplish something we must as much as possible cooperate with the government of Great Britain. For years I have been depicted as an enemy of everything British because, forsooth, when I had to choose between the interests of Canada and those of Great Britain I stood by Canada; or because, again, when I had to choose between the principles of English Liberalism, in the broad sense of the word, and the ambitions of English Toryism, I preferred to stick to the traditional policy of the Brights, the Gladstones and the English Liberals rather than to become an instrument of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain or any other new imperialist of Great Britain. That was a matter of choice, and I still think the best homage I could render to Great Britain was to act as a free British subject and to choose for my country the policy I thought best.
It is said frequently that the British empire is the strongest bulwark of peace. Well, this is partly true and partly false. I think it would be more accurate to say it is alternately true and false. As a matter of historical fact, not to go beyond the end of the eighteenth century, namely, during that period of transition from the old world preceding the French revolution and the new chaos which is still in process of readjustment, Great Britain has waged, provoked or sustained more wars than all other nations of Europe combined. Of course that is easy to explain. It is not that the British people like war any more than any other nation. Instinctively the average Englishman is a lover of peace. But because of the extension of the British empire, Great
Britain had more causes of war the world over than any other nation. Then her pretension, justified or not,-I am not disputing it at the moment-of commanding the seas and of being the sole arbiter in respect to neutral trade during all wars, was in itself a constant provocation and brought England into war or to the verge of war alternately with Spain, France, Denmark, Holland, Russia and the United States. But, fortunately or otherwise, that phase of British history is passing.
What is better for our present concern is this, that after every great war in which England took a share, either directly or through subsidized armies on the continent, the British government has always stood for peace, and this for several reasons. At times it was to digest the conquests she had made, either by herself or through her allies. At other times it was because, with their solid common sense, the British realized that it was not sufficient to claim and enjoy victory, but that the economic balance of the country must be restored. That was the part played by Castlereagh and by Wellington at Paris in 1814 and at Vienna in 1815. Lloyd George himself, at Genoa, was proud to declare that he was simply going back to Castlereagh's policy in his endeavours to conciliate Germany and prevent France from crushing her under impossible conditions of peace. I do believe that the English government and the English nation are still in that mood, but I also believe it is passing.
The reservation made by Mr. Austen Chamberlain before the conclusion of the Paris pact is ominous. Under paragraph 10 Of his note delivered to the American ambassador in London on the 19th of May, 1928, he says:
The language of article 1-
Which I read a moment ago:
-as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy renders it desirable that I should remind Your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interferences with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's government in Great Britain accept the new treaty-
The treaty for the renunciation of war:
-upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect.

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
In other words, under this extremely important statement, the foreign secretary, speaking for his government and for the English nation, reserved to England the right to designate at her choice, upon any future occasion, which parts of the world where she would renounce war and which parts of the world where she considered herself free to wage war without defining them at all. It might be Egypt one day, the sea of China another day, the Straits Settlements another -there was no definition. The minister reserved to bis government complete freedom of action. It might be Copenhagen one day, where a fleet might endanger the British empire. Nobody knows. He never defined it.
It was then, I repeat, that quite rightly, the Prime Minister of Canada adhered to that treaty without such a reservation. But I hope that we owe it, to ourselves first, and secondly in due loyalty to the British nation, and thirdly in due loyalty to the other signatories of the pact, to declare that we are not committed by that reservation, by that undefined reservation. In other words, we should signify politely but firmly to the British government that we are prepared to stand by them to help the British nation carry forward all measures for peace, but also that we are prepared to act according to the word given by Senator McRae last year, to stay at home if England chooses to go to war for causes which are foreign to Canada.
Now on the question of enlarging the scope of our relations with Great Britain in matters of peace and war, may I repeat here in my old days what I began stating some thirty-five years ago: Beware of undefined obligations, so-called moral obligations. Remember what effect they have had upon the British nation herself. There is no book I have read on the war or the policies connected with it which I have found so poignant as the Twenty Years of Lord Grey of Falloden. Here I believe was one of the most honest men that has ever played a prominent part for a long time in public life. Nevertheless, because of the lack of clarity of his mind, the lack of decision in his will, because of that misty atmosphere in which he entered the foreign office and which he kept more misty still, he came to the point of deceiving his colleagues, of deceiving the House of Commons, of deceiving the people of England, and of deceiving alternately the Germans and the French. No man has put it, I think, in clearer form than one of his colleagues, of an absolutely different type of mind, but an equally good

servant of the British crown, I refer to Lord Loreburn, who resigned1 from the English government about a year previous to the war. In his book he analyses the policy of Sir Edward Grey, as he was then, by saying in substance that there were two policies open to the government on the eve of the war. He states that the French and Russians could have been told that England had no commitment to stand by Serbia or Russia as against Austria and the Balkans. That might have stopped them, or at least it would have saved us. On the other hand England could have served a clear notice to the Germans that whatever the cause of the war might be, she would be on the side of Russia and France. That could have been done with the assent of a majority in the house; but unfortunately, for nine years, half the members of the government were ignorant of what the other half knew. If Sir Edward Grey did not think it necessary to inform one half of his colleagues, did he take the trouble to inform us? Of course, he did not. Neither did he inform any other chiefs of tribes. The only thing that was done was to sound the bugle of war, in August, 1914, and issue a declaration which called us to go and kill the Huns, those barbarians who threatened the peace and the liberties of the world.
There was an undefined obligation. Here is another. The house will remember articles 10 and 16 of the covenant of the League of Nations. Explanations had to be given as to why we dissented. It was Sir Robert Borden first, then Mr. Doherty, and then the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in the very letter of which I read an extract a moment ago. I think it is better not to sign than to be obliged to erase our signature later on.
Then, I would refer to the imperial conference of 1926 at which our representatives, along with the representatives of the rest of the empire, acknowledged that the question of Egypt was one of imperial concern. Of course it was of imperial concern to England, to Australia and New Zealand, but was it of imperial concern to Canada or South Africa? Mr. Amery, a shrewder politician than Sir Edward Grey ever was, had prepared a series of resolutions. One of these resolutions was very strong in support of the English policy in Egypt, but he had milder resolutions up his sleeve. He kept presenting these until he got adopted the one he wanted adopted. Fortunately, a year later, occasion was granted to our Prime Minister practically to erase that moral engagement. This appears in the correspondence with Lord Salisbury of which

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
the house was made cognizant during the session of 1928.
Shall I refer to Locarno? I intend to do this for two reasons. First, I should like to know where is the spirit of Locarno, as between France and Germany, or as between England and Italy? I am afraid the only answer that can be given to this question is that it lies in the tombs of those two great men, Aristide Briand and Gustav Stresemann. After years of slaughter and distrust, these men attempted to repair in a few months the evils which had been accumulating for years. They succeeded on paper, but it was not long before they were denounced by the public opinion of their respective countries as traitors. This is what happened because they dared attempt to counteract the spirit of narrow jingoism and nationalism which has been prevailing in Europe ever since the war.
We hear to-day of a Locarno of the east. I have spent forty years in the reading of history and diplomatic documents; and perhaps I may also take advantage of the knowledge I have gained of some of the men who have formed public policies during the last half century, to tell this government or the next government-it does not matter:- Beware of the Locarno of the east. Keep aloof, for heaven's sake and for the sake of. Canada. Perhaps it would be out of place to indicate what it would mean although I have a pretty clear idea of what the end will be.
But I should like to show the danger of following blindly any lead which may be given by London in these matters, especially in matters far away from the land of America. I would remind the house that in 1921, when the British government made an agreement with the Soviets, we adhered to it and representatives of the Soviet were accredited to Canada. In 1927 Mr. Joynson-Hicks, more commonly known, in London as Jix, in order to please his friend Sir Henry Deterding, found a great conspiracy in the offices of the Arcos. Raids were made, and after this action the government of Canada expelled the representatives of the Soviet from Montreal. This was done in spite of the fact that in. the official letter sent by the Canadian government to London it is admitted that we had no reason for doing this. Then we come to September, 1934, when it is learned with the greatest surprise that in Geneva we embraced the murderers of the Czar and voted to get the Soviets into the League of Nations. Again this was done because the British government had changed their policy.
In all fairness I ask the hon. members of this house: Do you think this process of kicking and kissing alternately is doing our 92582-146
country any good? I have nothing but admiration for the manner in which the English government conducts its foreign- policy. They have to deal with all the nations on earth, and the problems facing their government have been- the most difficult in- the history of humanity. The policy must be changed from year to year, they must kick and they must kiss; but they do it at normal level. Must we follow behind like a puppy and bite or kiss the toes of those nations which the British government finds itself big enough to kick or kiss in the face? Such a practice is undignified, it is dangerous, it is full of possible misunderstanding. These misunderstandings may occur, first, between Canada and Great Britain; second between Canada and the United States, and third, between Canada and the rest of the world.
I sum up this whole chapter by saying: In our dealings with the British, let us try to show the same firmness, the same common sense, the same sense of give and take which the British show-and it is the most admirable trait in their policy, both internal and external. But let us at the same time realize that the consequences of an error may be much less dangerous to the British nation than the consequences of the same error might be so far as Canada is concerned. In other words, a nation with the wealth, the power and the prestige of England can run risks in war or in peace, on land or on sea, which we have not the right to make our people incur. Let us be modest and sensible; let us be dignified and respectful, but let us reiterate in perfect truth the old saying, that while a daughter in our mother's house we are mistress in our own, especially since we have proclaimed to the world that we are a nation and that we can frame our own policies, internal or external, just as we wish.
And mind you, that is exactly the attitude which the British appreciate. I was never so struck with the truth of this thought as in my short stay in London in the week which preceded the conference of 1926, when I met one of the leading Tory publicists of Great Britain, one of those who shape public opinion in Great Britain, but especially Tory opinion. He asked me, "What will be Mr. King's attitude at this conference?" I replied, "I have no mandate to speak for Mr. King; but if he rightly interprets the mandate which he has just received from the people of Canada he will tell you-politely enough, because he is a gentleman-Mind your own business and I will mind mine." And this gentleman said to me then, "I hope he will do so; but I am afraid that Amery will circumvent him and make him admit things which he should not.

2286	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
Between ourselves, we British are rather tired of colonial loyalty. We like to be friends with you, but we do not like flatterers. It is enough to receive the homage of the black and brown tribes of Africa and Asia; but we like men of white skin to stand erect in our presence and talk to us as we talk to them." I thought that was a very good lesson which Canadians should take to heart.
With regard to our cooperation with the United States, I am here perhaps on more delicate ground, but I make this statement at once-that there is no great problem of policy, internal or external, which we can solve in Canada without regard to the policy of the United States. What is the use of being childish and boastful? Can we pretend to rule North America as against the United States? What I think is desirable, and what I think we should always cultivate, is friendly cooperation with the Americans and as much as possible simultaneous cooperation with the United States and Great Britain.
I hope that hon. members of this house have not forgotten the sound advice which was given once by Sir Esme Howard when he was British ambassador in Washington. Without too much flattery-just enough to satisfy Canadian vanity-not too much, just one or two cocktails-he said: "Your part in the policy of Great Britain, especially in America, may be a very useful one; it is to be the interpreters of affairs British to the Americans, and the interpreters of American opinion in England." Between ourselves, I think that the English and the Americans can correspond with each other without having recourse to Canada. Nevertheless there is something in that bit of advice. I suggest that we should make it clear to the Americans that we stam, loyally by Great Britain so long as Great Britain stands for peace; and we should intimate to the British government that if England chooses war and the United States decides for peace, then we also shall decide for peace.
But it may be said that I am raising the Monroe doctrine once more-that bogey! After fifty years' reading of history, one of the things that astonish me most is the absolute contrast between the way in which the Monroe doctrine is viewed in England and the way it is viewed in Canada. As our late lamented friend, Mr. John S. Ewart, once wrote picturesquely, "The Canning policy is sometimes called the Monroe doctrine." Anyone who has read the elements of history should know that it was George Canning who prepared the so-called Monroe doctrine. After Spain and Portugal had lost their colonies in America, with a stroke of genius, Canning, to

whom I think only one man can be compared among modern Englishmen, and that is Joseph Chamberlain, understood that if the United States could be got to proclaim to the world that no European power should be allowed to make conquests on the free soil of the two Americas, then the United States would become the willing policeman for Great Britain as against the rest of the world; because, of course, it was understood that those possessions of Great Britain which remained under the British orown were excepted, or rather that the Monroe doctrine was against any future acquisition of territory, while it respected actual possession. And as England alone was left with possessions on the American continent, the proclamation by President Monroe of Canning's policy was perhaps the greatest diplomatic victory of the British government in the last century. And it has remained the basic policy of the British government. I remember a statement made by Sir Edward Grey not ten years prior to the war. Speaking at one of the Guildhall banquets, if I remember aright, he said that ever since the time of George Canning down to his own regime, the Monroe doctrine had remained the mainstay of English policy. It is perhaps the only point in English policy _ that has not changed in a century, and it is more than ever England's policy.
Now why should we choose to be more sensitive of British honour than are the king and the government of England and the British parliament, representing all the people of the British Isles? Of course, I acknowledge a difference. We are a small' nation with an immense territory; and it was natural that we should have a certain dread of that fast growing giant occupying the rest of the continent. Then there was also the colonial vanity, a plant hard to destroy; in fact, I think it is indestructible. And then there was blind reliance on the power of England-a dangerous illusion! Never was it brought so clearly to my mind as in one of the most interesting conversations I have had in my life.
In the month of June, 1914, I was passing a forenoon with dear old Lord Fisher, then retired. War was declared before he was called back to the head of the admiralty. He was a very easy talker; he talked quite freely. This was just after the defeat of the naval policies of both parties in Canada; that is, the building of a Canadian navy as proposed by the Laurier government and a contribution to the British navy as proposed by the Borden government. I asked Lord Fisher what he thought of them. "Oh," he said, "they are equally stupid. What need have you of a navy?" "Well," I said, "I always

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
thought so, but you ought .to know; you know something about naval matters." He said: "Any fool knows it is as ridiculous for Canada to have a navy as it would ibe for Switzerland. Only one country on earth can attack you, and that is the United States. What can you do with a navy against the United States?" "Well," I said, "what about the British navy and Mr. Borden's contribution?" "Well," he said, "that is equally foolish, because put in your .mind that whatever number of ships you give us, Great Britain will never fight the United States for Canada or for any other cause. We will not do it, not because we are cowards, but because it would be foolish and criminal. We cannot fight the United States and the United States cannot fight us. Therefore if you want to arrange your own defence, do not come to London; go to Washington." "Oh," I said, "but that would never be accepted by the Canadian people; they would consider it an affront to their dignity." He said: "Are they really as foolish as that in Canada? Do you not realize that interdependency is the basis of policy all the world over? We British people are as proud as any people are, and yet we rely on the strength of .the French Army to defend us against Germany, just as many years ago we relied on. the Prussians and Austrians to fight against France for us. The Belgians rely on both the British fleet and the French army to defend their country against Germany, just as in the time of Napoleon they relied on us and on the armies of Prussia to resist their conquest by France. Likewise the French nation, which is as proud as any other on earth, expects us to defend her coasts against any other fleet in the world. You should come to your senses; your best arm of defence is to have none." Therefore, when I have on my side the opinion of a man like Lord Fisher and a more recent opinion expressed by General McRae, I say: Let us go straight to the root of the question, and let us proclaim to the world that we are disarming, as the best means of defending Canada.
Some people may say: But that exposes us to absorption by the United States. Yes, but we have no means of .preventing the absorption of Canada by the United States, should they want to absorb us. So long as we kept up armaments against the United States, there were always currents of opinion in favour of the annexation of Canada, but ever since we have declared that state of permanent and complete disarmament, where is the current of thought in the United States favouring the annexation of Canada? Busi-92582-146}
ness men as well as statesmen in the United States know that they have for many years to come sufficient problems to solve within their own borders; they would not complicate their situation by annexing the rest of the continent, with all our own problems of race, religion, provinces, east and west, and so forth. No; better rely on the common sense of the United States as our best preservation.
I conclude this third chapter by saying: Let us stand without shame by the Monroe doctrine, well defined and enlarged as they understand it in England. In order to accomplish that, why not join the Pan-American union, in which we would be far more at home than we are in the League of Nations? There we would meet the representatives of all those states of South America which, in some respects, are in close understanding with the United States, but in others have the same feelings of diffidence that we have and which are natural in small or weak nations toward a very large one, dominating the continent? We would go there, on the one hand, as friendly to the United States and, on the other, as allied to that galaxy of young and gallant Latin-American nations whose influence we would strengthen and who also would strengthen our hand by exercising their influence in the sense of making peace a reality, at least in America.
We must not forget that we are an American nation. Whatever flag floats on our parliament buildings or on our fortresses, no conquest, no treaty, no acknowledgment of this or the other country, will ever change the fact that it was decided by God at the time of creation that America is America, Europe is Europe, and Canada is a nation in America and not one in Europe or Asia. Let us first base our policy on that permanent fact and then adapt ourselves as much as we can to the passing facts of conquest, domination, alliances and so forth.
Finally, I come to the League of Nations. I must admit, I suppose with the rest of the world and probably with this house, that my confidence in the league is somewhat shaken. Last year, as a conclusion to the speech to which I have alluded, Senator McRae moved that Canada should step out of the league. His motion was defeated. Had it been proposed in this house I suppose I would have applauded the speech with both hands and voted against the motion. I am not quite sure that I would do the same this year; and I presume any responsible man who has followed the trend of affairs in Europe and who is following events as they develop from day to day and from week to week will come

European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
What was the answer? Russia entered supported by thirty-nine votes, mostly of so-called Christian nations, and opposed by only three votes of small nations. What was the answer? What was the answer of Mr. Lit-vinoff to the invitation of Canada, Portugal, Switzerland and even of France to respect conditions of other countries and to come nearer the articles of Geneva? Here is the answer:
To-day-
And he was referring to past enemies of the Soviet, as well as to present opponents-
To-day we are happy to be able to state that the exponents of those utopias-
Utopias! your principles and mine-
-and the advocates of the policy of ignoring and isolating the Soviet union are no longer to be met among broad-minded statesmen, among the representatives of the more important states moulding international life who think on realistic lines and understand the needs of the present day, but must be searched for among narrow-minded politicians-
That was thrown in the face of Mr. Motta, Mr. De Valera, and even in our own face.
-unable to rise above their petty political passions and strong prejudices and deriving their knowledge of countries and peoples from muddied sources.
Note the expression, "muddied sources."
It remains only to pity such people and to wish them a speedy enlightenment and a return to more reliable sources of information.
That was the language of contempt. Note now the triumphant rebuke. Did he agree to establish in Russia liberty of conscience as it exists in England and in the United States? Did he promise to stop propaganda? No. Here is what he said:
The Soviet union is entering into the league to-day as representative of a new social-economic system, not renunciating any of its special features, and-like the other states^ here represented-preserving intact its personality.
That is the nation we have kissed on both cheeks, we, a Christian nation, we a nation whose government and policy repose on old .traditions, on the liberty of conscience, on respect for the dignity of man and the divinity of God. That humble attitude, that crouching attitude of 38 so-called Christian nations before the outstanding apostles of atheism, will it make for .peace? Read the papers from day to day. The answer has been given in a brutal form, but better have it that way than to go on with the hyprocrisy which has prevailed for years. The answer has been given by Adolf Hitler. True, Hitlerism is to-day perhaps the most outstanding menace to peace. Why? First, because of the
[Mr. Bourassa.J
iniquities of the treaty of Versailles, to which we have affixed our signatures and crucified the honour of Canada. Secondly, because we dared not protest against the obstinacy with which the French government, more or less supported foy the British government, refused to correct those inequalities. I was forgetting about the one British representative who protested, namely General Smuts, who in the1 glass gallery at Versailles, before affixing his signature to the historic document, had the courage to stand up and say, "I sign, but peace will not come out of these treaties." He was the only one who dared open his mouth. Surely if the Prime Minister of South Africa could speak out, had not the Prime Minister of Canada, to whichever party he might belong, the same liberty to speak frankly and openly? The attitude of the allied countries made Hitlerism, because that attitude played into the hands of those young men in Germany who for years had been looking for an understanding or possible agreement with France, England and Italy. Seeing that their efforts were in vain, and that from day to day the Locarno treaty was becoming dilapidated, in despair they finally threw themselves into the hands of Hitler. That made the success of Hitlerism. But what has confirmed it and strengthened it in the last six months more than anything else is the admission of Russia into the League of Nations. It is that coquetting attitude of France, Great Britain and Italy towards the Soviets. I am surprised that Britain especially should have forgotten the sound advice of a man whose policy I have opposed very frequently in my public life but who was at times truly a man of long vision. I refer to Joe Chamberlain, who said once, speaking of Anglo-Russian relations, "When you sup with the devil take a long spoon." Now not only are they supping together, they are even drinking out of the same glass. For my part I am not prepared to put my lips on those soiled cups, nor do I believe that the vast majority of Canadians, to whatever creed or race or party they belong, are prepared to follow suit because, at the present time and for this year, it suits the British government and the French and the Italians to try once more to encircle Germany. And for what purpose? To enhance civilization? To preserve Liberty? To save small nationalities? No. But to make Soviet Russia the arbiter of the whole world, to strengthen the hand of the Soviets in such a manner that Russia will be the dominating power of the east of Europe and of the west of Asia. I remind you of those somewhat Obscure words of Mr. APRIL 1, 1935
European Situation-Mr. Bourassa
Motta: Think of the far east. Read the despatches of to-day, and see what game is going on now between London and Moscow, Warsaw, Paris and Rome. Poor Poland is once more being dragged from right to left, from north to south, by the Teuton, by the Slav, by the Italian and by the French, with the English putting up a protecting hand, yes, a protecting hand for English interests. I do not blame them, but I pity the poor nations of Europe who are kept in that state of chronic fever; and for heaven's sake, I say, let us preserve our people, let us preserve our youth, let us preserve our nation from the consequences of such intrigues, such changes in policy and such threats of war!
But worst of all is what I call the apostacy of so-called Christendom. I deprecate the introduction of religion into the discussion of puiblic affairs; but after all one should not hesitate at appealing to what is best in men's souls and hearts. You cannot rule the world, you cannot rule a country, any more than you can rule an individual, without appealing to religion, without appealing to faith. Last year I ventured to predict that we could never succeed in solving our social and economic problems until we had restored in our community and in the soul of each of us, in each family and in each class of people, respect for God and for God's laws. Likewise you cannot restore the law of nations; you cannot by law and by treaties, by force of arms on land, on sea, in the air or under the sea, you cannot by brute force or by deceitful diplomacy bring order and peace into the world. Here again I quote an authority who did not belong to my church or my creed. I have always been struck with these lines, ever since I read them for the first time in Morley's Life of Gladstone. Gladstone was a devout son of the Church of England, and his life was written by a nonconformist who had become an avowed rationalist. Referring to one of the first incidents in foreign affairs in which Gladstone was called upon to play a part, Morley says of him:
Mr. Gladstone had not read history for nothing. He knew the evils that followed in Europe the breakdown of the great spiritual power-once, though with so many defects, a controlling force over violence, anarchy and brute wrong. He knew the necessity for some substitute, even a substitute so imperfect as the law of nations.
Eighty years ago Gladstone realized the necessity for a law of nations even though it was imperfect compared with the unity of Christendom as it existed1 in the middle ages. He realized, although he did not say so expressly, that in spite of religious schisms, Christianity remained the one great basis of
social order; and as another great Protestant statesman, Burke, had said a half a century previous:	Whatever may be our creed and
sectarian views we must acknowledge- that the Pope remains the head of Christianity.-Now if that was the opinion of "a great Christian statesman," as Gladstone was described by Lord Salisbury after his death, can we not take cognizance of it and act somewhat accordingly? But what did we do? We tacitly acquiesced in the secret treaty concluded in London in April, 1915, by which England, France and Russia decided to exclude the Pope from all their deliberations on the affairs of this world. Why? Because in those days the Italian government was afraid that the Pope might raise the question of temporal power. Now that difficulty has disappeared, because the Holy See has made peace with the Italian government. Is there any reason which remains for the temporal rulers of the so-called Christian nations to go on excluding the Pope from their counsels? I do not say from their government, I do not say from their policies, because no sane Catholic to-day and no Pope would claim any such power similar to that which the papacy exercised in the middle ages; the situation, religious, political and social is entirely different. But surely there is no man, however sincere a Protestant he may be, no matter how much of an enemy he may be to what was the rule of the papacy five hundred years ago, or even what it -was sixty-five years ago, when Gladstone denounced the Vatican and Vaticanism, who will not admit, if he has a mind big enough to overcome his prejudices, that the papacy and the Holy See remain the greatest moral force there is in the world to-day. The British government, in spite of all opposition, have reestablished relations with the Holy See. More governments have established relations with the Holy See since the war than for a century previous. Are we going to sit aloof? Are we going to refuse to learn anything from that- great seat of learning?
Last year, referring to social and economic conditions, I pointed to these men in this corner of the house who are neither Catholics nor, some of them, very ardent Christians, I believe; nevertheless they were the only members I heard quoting the Pope's encyclicals and making use of them to foster what they considered to be social reforms. A moment ago I said that we cannot solve any problem in America without the cooperation of the government of the United States. Likewise do I assert that the world cannot solve its problems without the cooperation of the greatest and most permanent spiritual power which exists. I am an old man
2292	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Woodsworth
as compared with the newer generation. Why is the world in its present condition? It is because everyone has been looking to wealth, to industry, to trade, to power, to diplomacy, to brutal arms to solve their problems. It is 'because each nation has cultivated within itself self-admiration and self-tpride; it is because these things have been set up as idols. The main occupation of the world prior to the war, during the war and since the war has been to paganize its morals, its habits and its standards; and we are to-day reaping the result. The more we worship at the altar of the golden calf, the more lack of respect we show for everything spiritual, the harder will be the solution of our problems. I sum up these rambling remarks by making the same appeal I made last year: If you want to reestablish the brotherhood of man, begin by proclaiming the fatherhood of God.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while I cannot agree with all the statements made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), it seems to me that the house owes him a debt of gratitude for having presented so ably this very important question. In matters of peace and war I must confess that I find myself torn by various conflicting convictions and considerations. When I was attempting to prepare some notes on this matter on Saturday I set down some of the things which seemed to me to enter into my own point of view.
First, I believe that military force is stupid; that it settles nothing and that it creates serious trouble. This conviction may be the result of Christian idealism but it is confirmed by a study of psychology and a reading of history.
Second, I believe that among the many causes of war the economic are the most fundamental, especially in modem times. Capitalism, social injustice, imperialistic expansion and war are inseparable. In my judgment war will not end until we destroy capitalism, with its social injustice, and imperialism.
Third, as a born individualist and an inheritor of pioneer traditions I have an instinctive desire to keep myself and my country out of the troubles of other people. In this I think I am fairly typical Canadian.
Fourth, as a student of our complex industrial and social structure I realize that no individual can live to himself, or that no nation can live to itself. Self-sufficiency, independence, sovereignty and isolationism belong to the past. It is perhaps here that I begin to differ with the hon. member for

Labelle. I would emphasize that the mere declaration of neutrality is not sufficient. As I tried to point out the other evening, military defence does not seem to me to be an adequate defence. However, I do not think that mere disarmament will settle our problems.
Fifth, in practice political power with its military force is still largely in the hands of the predatory classes, hence national and international policies are dominated by anything but idealistic motives.
Sixth, as an individual I refuse to participate or to assist in war, yet I am a citizen of a country which still relies upon force and as a public representative I must vote on alternative military policies.
Under these conditions, in the actual world of affairs, one must try to hold to his own convictions and keep the ultimate objectives in view, yet advocate measures which are recognized as merely ameliorative. One must accept the half loaf and even support procedures which though repugnant to his principles, represent a real advance in public welfare and public morality. For example, I am opposed to capital punishment, but rather than have a woman's head torn from her shoulders, as was done a few days ago at a hanging in Montreal, I would vote for the electric chair, the lethal chamber, or perhaps even the axe. In a decently organized society we would not need a police force, but in our present semi-barbarous civilization I prefer a police force to bandits and vigilantes. So in international relations, until war is actually and wholeheartedly repudiated as an instrument of national policy, an international police force under proper control, if that is possible, might be preferable to world anarchy. This statement more or less outlines the background from which I view the external policies of Canada.
It is a curious thing that we in Canada have been so indifferent to our external policies. Perhaps this is due to a number of causes. For years we have been practically isolated from the main current of world events. We have had friendly neighbours to our south. We have inherited from colonial days a sort of inferiority complex that leaves matters of high policy to the United Kingdom. However notwithstanding this as was pointed out by the hon. member for Labelle, we were drawn into the great war and sacrificed nearly 60,000 of our boys and piled up an unbearable burden of debt.
Before discussing any of the more general policies, I should like to offer a few practical suggestions. It would seem to me that we might create a separate ministry of external

European Situation-Mr. Woodsworth
affairs, to be headed by a specialist in league affairs. Second, the committee on international industrial relations, or a new committee to be set up, could give its entire time to considering reports from embassies and legations, from the League of Nations and from imperial conferences, and then advise the house as to the most effective measures of promoting peace. Again, it seems to me that we should offer to cooperate with the League of Nations in controlling the export of war materials. This is in line with the motion I introduced last year with regard to nickel. Further, we should give increased support to the League of Nations Society. This was a suggestion I offered the other evening when we were discussing our national defence estimates. Still further, I think that we might very well reconsider the proposal made by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), namely, the establishment of international scholarships. In this way we might do a very great deal to promote international friendship and understanding. And then again, I fancy that we shall not be blameless of causing international friction unless we insist on maintaining the minority rights of the racial and religious groups resident in Canada. That too I have advocated more than once in this house.
Now let us come to the factors that must be considered in determining a foreign policy for Canada. First of all, there is our relationship to the United States. I think that the hon. member for Labelle is correct when he emphasizes the fact that Canada exists on the North American continent; that must be a determining factor in our foreign policy. War with the United States is for most of us unthinkable. A year or two ago at a public dinner I was talking to my next door neighbour, a prominent Conservative and an imperialist of the old school, a man however who did not swallow slogans but had given a good deal of thought to public affairs. Someone asked what Canada would do if by any stretch of the imagination Great Britain and the United States became involved in war, and this Conservative and imperialist of the old school came back immediately with the reply that Canada must at once declare her independence. Well, if that reply is correct, it seems to me that the least we can do is now, during a time of peace, to serve notice to that effect upon Great Britain. It is not fair play to go on pretending that in all circumstances we will follow the lead of Great Britain. I would suggest that the work of the international joint commission might very well be extended to include the
administration of an "all-in" arbitration treaty between Canada and the United States.
I think it was in my speech on the address that I called attention to the I'm Alone case as a most striking example of the way in which international friction may be avoided. A few years ago that incident might easily have become a casus belli. As it, was, when the decision was finally given by the board of arbitration no one paid much attention to it-as I say, a splendid example of how we may avoid those frictions which in former years very readily led to war.
Now we come to our relationship with the United Kingdom and the other self-governing nations now forming the British commonwealth of nations. I would point out that Great Britain still rules a vast empire in which the greater proportion of the people do not enjoy self-government. That is an important fact and one that perhaps we do not sufficiently emphasize. As the hon. member for Labelle pointed out, under the treaty the United Kingdom made very important reservations. There were certain areas of the world over which Great Britain claimed special control, or where she felt she had special interests, and she was not willing that there should be any interference or any resort to arbitration with regard to those particular areas. Great Britain has interests in India, in Africa and in the far east, and it is very easy for certain British policies to cause difficulties and troubles that might easily drag Great Britain once again into war. We in Canada have no voice in these policies. It does seem to me-and I would call the attention of the official leader of the opposition to this point-that even now, before the Prime Minister of this country goes to the next empire conference, we should have from him some fairly clear statement as to his position with regard to the great problems which may face the empire within the next few years. Canada ought not a few years hence to be faced with a fait accompli and be expected to rush to the help of the motherland.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My understanding is that there is to be no conference at which any representative of any government is to speak with authority in reference to questions that will govern the future.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should be very
glad if the statement of the leader of the opposition is correct. I had rather the impression that at some of these conferences whether there are formal negotiations or not, understandings are arrived at which are
2294	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Woodsworth
considered more or less binding. I hope that is not true.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am of my
hon. friend's point of view in the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: From my standpoint the relationship of the autonomous nations to the empire is by no means clear; and the mere fact that we belong to this commonwealth of self-governing nations should not lead us to assume obligations with regard to the policies of the empire. I suppose that technically if Great Britain is at war Canada is at war, at least unless there is some further declaration than we have yet had. I wish we could have such a declaration. Canada cannot consent to come to the assistance of the empire in some war brought about by policies in which she has no voice; and on the other hand, as we develop our independent policies, we cannot expect support from Great Britain-we must expect to be on our own. Actually we took pretty much this position in our signing independently the Versailles treaty. Although all the implications of that position have not been manifest, I think they are implicit in our signing of the treaty.
Then we come to Canada's relationship to the League of Nations. I confess that for a number of years I took very little interest in the work of the League of Nations. The League of Nations was essentially a league of victors.


An hon. MEMBER:: And still is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somebody says it
still is. It is not altogether, though it has taken one or two steps backward through the withdrawal of some oif the nations. Further, it has been essentially a league of capitalist nations; and as one who believes that capitalism must be done away with, I cannot be expected to take a very lively interest in policies that are essentially founded on capitalism. Again, the United States is still out. As long as that nation with which we are most nearly connected, is not a member of the league, it seems to me that we are placed in a rather peculiar position in being the only country in North America that has a place in the league. In fact, when several years ago I had an opportunity of being in Geneva during a session of the assembly, I could not get away from the impression that to a very considerable extent the league is still a European institution. I wish that were not so. It is not so in ideal, but in practice one felt it was largely dominated by European powers and was concerned mainly with European policies. I dio

not know that as a member of the league we have taken our obligations very seriously. We have sent as our representative to Geneva not always, I think it must be conceded, men who have been specially trained in foreign affairs; we have paid our dues to the league* and that is almost as far as we have gone,
Now we in Canada as every other nation must face one of three alternatives: first, attempted isolation; second, the discredited policy of military alliances, and, third, a collective security through a reformed and vitalized league. As to a policy of isolation, it is attractive on the face of it, and I must say that as long as the league is constituted as it is at present and as impotent as it has been in the past, possibly that is the only immediate practical policy for Canada. So I find myself in considerable sympathy with the hon. member for Labelle. We have to keep out of the affairs of Europe; we have to see to it that Canadian boys are not sacrificed on the battlefields of Europe or, I may add, of Asia. Yet I do not think a policy of isolation of that bind will keep us out of war.
I spoke a few moments ago of another alternative, that of military alliances. About the only alliances we have at present are those with the United States and the United Kingdom. Those are not military; they are very largely sentimental, but I suggest that they are of inestimable value and in my judgment are a great deal more effective in the maintenance of peace than military alliances.
I come then to the third' alternative, and I can see no other-that of collective security. It would seem to be the world's only hope. Canada, as I said a few .moments ago, is already a member of the league even though we have not taken our obligations very seriously; but if we are to have peace we must be prepared to pay the price and that may be a great deal higher than some of us have yet imagined. It may involve economic sanctions that will mean a very decided sacrifice to us in Canada, but when we consider the sacrifices involved in war, we ought not to hesitate to make great sacrifices in attempting to secure peace.
Now there are two immediate danger spots in the world to-day: Germany and Japan.


Mr. BROWN:: Could the hon. member
elaborate his idea about economic sacrifices?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for Lisgar suggests that I elaborate the idea of economic sacrifices. For example, if it is held desirable by the League of Nations that we should not export the materials essential

European Situation-Mr. Woodsworth
to the making of munitions, I think we ought to be prepared to sacrifice the profits that we are making through the sale of nickel and other similar materials. That is one illustration. Further, if several years ago Canada had decided to make an effective protest against Japan's policy in Manchuria, we might very well have imposed an embargo on Japanese goods. That might have involved considerable sacrifice on our part, but I think we ought not to have hesitated to make a sacrifice of that kind if thereby we could throw our weight against what seemed to be a perfectly indefensible act on the part of Japan.
I was about to proceed to speak for a few minutes of those two danger spots, *Germany and Japan. I wonder if we might call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a few words with regard to Russia's entry into the league. When the ban was placed upon Russian imports one recalls the statement that accompanied the order in council:
The government is convinced that there is forced labour in the cutting and transport of timber, and the mining of coal, that political prisoners are exploited, that the standard of living is below any level conceived of in Canada, and that, broadly speaking, all employment is in control of the communist government which regulates all conditions of work and seeks to impose its will upon the whole world. This is communism, its creed and its fruits, which we as a country oppose and must refuse to support by interchange of trade.
I am glad that notwithstanding that declaration on the part of the Minister of National Revenue the government of Canada saw fit to sign the invitation to Russia to enter the league. It seems to me that the hon. member for Labelle, in trying to stress one particular point, took an altogether exaggerated position. I wonder if he would say that Europe was Christian in the fractricidal war of 1914 to 1918. I wonder if he would affirm that Hitler's Germany is Christian today. I wonder if he would venture to say that Japan is Christian. During the recent visit I paid to that country I remember seeing the tablets that commemorate the extirpation of Christianity in that country. It is true that after Commodore Perry bombarded Japan the missionaries were allowed to return, but still only a very small percentage of the people of Japan are Christian and I do not
know that anyone can say that that empire is proceeding along Christian lines. I think the hon. member for Labelle was much nearer the mark when he made this statement on May 27, 1931:
But, Mr. Speaker, I would not be a Christian,
I would not be a British subject, and I would not be imbued with the principles of social liberty, if I would not assert at the same time that the economic system under which the United States and' Canada have grown, progressed or retrograded, for the last twenty-five years, the capitalistic system upon which rests the whole policy of North America, is just^ as antagonistic to the principles of Christianity, of social justice and of British tradition as is the communistic and atheistic system which now prevails in Russia. And for my part I repeat, as a Christian and as a Canadian, I do not consider that we have received either from providence or from the conscience of the Canadian nation any mandate to teach lessons to other nations.
And again, in referring to the atheism which prevailed in France about forty or fifty years ago, the hon. member said:
Did the Conservatives or Liberals of that day, in Canada, suggest that we should break off relations with France and' stop trading with that country because that government was carrying on propaganda against creeds and against religion much more effectively than that carried on during the days of the French revolution, and more effective than that now being carried on by Russia?
And again:
When the delegates from the nations arrived at Genoa, including Mr. Chicherin, one of the primary leaders of the bolshevik government, the venerable Cardinal Archbishop of Genoa received the delegates, including the representative of the government of Russia. The Archbishop shook hands with the delegates and appealed for the blessing of God on their deliberations for peace.
I think the government were wrong four years ago and are right to-day; I think the hon. member for Labelle was right four years ago and wrong this afternoon. I think perhaps the hon. member for Labelle ought to have a greater sense of proportion, perhaps a greater sense of humour. If he would seriously ask a nation that consists in part of Orangemen to drink a loving cup with the Pope perhaps he may permit Mr. Litvinoff to sit in council at a peace table. What did Mr. Litvinoff say on entering the League of Nations? I think possibly his spirit was all that we could very well desire. I should like to read a sentence in which he indicates that apparently he has given up the idea of world revolution and is willing to have Russia go her own way and the other nations their own ways. He said:
The Soviet state has, however, never excluded the possibility of some form or other of association with states having a different political
2296	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Woodsworth
and social system, so long as there is no mutual hostility and if it is for the attainment of common aims. For such an association it considers that the essential conditions would be, firstly, the extension to every state belonging to such an association of the liberty to preserve what I might call its state personality and the social-economic system chosen by it-in other words, reciprocal non-interference in the domestic affairs of the states therein associated; and, secondly, the existence of common aims.
Then follows the passage which was quoted by the hon. member for Labelle:
The Soviet union is entering into the league to-day as representative of a new social-economic system, not renouncing any of its special features, and-like the other states here represented'-preserving intact its personality.
And again:
Finally, we must realize once and for all that no war with political or economic aims is capable of restoring so-called historical justice, and that all it could do would be to substitute new and perhaps still more glaring injustices for old ones, and that every new peace treaty bears within it the seeds of fresh warfare.
And again:
I am convinced that in this, our common work, from now on the will to peace of the Soviet union with its 170 million inhabitants -peace for itself and for other states-will make itself felt as a powerful factor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pass on for a few moments to what I have already called the danger spots of Germany and Japan. With regard to Germany, I detest Hitlerism and Fascism I think as much as anyone, but I do submit that we, that is the allies, to a very large extent have been responsible for the development of that form of government and that policy in Germany. A few days ago I quoted a paragraph from Mr. Lloyd George, as written September 19, 1932. This so well summarized the position that I venture to give it again:
When the German delegates displayed natural hesitation about accepting these conditions, which reduced their fatherland to impotence in an armed world, Clemenceau wrote them a letter, on behalf and at the request of his colleagues, assuring the Germans that their disarmament would be treated as a prelude to steps for general reduction of armaments by the other nations.
This pledge is also expressed in the covenant of the League of Nations. It was accepted by all the signatories of the treaty and ratified by their senates.
Two of the four who drafted that solemn undertaking have passed away, Clemenceau and Wilson. Signor and I remain. As one of the two survivors, I have no hesitation in accepting the German view that the victorious nations have shamelessly broken faith on the question of armaments. I should be surprised to hear that my co-survivor, Orlando took a different view of the turpitude of the victors in this respect.

The Germans revolt against unscrupulous agitators and designing militarists. Statesmen, of the Fatherland have for thirteen years shown a degree of patience, forbearance and restraint which is worthy of the great people they represented. Throughout this period, the bond they entered into in an hour of crushing defeat was being enforced relentlessly against Germany and her allies, whilst other parties to the contract insolently refused even to discuss performances of their part of the agreement.
I am glad that we may look forward once more to Germany being regarded as a nation on an equality with other nations. I could have -hoped that this might have been accomplished by the reduction of our armaments to the level allowed to Germany. However since Germany has taken strong action and decided she will rearm, I hope it will not be very long before other nations will urge Germany to reenter the League of Nations and that this may be in fact, as some British observers think, the preliminary step to a general disarmament.
May I now say a few words regarding Japan. Last year, on February 12, I outlined briefly the unsatisfactory action taken by Canada in connection with the Manchurian incident. While I have a very high personal regard for the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan)
I think he made a serious mistake in following as apparently he did, the lead of Sir John Simon. I recall asking a question of the government concerning this matter and being told by the Prime Minister that as the matter was sub judice it could not be discussed. In my opinion that was an absolutely absurd position for any government to take. At that time we had an opportunity to take a position that might have had far reaching and worth while results. With regard to Mr. Cahan's speech, the correspondent of Headway, the journal of the British League of Nations Union, wrote:
Twenty-three supported the thesis of the Lytton report, including France and Italy ... three, Japan, Britain and Canada, sympathized with Japan. Canada in a curious oration spoke strongly on both sides.
Professor Soward, writing in Interdependence-the journal of the League of Nations Society in Canada-for March, 1933, made this devastating criticism:
A speech which never once endorsed directly league principles, which departed from our position of last March, which singled out the injured party for most of the recrimination. ... Mr. Cahan's attitude is not the sort which Mr. Meighen assumed at the imperial conference of 1921 when the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance came before the conference.
At that time hon. members will recall it was the stand taken by Canada which to a considerable extent was responsible for the

European Situation-Mr. Woodsworth
refusal of Great Britain to renew the alliance. Professor Soward continues:
When soft words were spoken in Geneva in December the only effect produced was the advance of Japanese troops into Jehol in January. Let our delegate make it clear that we stand for the sanctity of treaties, the maintenance of the collective system and the principles of redress proposed in the Lytton report. As Lord Lytton has well said the league of nations is the life-line of western civilization. Let it not be said that Canada helped to fray its strands. Our government must declare where we stand.
The consequence of Great Britain's lack of Tesolute' action has since been manifest in Japan's aggressive policy. It seems to me that before the close of this debate the government should give some report concerning the work of the advisory committee instructed to follow the developments of the Sino-Japanese situation. Canada is a member of that advisory committee. With regard to the present situation in the east may I quote a paragraph from the observations of the Most Hon. the Marquess of Lothian appearing in an article in International Affairs of March-April, 1935:
Let me now turn to the difficulties of the British position. I do not want to discuss the Manchukuo incident, but Great Britain was certainly not in the front rank in maintaining the collective system in the Pacific at that time. Mr. Stimson was much more forward in the matter than we were. I have always thought that the mistake of British policy at that time was not the view which it took of Japan's intentions in Manchuria-I think its diagnosis ' was closer to the realities than that of the United States-but in its rejection of Mr. Stimson's offer to reverse the isolationist decision of 1920 and act with us in support of the collective system in the Pacific.
There is no doubt at all that the entrance of Russia into the League of Nations has tremendously complicated the entire situation and opened vistas of trouble which Great Britain may confront and which we, as a member of the league, may not altogether avoid.
I should like to quote a paragraph or two from a summary of the situation as contained in a pamphlet Why the U.S.S.R. Joined the League, issued by the New Fabian Research Bureau, with an introduction by Hugh Dalton. The extract follows:
The report of the league assembly, by which Great Britain is bound, declares that (a) Manchuria is an integral part of China, under Chinese sovereignty, and that the nine-power treaty applies to Manchuria as to every other part of China; (b) "Manchukuo" is a creation of the Japanese army of occupation which is contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, and to the interests of China, constitutes a violation of the covenant, nine-power treaty, and the Briand-Kellogg pact, and is incompatible
with the maintenance of peace in the far east; (c) the Japanese military occupation is a result of external aggression for which China bears no responsibility, and is a standing violation of China's territorial integrity and political independence.
What obligations are thereby imposed under the covenant upon any state bound by the assembly report of February 24, 1933, becomes a question of very great importance. It is clear that such a state cannot regard Japan as acting defensively in any war in which she fight9 with China (or with states acting on behalf of the league) to maintain her occupation of China's four northeastern provinces, since that occupation was in breach of the covenant. Owing to the failure of the great powers to defend China, and the covenant, against Japanese aggression an extremely obscure and dangerous situation has been created. It is conceivable that China, and with China some other member of the league acting in the fulfilment of their duties under Articles 10 and 16, may become involved in war with Japan over her occupation of Manchuria.
May I point out that although Canada's obligations under articles 10 and 16 may not be as great as those of Great Britain, they cannot be disregarded.
In that ease it would be the duty of the other member states to treat Japan as the aggresor and the council would have to act immediately under Articles 10 and 16 and advise upon the means by which the obligations of the articles should be fulfilled. It is improbable that the U.S.S.R. or any other state will attempt by independent action to terminate Japan's military occupation. What is more probable is that Japan, as the next step in her present policy, will use Manchuria as a base for invading eastern Siberia. In that case the U.S.S.R. will invoke Article 16. China will become involved on her side, and the other members of the league will be bound by the interpretation given to the covenant and nine-power treaty in the assembly report of February 24. 1933. to treat Japan as the aggressor. For that report has made of Japan in Manchuria an outlaw on Chinese territory, and if peace is restored again the league cannot a second time evade its duty of restoring a situation compatible with the covenant.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest this very brief outline of outstanding world problems is sufficient to force upon us the seriousness of the situation confronting the world and the necessity of Canada having some very definite and clear-cut policy.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer a few observations on the motion before the house may I at the outset compliment the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) upon the lucid, forcible and comprehensive manner in which he discussed the motion now before the house. While I am in accord with the

European Situation-Mr. Guthrie
principle of the motion I must express entire dissent from many of the views and opinions expressed by the hon. member this afternoon during the course of his remarks. I think we realize that up to the present time we have been engaged largely in a discussion of world affairs and world diplomacy as carried on by the various nations in the world, and I am sure that I express the unanimous opinion of members in every part of the house when I say that it is very deeply regretted that at the present moment the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) is unable to be in the house to take part in this important discussion. I think the whole house will agree that the Prime Minister's wonderful grasp and understanding of problems of this nature would be invaluable at the present time, that his marked ability in analysing, in portraying and discussing intricate and involved matters would be of the greatest benefit to the house; but perhaps most valuable of all would be the courageous manner in which he is able to consider a difficult question and speedily reach a correct and definite conclusion upon it.
This motion comes before the house to-day by way of an amendment to the motion to go into supply. Under ordinary circumstances such an amendment constitutes a vote of want of confidence in the government, but following precedents established in this house from time to time, in the view of the government, and I fancy in the view of all members of this house, a motion of this kind should not be rejected but should be accepted, if possible, with unanimous approval; and if that be done, as I hope it may be done with regard to this motion, then the house can subsequently go into supply following the practice established by the house upon former occasions.
I have expressed my personal regret at the absence of the Prime Minister at this moment. While I yield to no man in the strong convictions I hold in regard to world peace and the kindred subject of world disarmament, I realize my own limitations and I regret my inability to add very much by way of useful information or cogent argument in support of the motion which has been so elaborately presented to the house this afternoon. As I intimated at the outset I expressly dissent from many of the opinions and views of the mover of this resolution (Mr. Bourassa), but with the principle expressed in the motion I am in most hearty accord. It is a matter of congratulation and of gratification not only in this house but throughout Canada that upon this question, both in this chamber and I fancy also in the upper chamber, there
fMr. Guthrie.]
is and will be but a single opinion, and that opinion favourable. My hon. friend from Labelle did not need to labour the matter so far as the parliament of Canada is concerned or so far as the people of Canada are concerned. He will find the same unanimity throughout Canada upon this question as he will find in the parliament of Canada. Many generations will come and go in this country before the memories of the last great war are obliterated. Our memories are too recent, our trials were too great, our wounds and our injuries too serious, and our burdens still too heavy upon us to allow that great war to pass into the realm of history for many, many years to come. So my hon. friend from Labelle will I think find but a single opinion in regard to future world wars, or in regard to the kindred subject of world1 disarmament.
So far as the national side of this question is concerned there will be little difficulty; there will be but a single opinion. But there is an. international aspect to the subject which must not be forgotten. I doubt if it is possible for any nation in the world at this date to occupy a position of isolation or aloofness without having regard to what is going on in the rest of the world1. Geographical remoteness no longer exists. Time and space have been almost annihilated by modern means of communication and transportation.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: May I suggest to my hon. friend, modified rather than annihilated?


Hugh Guthrie: I beg pardon?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I suggest modified rather than annihilated.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not quite catch the meaning of my hon. friend's remark, but I have made .my statement. In my opinion from now on we will have to assume an international view of many questions which a few years ago we considered as entirely foreign to the interests of Canada, and we shall have to continue to do so in future years, and all nations in the world will be compelled to do the same. We can no longer consider a question such as the subject matter of this motion as purely a national one upon which there is only a single opinion.
I suppose the starting point of our international relationships was in reality the great war. Certainly they arose when we became parties to the treaty of Versailles. We then definitely assumed international obligations. We entered upon international covenants and agreements, and from that day until the

European Situation-Mr. Guthrie
present we have continued so to do. The new position has now become a 'permanent one for the Dominion of Canada.
Let us start with the treaty of Versailles. I do not propose to discuss it but merely to mention some of the subsidiary agreements which have sprung from it and which I find in my discussions in the house and outside are not any too well understood by many people in the Dominion of Canada.
It will be within the memory of a'll, I think that under section 14 of the treaty of Versailles the establishment of a permanent court of international justice was contemplated, and such a court was actually established in the year 1920. Canada became a party to the establishment of that court; so did Great Britain, and so did all the self-governing dominions of the British empire, and all' or nearly all of the nations which had signed the treaty of Versailles. That court was established at The Hague under the auspices of the League of Nations, and was established for the express purpose of settling international disputes of a legal nature, or as stated in the treaty, of a justiciable nature, as opposed to disputes of a political nature. The submission of such disputes was placed upon a purely voluntary basis; there was nothing of a compulsory nature in the original proposal.
This system did not prove entirely satisfactory and' in 1928 another system generally referred to as the optional clause, was evolved under the auspices of the League of Nations. What was this optional clause? It merely removed the voluntary feature and made the submission compulsory as between those states which accepted or acceded1 to the optional clause. Canada, the other British dominions, Great Britain and forty-seven other states in the world acceded to the optional clause and permitted themselves to be bound by a treaty which provides that all disputes of a legal nature between states should be compulsorily referred to The Hague tribunal for final adjustment. There were certain limitations with regard to this submission. I have them here in concise form, and I shall put them on Hansard.
Briefly stated, jurisdiction was conferred upon the international court in respect to all or any classes of legal disputes concerning (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach of an international obligation, and (d) the nature or extent of reparation to be made for a breach of an international obligation. There are some
other special reservations, one dealing with disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada. This refers to such matters as fishery questions and so on. I have outlined the matters which might be submitted compulsorily to The Hague tribunal for adjudication. Canada acceded to the optional clause and became bound by it along with forty-seven other nations.
Then followed what is known as the General Act, a most important enactment which, although referred to by this name, is really only a protocol or treaty arising out of the treaty of Versailles. The important provision of the General Act is that all disputes of every nature shall be submitted to the tribunal at The Hague for settlement by that tribunal. The General Act deals not only with legal disputes but with disputes of every nature. Canada acceded to the General Act and agreed to its provisions; so did Great Britain, so did the other self-governing dominions, with the exception of South Africa, and I believe eighteen or twenty of the other leading nations of the world.
The Permanent Court of International Justice was now clothed with these important powers and was accepted by a large proportion of the important nations of the world.	In connection with the optional
clause we find that it was acceded to by France, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Austria, Hungary, and the British dominions. If a dispute were to arise between Canada and any of these nations, such dispute would automatically go to the international court for settlement. How is a settlement arrived at? The first provision for settlement is by way of conciliation; if that fails, then by arbitration if the parties agree; if that fails, then finally by the judgment of the court itself which is reported to the League of Nations.
This court has proved of inestimable advantage during the ten or twelve years of its existence. There have been from 470 to 480 references made to the court in connection with treaties and agreements and differences between nations. Many notable disputes have been adjudicated upon and finally settled. In addition to this, the League of Nations has the power to refer to the court for an opinion any involved questions which may arise from time to time, and I believe the court has already rendered between thirty and forty opinions in this connection. We in Canada deliberately
2300	COMMONS
European Situation^-Mr. Guthrie
acceded to all these protocols to ensure the peace of Canada and the peace of the world, so did all the other nations which accepted these treaties and acceded to the court.
The only other treaty which I desire to mention at this time is the one which was discussed so ably this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle, the treaty known as the pact of Paris, the treaty of Paris, or, perhaps more generally, the Briand-Kellogg pact. I believe this treaty was originally framed by the government of the United States. It was submitted to the government of Prance, the details were finally settled and it was placed before the nations of the world and their adherence to its provisions requested. This treaty was signed in Paris in 1928 and formally adopted by the parliament of Canada the following spring. It received the approval of and the adoption by no less than sixty nations of the world. The provisions of this treaty were outlined quite fully this afternoon and I need refer to it only very briefly.
The first clause of the treaty condemns recourse to war and declares that war shall be renounced as a means of settlement of international disputes. Surely that language is plain and distinct and any nation which signed the treaty should readily understand it. Clause two is just as plain and just as distinct; it provides that all international disputes shall be settled by pacific means. These brief provisions constitute the treaty of Paris. It is a plain and explicit enactment accepted by sixty nations of the world. I remember hearing the treaty of Paris criticized on one occasion by an American lawyer who stated that one of its weaknesses lay in the fact that no sanctions were provided, that there was no means of enforcing it. The only means of enforcing such a treaty is through the influence of world opinion, and I doubt if any signatory to the treaty would, except for very cogent reasons, deviate from its provisions having in mind the tremendous adverse world opinion which would immediately ensue. It is rather discouraging that notwithstanding the covenants, the protocols, the treaties and the agreements, during recent years two of the signatories to the treaty of Paris engaged in open warfare. I refer to China and Japan. It is discouraging also when we look at Europe to-day and consider the case of Italy and Abyssinia or the general situation which obtains throughout the continent of Europe. It is discouraging also that in spite of all these pacts and treaties and leagues and covenants, that there are more armed men in the world to-day than at the outbreak of the war in 1914, and also that there are greater armaments in the world to-day than there were in

1914. Such is the condition which confronts the world to-day.
The motion moved by my hon. friend from Labelle is exceedingly appropriate to the present situation, and I trust that I shall not give offence to the hon. gentleman if I make a few comments on the argument which he addressed to the House of Commons to-day.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have no objection.


Hugh Guthrie: I have stated before in
this house in his presence that notwithstanding his wonderful accomplishments one might well say to him, as our Lord said to the young man who came to him, "One thing thou lackest," and I think his greatest lack is what I should call the "practical touch." I think my hon. friend from Labelle rather enjoys the erection of straw men for the purpose of knocking them down; I think he takes great pleasure in tilting at windmills. To my mind, he is something of a dreamer. He dreams; he speculates; he theorizes, and after his dreams and speculations and theorizing he expresses in this house vague and curious opinions to which I for one cannot subscribe, and I feel that the great majority of the House of Commons cannot subscribe to them. To-day the hon. gentleman presented four distinct proposals for a Canadian peace policy and I venture to say that there was not a practical suggestion in one of them, not a suggestion that would advance the cause of world peace or the reduction of world armaments or would in the slightest degree improve the position of Canada in respect thereto.
What did the hon. gentleman say? His first proposal-I have it here as I took it down- was that Canada should take action at once and frame a policy of her own for peace. Well, what practical suggestion did he leave with the house in that respect? He made one, I will grant you; he said that Canada should proclaim to the world her neutrality, and he rested his case there. Would such a course prove of any avail? We boast that we are a nation but we are still part and parcel of the British empire-we are part of the British commonwealth of nations, let me put it that way. The British flag flies over this dominion; His Excellency the Governor General, the head of the state, is the representative of the King in this dominion; we are part and parcel of the British commonwealth. Now suppose we proclaimed to the world our neutrality; would it avail us anything if Great Britain should become involved in a foreign war? The moment war was declared, notwithstanding our neutrality, our commerce at sea would be liable to immediate destruction; our shores might be invaded and our seaports

European Situation-Mr. Guthrie
bombarded by enemy ships, notwithstanding our proclamation to the world that we were neutral. Is that a practical remedy or a useful suggestion, in any way you may look at it? 'But I take stronger objection to the language he used in setting forth his second proposal. His second proposal was that we should cooperate with Great Britain for peace. I am inclined to think that this proposal was not genuinely made.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, pardon me.


Hugh Guthrie: I gather that from the last clause of the motion, which I will read to the house:
It invites the government to lend its support to all effective measures to ensure the world's peace either through the League of Nations or otherwise in cooperation with other governments pledged to the cause of peace.
No sooner had the hon. member mentioned his second proposal for cooperation with Great Britain than he at once indulged in a most severe and uncalled for diatribe against British statesmen, against British diplomacy and against the method of British participation of world affairs.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not all of them.


Hugh Guthrie: I could not find, in his whole discussion of his second proposal, one single word favourable to the mother country, as the great majority in this country view Great Britain. We should all recognize that the chief agency in the world to-day for peace is Great Britain. I must say that I could not approve and do not approve the attitude assumed by my hon. friend from Labelle in discussing British statesmen and British policy in the house this afternoon. It left a bad impression on my mind and I think a bad impression on the house in general.
What was the hon. gentleman's third proposal? He developed nothing in regard to the second except adverse criticism of Great Britain. His third proposal was to the effect that we should cooperate with the United States in regard to peace, and on this branch of his subject he waxed eloquent and practically informed the house that we should look to Washington for our security rather than across the sea to the mother country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I had in mind what Lord Fisher said.


Hugh Guthrie: I noticed that in support of his argument this afternoon he indulged in a recollection of some conversation which he had with Lord Fisher about 1911. As Lord Fisher has been dead for a number of years he cannot give his recollection of this interview.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No; that was between his first and second command of the fleet.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood it was before the war. Lord Fisher has been in his grave a number of years.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, since then; but he was very much alive then.


Hugh Guthrie: I was amused at the method employed by my hon. friend from Labelle when he attempted to persuade this house that in time of trouble we should rely upon the Monroe doctrine for our defence. He made a rather extraordinary statement in regard to this matter. He stated that we must admit that the predominant power in regard to both our internal and our external affairs in Canada was the United States. If anyone outside the house had made such a statement in my presence I would have told him that he should be ashamed of himself. May I ask if the United States was the dominant power in regard to our attitude in 1914 and our participation in the great war, which was certainly a matter of external affairs? Was the United States the dominant power in regard to our attitude at Paris when we signed the treaty of Versailles, and which we have carried out, while the United States has not ratified it? Was the United States the dominant power when we acceded to the treaty establishing the Hague tribunal, to which the United States has not yet acceded? Was the United States the dominant power when we negotiated the British trade treaties in Ottawa in 1932? The facts have only to be stated to show how utterly unfounded the hon. gentleman's statements are-utter rubbish, as I might describe them. But in order to make his proposal to some extent palatable, he sought to drag in what history has referred to many times-the fact that George Canning did have something to do with the framing of the Monroe doctrine.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: A good deal.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not admitted by historians in the United States; it is denied by many public men in that country. I believe however there is some historical foundation for the statement that the late Mr. George Canning did have something to do with the establishment of the Monroe doctrine. However that may be, we in this country are not looking to Washington yet for our defence. Personally I have the greatest faith and confidence in the United States. I believe the second great influence in the world in support of peace and disarmament will be found in the United States. It is not only a great but



[Stage Direction]
European Situation-Mr. Guthrie
a peace loving country. Great Britain perhaps has more at stake than has the United States in the matter of world peace. Great Britain to-day is the undoubted leader in the peace movement throughout the world; Great Britain has during the last ten years devoted her time, her money and her energy, to the question of world peace and disarmament. The statesmen of Great Britain have by no means given up hope of ultimate success; night and day they are working upon this paramount problem, and the best informed thought in the world to-day is confident they will eventually succeed. It is idle for my hon. friend to say that we should look to Washington for our security rather than to Great Britain. He made it quite plain today, that he does not approve either the diplomacy or the actions of some British statesmen in the great effort to assure the peace of the world.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would be sorry to interrupt my hon. friend in his magnificent speech, but I am sure he wants to be fair I did not say that we should look to Washington rather than to Great Britain; I said that we should look to Washington and to London at the same time.


Hugh Guthrie: The "and" so far as
London was concerned was in my judgment not stressed by my hon. friend.
His final suggestion, number four, is that we should seek the aid of the League of Nations in regard to our efforts to secure world peace. I agree with him on that point, but I do not agree with the statements which he uttered in the house this afternoon in regard to the League of Nations. He referred to a motion made in the upper chamber last year by Senator McRae proposing that Canada should withdraw from the League of Nations, and said: If that motion had been made in the house, I would have applauded it, but I would have voted against it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: H my hon. friend will
permit me, I said:	I would have applauded
the speech, but I would have opposed the motion, but this year I might have supported the motion.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the hon. member's whole attitude in regard to the League of Nations and the statement he made this afternoon clearly shows, that he was running true to form in respect of this matter. The halfhearted praise with which he damned the League of Nations, the grudging support which he gave it-and everyone in this chamber realized that it was merely grudging support-made no appeal to me.
fMr. Guthrie.]
There is this to be said about the League of Nations and Canada's part in it:	Canada
has consistently supported the league since its inception; there has not been a meeting of the assembly of that august body at which Canadians have not been present to represent their country, and it is a matter of pride to Canadians; it is a matter of pride to me that in 1925 Senator Dandurand was elected president of the assembly of the league, and also that in 1927 he represented Canada on the council of the league, the council being, as the house knows, the power house of the league. Canada has won a high place in the council of the league. But we must not overestimate the influence of this country in a gathering such as meets annually at Geneva, consisting of some forty, fifty or sixty of the great nations of the world. I know and they know that Canada is a country of ten million people, a new nation. I have been there myself on one occasion, and we all realize when we go there that the influence of Canada is respected, but I would not say that it is great; certainly it is not predominant in any way. But consistently Canada has supported at the gathering of the league all measures for world peace and all measures for world disarmament.
There is this to be said, that during its career of some fourteen or fifteen years the league has been a very steadying influence in world affairs. It may not have succeeded in keeping down all armed conflict, but it has succeeded in settling many difficult problems which might otherwise have caused revolt throughout the world had the good auspices of the league not been employed in the settlement of them. One of the weaknesses of the league, one of the weaknesses of the permanent court at The Hague, lies in the fact that the United States has not become a party to either of them. Another weakness, when I was there, arose from the fact that Russia had not become a party to the league. I for one, expressing my own opinion, am gratified to know that Russia now belongs to the league. I may say that in 1931 when I attended as a representative from this country, Canada was the only nation in North America that was a member of the league. I was asked to say a word in support of the application of Mexico to join the league. It was the first occasion on which I made a speech in that body; I was very glad to endorse the application and Mexico became a member at that gathering. Not that I have any tremendous respect for Mexico; I know very little about it, but I think it is far better for the peace of the world that countries like Russia and

European Situation-Miss Macphail
Mexico should belong to the league and come under its influence than that they should remain outside it.
I do not know that I have anything further to add in regard to this matter. To my mind Canada's duty is clear; we should pursue the even tenor of our ways; we should seek to mould and control public opinion as far as possible in support of all peace proposals and international disarmament. Canada is recognized at Geneva as one of the fow countries in the world where armaments are considered negligible. We are in no sense of the word an armed nation. I believe our expenditure on armaments upon a per capita basis is lower than that of any of the other civilized countries. That is one example which we have set at Geneva, but it is not an example which has prevailed upon the other nations to limit their armaments. Whether limitation can be accomplished, whether disarmament will become an accomplished fact in the near future, one cannot say. Our efforts, our hopes and our prayers are directed in support of disarmament. We hope our prayers may be answered; but let us continue to pursue the course we have followed for the last ten years, the active support of all peace proposals. I do not believe the time has yet come when men are prepared to beat their swords into ploughshares, their spears into pruning hooks. That day may be yet far distant, but Canada's [DOT] course is plain.
There is nothing in the principle involved in this motion to which I could object; I accept it as it is drawn and so does the government. I cannot however accept the statements made in regard to it by the hon. member for Labelle. I approve in every way the League of Nations. I can only say that if it can succeed in keeping the peace of the world; if it can succeed in driving the fear of war from the minds of men and in removing the burdens of war from the backs of weary multitudes, it will accomplish much in the cause of civilization.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of agreeing with the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) this afternoon and evening. I think the hon. member expressed, as well as another could, my views on a constructive national policy for Canada.
I do not intend to express again the numerous positive, emphatic statements the hon. member made in the stand that he felt, as a typical Canadian, he should take. As I followed almost all the speeches that have
been made on this subject I felt that the outstanding causes of war boiled down to possibly two. In the first place I think there are unnatural boundaries which outrage the ideas of racial solidarity and ignore the cultural rights of minorities, and I believe these unnatural boundaries are very largely the result of the treaty of Versailles. For many years I have been out of sympathy with that treaty; I think it contains the causes of many wars. Whether or not we shall be able to change the treaty in time to save the world from those wars I do not know.
The other cause of war, which to me seems by far the chief cause, is the ever increasing, bitter fight for diminishing markets. I believe I have expressed my feeling in almost the same words previously during this session. Every country in the world is seeking to sell in the markets of the world those goods which their own people would -like so much to have but which they cannot afford to buy. When you find every country seeking to sell surplus goods in the world markets, with no one wishing to buy, there is bound to be increasing competition. Not only do nations seek to sell; every country seems to believe that it must have a surplus of sales over purchases, or what we call a favourable trade balance. Any reasonable person knows that every country cannot have a favourable balance of trade; it is impossible. A few countries may have such a balance, but all countries cannot have it, and this frightful effort on the part of every nation to sell more than it buys-which of course is impossible-has helped bring the world to the state of tension in which it finds itself at the moment.
There are, of course, very many other factors. I do believe that when armaments multiply rapidly they are not only an indication of war but are a cause of war. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) spoke-of the court of international settlement, and I think everyone is glad that so many causes of war have been referred to that court. But may I say that the chief causes of war are of such a nature that they cannot be referred to the permanent court of international settlement, or as the United States call it, the world court. That is true in regard to this ever-increasing struggle for markets. That is not a .matter that can be referred to the court of international settlement, and in my, opinion those matters which can be referred to the court, are not the chief causes of war. I think they are minor matters and that the chief cause of war is this frightful struggle for markets which, as conditions are to-day, really do not exist. That matter will not and indeed cannot be referred to the court of international settlement,
2304	COMMONS
European Situation-Miss Macphail
so while I am glad we have the court and I am glad of its success up to this time, I do not think we can look to it with any real confidence as a tribunal that will settle the most aggravated causes of war.
I feel more and more that we must learn to distribute goods and services in every country up to the needs of the people, and when we have satisfied the people's needs in each country, the terrific struggle for markets will be lessened by exactly the amount of goods consumed by the people who to-day are living below a decent standard.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that when he was at a meeting of the league he formed the impression that Europe played too important a part in the work of that body. No one who has ever been there could have any other feeling. You feel that Europe takes itself much too: seriously and that unfortunately the world takes Europe much too seriously. After all Europe is only one continent and there are many others, but the league is dominated by the European nations and European problems, and there has not been anything like sufficient recognition of other continents and their problems. Today no thoughtful person can look at even the headlines in the daily papers without being deeply troubled or without seeing that in spite of all the talk of peace the nations are making frantic efforts to rearm. If ever there was a time when Canadians needed to take their place in the League of Nations seriously, that time is now. Much as I would like to think that Canada has taken her work in connection with the League of Nations seriously, I must disagree with the opinion of the Minister of Justice in that regard. I think we have taken a very nominal place there; I think we could have done very much better if we had taken our work in connection with the league more seriously. That is a subject in connection with which I have stated my position previously.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is in connection with the things we might do right here in Canada. I do feel that one way of improving Canada's work in connection with the league is to have the portfolio of external affairs held by a minister other than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is too busy; he cannot leave Canada as often as is necessary to discharge, most efficiently the duties in connection with that portfolio, and I think the change should be made without delay. Then we have in Canada an organization that is seeking to do a very fine piece of

work in educating public opinion, and that is doing its work very well indeed when one considers the meagre funds at its disposal; I refer to the League of Nations Society. I do not believe the House of Commons of Canada can say conscientiously that it is working for peace when it votes to the League of Nations Society in Canada only $3,000. When certain subscriptions to League of Nations documents are paid the net amount is only about $2,000. The parliament of Canada votes only $2,000 to the League of Nations Society but votes millions for military equipment. We maintain a military college. In the present year we have heard of some fairly large contributions to the Boy Scouts Association. I have no fault to find with the Boy Scouts, but I believe there can be very little comparison, so far as the good which can be accomplished is concerned, between the Boy Scouts Association and the League of Nations Society in Canada. Before dissolution we ought to vote to the League of Nations Society in Canada a sum of money in keeping with its importance and with the very intelligent work it is doing.
There are many functions the society could perform but which on account of shortage of funds it finds impossible to perform. I do not wish it to become a creature of the government or of parliament, but I do say the moneys the society collects by way of subscriptions and donations ought to be liberally supplemented by a vote of this parliament. Had they the money I believe they could supervise intelligently an extensive peace program to extend throughout the dominion. They could do much towards linking up the work in Canada with that of international institutions outside the dominion which are working in the interests of the people. They could do much through existing organizations such as farm and labour groups, schools and churches, to inform the people on international matters. They could cooperate with the press and with women's organizations. They could have a panel of well informed and well trained speakers; they could have literature, posters, and so on.
Some years ago I suggested in this chamber that scholarships should be provided1 whereby it would be possible for Canadian students to go abroad on a more extensive scale than now obtains, and students of other countries to come to Canada to study. I still believe that might well be done. Last year and indeed for many years I attended the annual meeting of the League of Nations

_________European Situation-Mr. Mackenzie King
Society in Canada. I wish every hon. member could have attended it, because the annual meeting held last May at the Chateau Laurier was an intellectual treat. The papers and discussions were of a nature which it would have profited us to go a long way to hear. The standard was so high that I believe it would be advisable to make arrangements whereby such a society might be in a position financially to arrange for a summer school in which certain subjects could be pursued and possibly certain definite conclusions arrived at. Such a school would be one not of propaganda but of education in the best sense of the term. The League of Nations Society could do a great deal towards encouraging creative thinking in the schools and colleges of Canada along lines of international relationships. My statement may sound ridiculous, but I believe I am correct when I say that if we can support a military college we ought not to claim to be completely devoted to the cause of peace until we are willing to support a peace college, if it could be so termed. At any rate, if we cannot have a separate college every assistance should be given to the departments in colleges already established which are seeking to enlarge the people's knowledge of international relations. The establishment of a peace college may offend some people who might (believe that peace propaganda would be broadcast. However I should be inclined to think it would be a perfectly sound proposition to establish a peace college: and would be no more in the way of propaganda than would a military college such as is already established.
I believe there is a great need in Canada of a library devoted to the subject of international relations and good will. The League of Nations Society need such a library. They have not the money to buy the volumes nor indeed have they sufficient to procure rooms for the bare physical framework of a library. And so I urge-and it is really for this reason I have risen-that we do this thing which lies at our hand. It is something we can do. I think in Professor MacDermot the League of Nations Society has a secretary with the intellectual capacity sufficient to do all the things I have mentioned and many I have not mentioned. I 'believe he is capable of giving intellectual leadership to a peace movement in Canada, and I do feel as members of the House of Commons we should do this very small thing, this one concrete thing.
I again urge that the portfolio of Secretary of State for External Affairs be separated from that of the Prime Minister, and that
such official should head the delegations to the League of Nations Assembly year after year, so that his knowledge of these matters would be comparable with the knowledge of other delegation heads going there from year to year.
In closing I wish to repeat that in my opinion the chief causes of war are economic, and until there is a distribution of goods and services which will allow the people of the world to enjoy the goods which they themselves produce, we will not be eliminating the root causes of war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly impressed by one observation made at the beginning of his address by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He spoke of the gravity of the situation in Europe, saying that it was one which threatened the peace of the world. Having made that declaration the hon. member then proceeded to express the hope, one which I think was in the breasts of all hon. members, that any debate which might take place would not be in the nature of party controversy. I had hoped that upon this occasion such might prove to be the case. I can see however wherein it was unavoidable that exception should be taken to some of the observations of the hon. member. Indeed I would not be honest with him or with the house if I did not state that while I concur in very much of what he said there were some of his remarks with which I could not agree. May I say however that while hon. members in this chamber may debate these matters in a manner which is understood among themselves and in all parts of our country, in view of the conditions obtaining in Europe to-day, and in view of what is happening even in the present week, there is a danger that some observations made in this chamber, while understood by hon. members and by Canadians, may not be as well understood in other parts of the world. For that reason I believe upon this occasion we cannot be too guarded in our criticisms of events in the old world. There have been negotiations between Britain and Germany; there are negotiations going on between Britain and Russia, and in the course of a few days the negotiations will be enlarged to include other nations of Europe, all with the one great objective of effecting a collective security and maintaining the peace of the world. I submit that there is no question of the day comparable in importance or consequence with the situation as it is existing in Europe to-day. It would be most unfortunate indeed if any
2306	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Mackenzie King
word from either side of this house should go out to -the world, the purpose of which was capable of 'being in any way misconstrued.
May I say that I welcome very much the resolution which my hon. friend from Labelle has introduced. I am glad that the government has found it possible to accept the motion wholeheartedly, that they have not found it necessary to discover technical reasons why this motion which is being moved on going into supply cannot be accepted by the government and by the house, and I hope and believe and know that it will be accepted unanimously.
It is at this time quite appropriate that we should reaffirm, and reaffirm very strongly, the position of Canada with respect to the Paris peace pact, as it is termed, the Briand-Kellogg pact, and the position that we in Canada take in relation to the work of the League of Nations. The first clause of the motion, that "this house reiterates the adhesion of Canada to the general treaty for the renunciation of war signed at Paris on the 27th day of August, 1928, and approved by this house on the 22nd day of February, 1929," will I know be acceptable to every hon. member of the house without respect to the party to which he may belong. I am pleased to'recall that in 1928 I had the honour of. signing in Paris the Briand-Kellogg pact on behalf of Canada. We in this parliament have heretofore approved the peace pact, and at this moment it is I think wholly appropriate and perhaps helpful to the world situation that we should reaffirm our endors-ation of it.
There is but one other clause in the motion, and it "invites the government to lend its support to all effective measures to ensure the world's peace either through the League of Nations or otherwise in cooperation with other governments pledged to the cause of peace." I hope that every living soul in this country will be prepared to support that clause. I believe they will be. I cannot imagine that in any part of Canada to-day there exists anyone who would desire the government to do other than all that is within its power at a time like this in the world's affairs to further any project that will make for peace and give the utmost support- that it can to any institution that is working for the peace of the world.
It is easy to criticize institutions. The League of Nations, like all other institutions, has its limitations, but after all it is the one continuing consultative international body working for peace in the world to-day. It is the one recognized world agency for the purpose of furthering cooperation among those

nations that are seeking to preserve peace. We can only begin to estimate its value when we ask ourselves what position the world might be in to-day had no such world agency been created, had no public opinion been aroused such as has been aroused and formulated within the last ten or fifteen years through the agency of the League of Nations, and which is making itself felt at the present time.
Only a few months ago the world was horrified by a crime perpetrated at Marseilles. It looked for the moment as if Europe might as a result of that crime be plunged again immediately into war. It recalled to the mind of everyone what happened at Sarajevo shortly before the beginning of the great war. But what has happened since is evidence that while there may be forces which are preparing for war, that are seeking to be in readiness for the moment of action, on the other hand there are other forces which are working very strongly for peace. The forces which are working for peace were able last year at least to prevent that crime being followed by an event so disastrous as that which followed the assassination at Sarajevo. There are many other evidences that the forces which are working for peace have found a means of coordination, have found a method of common expression and a promise of world support through the League of Nations, which would not be present to-day but for the existence of the league.
Certainly so far as Canada is concerned I think that what has been said to-night about our part in the league, modest as it has been, has been well said. The example of Canada, while a small country, has nevertheless been one which other nations as well as we ourselves could point to with pride. The fact that geographically we are situated as we are with a great and powerful nation t-o the south of us, and that our difficulties for a century and more have -been settled by the appeal to reason rather than by the appeal to force affords an object lesson to the world the like of which can only be discovered on this continent. If the countries of Asia and Europe would follow the example of North America and appoint international joint commissions to which their disputes might be referred for consideration and investigation and report, bringing to bear the light of an informed public opinion upon the case in dispute, I venture to say that the need for much in the way of armament would soon disappear.
I repeat that I hardly think in the light of the European situation at the moment and what is being sought to be done to improve

European Situation-Mr. Mackenzie King
conditions there, it is wise to go too far in our discussion of policies that may or may not be best for the' preservation of peace. I would like however, to say with regard to disarmament that I do not think it is sufficient for this country simply to say that it supports the League of Nations in its policy of disarmament. I think we ought to name a concrete policy in that regard. Having observed what has taken place in investigations in the United States, where beyond all question it has been shown that there are those who are prepared to traffic in the manufacture and sale of munitions and armaments for the sake of gain, that there are large interests that are even selling simultaneously to countries that are at enmity with each other, it behooves this country and I believe all nations to begin immediately to investigate the whole business of armament manufacture and sale. I should like to see a beginning made in this country of a thorough investigation into the whole business of the manufacture and sale and distribution of munitions of war and armaments, and that step put forward as part of a policy to govern British countries, a policy that we would hope might be followed in all parts of the British empire. I am glad that in Great Britain a commission has been appointed for the purpose, and I am sure that if the British empire as a whole made it a part of the policy of its several parts to investigate to the utmost limit the workings of these great armament production interests and those who are concerned on the commercial side with the sale of munitions, it would have an enormous effect upon, other countries, and if the United States paralleled the example of the British empire in that regard, that example would soon be followed by other nations of the world with results of benefit to mankind.
I agree with what has been said this evening by the last speaker (Miss Macphail) in her references to the importance of our economic policies, our trade policies as well as those policies that are more immediately associated with the question of war. I believe the greatest curse with which the world has been faced in the last five years has been the curse of economic nationalism. As I have said repeatedly, if there is one curse that is greater it is that of economic imperialism. I believe that the sooner we find a nation which has the courage to set an example to other nations of a friendly attitude in the matter of trade, a friendliness carried to the point of presenting to other countries an opportunity to trade, the sooner we will find a breaking down of those walls behind which hatred between different nations has been fostered.
There is no doubt that the cause of much of the world's unrest which exists to-day is the consciousness that countries are being denied the opportunity of trading with other parts of the world. The idea that a selfish policy of the kind can be fought with retaliation is a serious mistake. Retaliation in kind has only served to make conditions which were bad infinitely worse. A great deal has been said to-day about a Christian attitude in human affairs and in international relations. If we are going to talk about the brotherhood of man, it is about time we began to treat those who belong to other nations as though they were brothers instead of enacting embargoes and prohibitive trade restrictions and other vexatious hindrances to trade. This is one thing which bears upon a condition which we all know to exist in this as well as in other countries of the world.
I am inclined to believe that much good could be done if this and other countries were to take a more definite stand on what they would or would not do in the matter of helping to preserve collective security. TheTe should be more definite statements as to the attitude which would be adopted toward any nation which would threaten the security of other nations or which was proven by the facts to be guilty of having disturbed the peace of the world. I think this country ought to declare that any nation which could be shown to have threatened the peace of the world by violating a pact of collective security should be denied any assistance in the shape of men or munitions, should be denied any assistance in the nature of food, should be denied any assistance through credit. Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy in that regard as expressing Canada's attitude toward any country which upon the facts being disclosed was found to be guilty of attempting to destroy what otherwise might be collective security. If that example were followed by other parts of the British empire, as I believe it would be, it would soon be followed by other parts of the world.
What I am seeking to emphasize at the moment is the fact that as part of the British empire this country should make itself heard even more definitely than in the past with respect to some of these matters upon which we feel very deeply. I do not believe that a situation could develop in Europe which would engulf that country in war without the effects of that situation inevitably being felt in all quarters of the world. It is quite easy to say that we would stay out of
2308	COMMONS
European Situation-Mr. Mackenzie King
the war, that we would not send men to fight in Europe, but after the experience I had of the pressure which was exerted at the time of the Chanak incident, referred to this afternoon, I have very grave doubts as to what might happen in Canada if war were to break out again in any part of the world. I think we can take it for granted that the next war will not 'be one which however colossal its death and destruction may be, will leave the world simply in depths of depression and distress such as it has experienced in recent years; it will 'be a war which will do much to obliterate human society itself. There cannot be any conceivable menace to mankind as great as that.
When I went to Europe last year I did so largely with the view of ascertaining at first hand the facts with respect to the situation which one was led to .believe existed in the old country. The impression which I gathered from conversations with those who were well informed in Great Britain, France and Italy was that while the peoples of Europe undoubtedly did not wish war, while the governments themselves did not wish war, there was no one who would say that conditions were not such that war might not occur at almost any moment. What has taken place in Europe during the last few years? We all know that much of what there was of democratic institutions before and even since the war has been swept away. Instead of government under democratic methods such as we have under the British parliamentary system, there is in Europe to-day a network of dictatorships. There is a dictatorship in Russia, there is a dictatorship in Germany, in Italy and in Austria as well as in other countries. What happens under a dictatorship is that the will of one man may precipitate an entire country into a step which it becomes impossible to retrieve. So long as communities remain democratic, and so long as governments are subject to the will of members of parliament who are representatives of the people as a whole, I for one have not the least fear of war commencing in those countries. (But where peoples have surrendered their freedom to autocratic governments, where autocratic governments have become more and more government by individuals whose will and whose wish become the expressions of the nations as a whole, then there is an increasingly grave menace to human society.
I believe that the British people will perhaps be able to render their greatest contribution to the world by maintaining their system of government as it has developed during the last century or two. I believe that to-day

Great Britain is wielding a great influence for good in Europe, and is able to wield that influence because it is known throughout Europe that when Great Britain speaks she is speaking for the people of Great Britain as a whole. The trouble with some of the other countries is that when a word is spoken no one can say whether it is the word of the people or of an individual. What perhaps is most serious of all is the fact that contracts have lost their sanctity. The written word, the pledge, has ceased to have the value which it had in years gone by. In Great Britain the written contract is still accepted, and the pledge is still honoured; when the government of Great Britain gives an undertaking it is something which can be relied upon, and I believe the voice of Great Britain speaking in this authoritative way may yet prove to be the voice which will help most to preserve the peace of the world. So far as this parliament is concerned, every hon. member feels I am sure that the greatest service we can render to-day to the peace of the world is to let it be known that so far as the efforts which Great Britain is making are towards mediation, towards conciliation and towards eliminating the fears of nations, the members of all political parties in Canada are unitedly and strongly behind such efforts.
Amendment (Mr. Bourassa) agreed to.
Motion (Mr. Rhodes), as amended, agreed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To restore the order
paper, as a result of the motion just passed, I move that the house resolve itself immediately into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply. Mr. Morand in the chair.
Progress reported.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Ralston, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coote.
Mr. W. A. BEYNON (Moose Jaw):: In
view of the very generous reception with which the budget has met at the hands of the press of Canada, for me to devote any time to complimenting the minister on his presentation would certainly be like carrying

The Budget-Mr. Beynon
coals to Newcastle. Suffice it to say that I feel both satisfied and gratified with the . budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) this year. I was struck with the change in the method of procedure of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I have always listened with a good deal of interest to his annual onslaught on the budget and I listened again this year with equal interest.
I noticed, however, this year for the first time that he spent practically half an hour in what I might term amusing witticisms.
It is the first time he has blossomed forth as a humorist, and I do not think that the hon. gentleman is as happy in that role as he is in the role of a serious critic. I think we all felt that his humour was perhaps a little too premeditated; it never surprised us-we always anticipated it. The hon. gentleman might be pardoned for making that departure this year inasmuch as the Minister of Finance had left him a very difficult task, and it was quite natural that he should attempt to cover with levity his failure to find at least one vulnerable spot in the budget.
The hon. gentleman's first attack was upon the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he went to the old country in connection with the economic conference. My hon. friend revived the old story, that the Prime Minister, by his "blasting" policies, had offended the British people and made it impossible for us to trade with other countries. I should have thought that this would be a very inopportune time for the hon. member to bring up that question. He must surely remember that his right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) went to the old country the latter part of last year and undoubtedly sounded the British people as to their attitude towards these agreements, and on his return to this country he precipitated a family quarrel in the Liberal party by ordering the mighty Vincent to destroy tons of literature he had prepared in denunciation of the agreements. I should think the charred remains of that pile of campaign ammunition would be a silent reminder that a false statement remains a false statement, no matter how often it is repeated.
The next charge he made against us was that we had led the way in economic nationalism and now we are recanting. Surely the hon. gentleman knows the difference between recognizing a fact and espousing a principle. All this government and the Prime Minister have done is to recognize the fact that
economic nationalism is rampant in the . world, but to say that this government or the Prime Minister has adopted that as a principle is far from the fact. On the contrary the very statement made by the right hon. leader of the opposition contradicts the idea, for he said that the Prime Minister's attitude was to blast his way into the markets of the world. Surely that is absolutely at variance with the idea of economic nationalism.
The next charge he has to make against us is that we have failed to keep the channels of trade open. I am not going to reiterate what has been stated so often in the house or to deal further with a matter so ably dealt with by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in his reply. Surely if there is anything in which the Liberal party has excelled, it is in repeating over and over again a statement hon. members opposite know is not true and doing so without batting an eye. It has been repeated in the house and throughout the country; it has been stated by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and nearly all speakers on this side, that almost every market in the world was closed to our products before this government came into power. One cannot help admiring the persistence and audacity of people who will, in the face of what has been said, continue to reiterate that this government has closed the markets of the world to' Canada.
Then the hon. member attacked the basis of our trade balance; he said that we prided ourselves on our favourable trade balance but that it is not of the value we claim because, he said, it was not properly obtained; it was obtained by .restricting imports instead oif by increasing exports. Well, it changed from a favourable trade balance to an adverse one of some $140,000,000 or $150,000,000 during the regime of hon. members opposite. If that is so, did they keep the channels of trade open? Did they keep our exports up? Surely if we had an adverse trade balance of $140,000,000 and a favourable one is desirable, as they are prepared to admit it is provided it is obtained in the right way, the time was opportune for them to proceed to obtain that favourable trade balance by increasing exports, which he says is the proper way to do it. It therefore follows that the hon. gentleman's party has failed to do the very thing which he has charged us with failing to do. What happened? Canada, being a debtor nation, must have a favourable trade balance or
The Budget-Mr. Beynon

must face bankruptcy, if she cannot obtain a favourable trade balance by increasing exports, then she must obtain it in some other way. What this government did was to obtain it in two ways:	first, by decreasing
imports and, second, by increasing exports. But this government recognized the fact, which apparently the previous government did not do, that this country, being a debtor nation, would face bankruptcy if it did not have a favourable trade balance.
I want to remind the house that in 1914 this world faced I suppose the most tragic crisis in its history. At that time it needed men of ability, of education, with trained minds and force of character, as leaders in the armies of the world. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth volunteered his services, and I am glad to say that he proved to be a very valuable, efficient and loyal soldier. A gratified nation wished to recognize the services he was performing, the sacrifice he was making in devoting himself to the service of his country. He went overseas as a major; he was promoted t*o the rank of lieutenant-colonel; he was given a substantial remuneration for his services while overseas, although perhaps not what everybody would think was sufficient, but all that the nation could afford under the circumstances. He was decorated; he was given marks of distinction, of honour; he was mentioned in dispatches. He was admitted into the best society of the land; he was wined, dined and feasted. He was given a batman to brush his clothes, polish his shoes and shine his buttons, saving him from all menial tasks. In fact everything that could be done for him was done in recognition of the valuable service he was rendering to his country. Moreover, he was given immunity from political aspersion. People were not allowed to say that the hon. member in his work as a soldier was fighting not for his country but for his own glory. He was immune from that because the people would not permit such things to be said of a man who was giving himself to his country. The war crisis ended.
Twelve years rolled by and another crisis arose. This however Was a peace crisis, almost as bad, a tragedy perhaps as deep and dark as ony of those met with on the fields of Flanders. Again we required men of training and ability, men who were willing to sacrifice themselves for their country. In western Canada we had such a man in the person of John I. McFarland, who volunteered his services. He had a peculiarly trained mind. But what did the country do for him? It is brae a private corporation offered him a salary, but he refused it. He was not given

a uniform; he was not given any medals ,or badges or award. He was not given a batman; he was not given any rank of distinction, not even that of a corporal. He was not wined, dined or feasted.


Mr. POWER:: He was given $100,000,000 to play with.


William Addison Beynon: I am glad to hear the hon. member make that remark and I hope he will stand by it.


Charles Gavan Power: He certainly will stand by it. Comparing that gambler with one who went to war! What are the Tories who were the friends of the soldiers coming to?


William Addison Beynon: That man went out without any honour, any pay, any rank or any distinction. He gave this country the benefit of his knowledge, his experience, and he gave just as loyal service and made just as great a sacrifice as did any man in battle. He did not ask for anything. But what was said of him? He found the people of western Canada struggling against the forces of nature and against an adverse world condition, and I am sorry to say that they also had to struggle against the greed and cupidity of certain individuals and groups trading in this world. One would have thought a man giving that service to his country, devoting himself without pay and without honour, asking nothing but the right to serve his country, would at least be entitled to the gratitude of his fellow men. But what does the hon. gentleman say about it in his speech in reply to the Minister of Finance? Here is what he has to say:
I suppose that the idea originally was that either Mr. McFarland or the government for whom he was acting wanted to make a reputation as astute market operators and possibly to get some glory out of the distribution of the profits later.
Further on he says:
-but what I have the strongest criticism to offer in respect of is the method and the motives which seem to have actuated Mr. McFarland in carrying out his mandate.
And he goes on to say:
-taking the credit of the _ people of this dominion and putting it behind one man in order that he might deal with that credit, not for the benefit of the western wheat producer-and I shall show that in a moment -but for the possible eventual glorification of Mr. McFarland and this government.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would be the attitude of hon. members opposite or of hon. members on this side of the house if I stood here and said that the hon. gentleman sacrificed the lives of his men overseas for the glorification of himself and his fellow-offi -cers?

The Budget-Mr. Beynon


Mr. RALSTON:: All you said was that he was wined and dined overseas.


William Addison Beynon: Has it come to this, that the hero who serves his country in time of peace is not entitled to the same amenities as is the hero who serves his country in time of war? I want to know if the Canadian citizen who will give his time, his money and perhaps even his life in the service of his country in time of peace is not entitled to the same consideration as the man who fights in the army in time of war. If the statement of the hon. member for (Shelburne-Yarmouth was true it meant that Mr. McFarland was not only sacrificing the credit of this country but he was prepared to risk the happiness, the fortune and even the lives of something over two million people in western Canada. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that while nothing can absolve the bon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth from this unfair, ungenerous aspersion which he has cast upon the character and work of Mr. (McFarland, after he has left public life he will suffer the pangs of remorse when he realizes that on this occasion in the House of Commons he was not sufficiently generous to pay tribute to a patriotic fellow Canadian who is giving his services in a time of peace, not in the glamorous theatre of war-


James Layton Ralston: What kind of theatre?


William Addison Beynon: but in the quiet of a drab, dull depression in which there is absolutely nothing in the way of glory or glamour but only the opportunity to serve his fellow Canadians. Yet the hon. member for Slhel-bume-Yarmouth was not generous enough to refrain from casting such aspersions.
It is possible, of course, that the hon. member does not fully appreciate the tragedy that is being enacted on those western plains. He is living in the midst of a large city, in the more or less fortified recesses of St. James street, where matters of this kind cannot be fully understood or appreciated. At the same time I submit that before making a charge of this kind against a man like Mr. McFarland he should more thoroughly investigate these matters. It is true that on several occasions the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has made similar statements, which have been passed by without a great deal of thought or without a great deal of attention being paid to them. Perhaps that is due1 to the fact that oh this side of the house it is not generally thought that the hon. member for Willow Bunch is capable of anything better, but we did expect something better from the hon. member for Shelburne-
Yarmouth. He is a soldier, a scholar and a gentleman, and we expected something better of him.
What are the criticisms that are' levelled against Mr. McFarland? The first is that in 1933 he either did not sell the wheat, or if he did he went into the market and bought it back again. Let us just examine that for a moment, because it indicates very clearly that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth does not really understand very much about the wheat business,. As a matter of fact every time Mr. McFarland sold a quantity of wheat he stepped right into the market and bought that quantity of wheat back again by way of options. That was necessary; it was impossible for Mr. McFarland to sell any wheat without doing that, for the simple reason, that neither the millers nor the exporters will buy any wheat at- all unless they can hedge their purchases, and Mr. McFarland was taking the hedges. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth seems to think that if Mr. McFarland goes in the market and sells one thousand, ten thousand, or one hundred thousand bushels of wheat, that amount immediately disappears from the world's surplus. It does not matter whether that wheat is in Winnipeg, on the boat or in England; until it is manufactured into flour and sold to the consumer it is still a part of the world's surplus. There is no such thing as stepping into the market and disposing of this carry-over or this surplus of ours overnight.
What is the next statement of the hon. gentleman? He says the government of this country is holding the price, of wheat in western Canada far too high, and by reason of that fact we are losing the, British market. I want it to be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that every Liberal member from western Canada applauded that statement when it was made in this house and they are all committed to that statement of fact and that principle, that the government is holding the price of wheat in western Canada too high. The people of the west must remember that if hon. gentlemen opposite are returned to power naturally they will immediately proceed to correct that which they believe to be wrong; the people of the west must remember that if hon. gentlemen opposite come into power the price of wheat will go down. How is that to be accomplished? It can be done only by throwing all the wheat on the market regardless of price, and that is the policy advocated by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. He said, "Why didn't he sell it; why not throw it on the market
The Budget-Mr. Beynon

and let the price go down, as the Argentine and Australia did?" What would have been the result? If that policy had been followed there could have been only one result; you would have had practically the entire population of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta on relief. In addition you would have lost at least $25,000,000 of purchasing power in Canada; there would have been much more to be raised in the way of taxes in the east and there would have been much less goods purchased in the east and consequently less money with which to pay those taxes. So you would have had something like economic chaos in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite are sometimes wont to laugh when the Prime Minister speaks of having spent his days and nights trying to maintain the industrial and financial structure of this country. I want to say that one of the big aids in maintaining that industrial and financial structure was the support given by this government to the grain market.
The hon. member says we are losing our grain markets, that England is ceasing to trade with us and that if they come into power they will throw the grain on the market and depress the price to the point where the British millers will buy it. To show that this is actually the Liberal policy I have before me a quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press, which after all is the mouthpiece of the Liberal party in western Canada. In 1920 the Winnipeg Free Press had a certain policy with respect to wheat, and this is what it was:
Since July enormous quantities of low priced wheat have been exported to Europe from the Argentine, Liverpool buyers were under no necessity to buy Canadian wheat at $1.59 per bushel or thereabouts, when they could buy from Argentine at $1.12.
On October 23, 1929, there appeared the following editorial:
In such a situation with more wheat offering to buyers than they want, the argument that Canadian wheat should be freely offered at competitive prices seems curious. If it were thrown on the market at prices which made it highly attractive to speculators, it might be bought, but would it be used? The price might fall, and the wheat still remain in storage.
Further on they say:
Whatever the economic effect has been this summer in the Argentine, the fact is that Argentine wheat is being sold at prices in Liverpool which would be disastrous to Canadian producers.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the time this editorial was written for the Winnipeg Free Press, Argentine wheat was selling at $1.12 a bushel. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite tell us to-day, at a time when

Argentine wheat is selling from 50 cents to 60 cents per bushel, that we should dump our wheat on the market in competition with that wheat, and that the western farmer should take the consequences.
We see that a little later the Free Press, as usual, had a change of heart. In 1929 the Liberal party was responsible for the government, but in 1935 we have a Conservative government. Criticizing the speech made by Mr. McFarland in Moose Jaw they have this to say about the wheat situation:
The next most significant feature of Mr. McFarland's address was his attempt to return to 1929 conditions and the mentality of that year.
Here is a very significant statement:
Of course, everybody was wrong about wheat in 1929.
The Free Press admits it was wrong about wheat in 1929.
We were all at that time warm with enthusiasm over our belief that the world had to come to us for wheat and that the price would be what we chose to demand. But people capable of learning were pretty thoroughly cured by the experiences of that year. As the season of 1929 advanced, it was revealed to our chagrin that the world's statistical position of wheat was not what we fondly thought it was; that the domestic crops in European countries were far larger than estimated; and that there was literally no end to the supplies of wheat from Argentine. The lesson that 1929 should have taught us was that if in competitive markets our wheat is held above the current price, we keep the wheat (which bulges forth as a carry-over) and the other nations do the business.
That sets forth the position of the Liberal party to-day. That is what the Free Press has been advocating for the last year and a half, namely, that we throw this wheat upon the market and let the price be depressed to whatever point it may, letting the western farmer take the loss. What have the western producers to do?
I was amused when the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth mentioned he was going to speak for a while on behalf of the western farmers. One of the first statements he made on their behalf was that we should not hold the wheat but that we should dispose of it at whatever price could be obtained. His next statement was that we were destroying cooperative effort. He said that Mr. McFarland was becoming a dictator in the west, that he had taken over the work of cooperative societies and that because of his activities cooperation was dying. I am sure the western farmers will be delighted indeed to have the hon. member from St. James street express their views in this chamber.

The Budget-Mr. Beynon
However, I have before me some expressions from heads of cooperative institutions in western Canada, and in this connection I quote the observations of Mr. H. W. Wood, Chairman of the Alberta wheat pool:
I think the conference and so on have been a step in the right direction.
He was referring to the conferences from which the Ottawa agreements arose.
No one can tell the value of the acts or what might have resulted if all had been allowed to drift.
Then, I would like hon. members opposite to listen to this:
The government's stand when wheat was tobogganing toward the forty-cent a bushel mark almost two years ago was courageous, necessary and had vindicated itself.
Mr. Wood is anything but a politician. He never has been an exponent of Conservative principles nor has he been a partisan. Let us see what is said by the head of the Saskatchewan pool:
"If the government goes out of the market, many farmers will go out of business" declared Mr. Brouillette. Referring to Prime Minister R. B. Bennett's statement that federal stabilization operations had meant $25,000,000 to grain growers, the pool president thought the figure mentioned was very conservative.
I do not think that those gentlemen will thank the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth for attempting to express their views. The hon. member has said the government is destroying cooperative effort in western Canada. May I quote the magnificent effort made by the hon. member to promote cooperative effort in that particular part of Canada. Hon. members will recall that at the last session the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) introduced the Natural Products Marketing Act. I believe it is agreed by all people in western Canada that there never was a better conceived or a more far reaching piece of legislation placed before parliament. Never has there been any legislation so calculated to promote, assist and develop cooperative effort as was the marketing legislation introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. But what did the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth say about it? He delivered a most important address from his side of the chamber just before the vote was taken, in which he made the following observations:
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these three features, the autocratic and' compulsory feature of the marketing act itself, the tariff feature which does not belong to the bill, and the price spread feature without proper definitions, are all inimical to the welfare not only of the producers but of the people of Canada generally. And when I look at the act and realize
that the Prime Minister has completely failed to justify these vital and all-important features, which have been pointed out over and over again in this debate, I am reminded that whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. I say to my right hon. friend in all seriousness that if he passes this act and attempts to enforce it in the dominion he will find that his destruction will be certain and sure.
That was the magnificent attempt made by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth to promote cooperation in western Canada and to back up cooperative effort. "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad"-I wonder if the hon. member was referring to the gods of St. James street? I think perhaps he was. Let us see what the people of western Canada think about this terrible marketing act. I quote from the Western Producer, the paper that has the largest circulation among the producers and cooperatives of western Canada, and the organ of the cooperative societies in western Canada. In its issue of December 27, 1934, it says:
There are some people who oppose the Natural Products Marketing Act for the reason (a good and sufficient one in their eyes) that it was enacted by the federal government. They find it difficult to imagine anything good coming from the federal administration and even if it may look attractive on the surface, they feel sure there must be a catch in it somewhere.
We do not propose to argue with opponents of this kind because in such cases, reason is rarely of much effect.
That is the view taken by the cooperative organizations of western Canada with regard to the Natural Products Marketing Act. Now where does the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth get his inspiration? All through his speech he was quoting from the Financial Post, and again I thought I recognized the voice of St. James street. But surely the Financial Post does not speak for the cooperative organizations of western Canada, nor does it speak for the grain growers who have been helped by the holding up of the price of their grain.
Another very notable thing in the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth was that attempt that we have noticed in all the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite this session to condemn in the one breath and praise in the next the reform measures which the government has brought down. It simply means that hon. gentlemen opposite are seeking to evade responsibility outside the house for the criticisms which they level here at the legislation brought down by the government. In criticizing the work of Mr. John I. McFarland in supporting the wheat market the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth was very careful to leave a screen behind1 which
The Budget-Mr. Beynon

he could hide if he was charged with condemning the operations of Mr. McFarland; for at page 2116 of Hansard he said:
There has never been a word of criticism upon that score-
That is, about assisting the western farmer: -because everybody recognizes the importance of the western farmer as a producer, as a consumer and also as a citizen. What is the criticism? It is first from the point of view of the western farmer that the government instead of marketing the grain has virtually become his competitor.
In several places in the course of his address the hon. member was very careful to ring in that old, old statement that he was not finding any fault with Mr. McFarland or with the system. He just charged Mr. McFarland with trying to bring glory upon himself and upon this government through his operations, and the hon. gentleman intimated that Mr. McFarland was prepared to risk the credit of this country and1 the failure of his venture simply in order to bring glory on himself and on the government which my hon. friend says Mr. McFarland serves. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the western Liberals are prepared to go before the people of western Canada and fight the next election on the issue of the operations of Mr. John I. McFarland, or on the issue of the Natural Products Marketing Act brought in by the Minister of Agriculture we gladly accept that challenge here and now; but I venture to say that they are not prepared to stake their political fortunes on either one of those issues or on both of them'.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place this evening to make what perhaps will ibe my last address in the House of Commons I am full of conflicting emotions and thoughts. In all the welter of thought that was indulged in this afternoon about the great war I remembered, sir, that I was a humble private in the ranks, and since I have been in this parliament I have also been one of the humible privates sitting on the back benches supporting the present government led by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
. The thought that comes to my mind first of all is to thank my constituents for the great honour which they did me in electing me as their representative for the historic riding of Selkirk. It has been a great honour, Mr. Speaker, to serve that riding, and it has been a great honour to stand in the ranks of the Conservative party behind our Prime Minister. I have been heralded in the press during previous sessions as one of the radicals of the Conservative party. I am glad to-night that my party is the party of reform, and I am
(Mr. Beynon.J
pleased to announce to my constituents and this country to-night that I am proud to ibe a Conservative. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was a Liberal-Conservative party that presided at the birth of confederation under Sir John A. Macdonald. I remember also that it was under a great leader of this party, Sir Robert Borden, that this country took its place among the nations of the world in the day of Armageddon when Canada became a nation in fact as well as in name. I would remind my constituents and the country this evening that in the midst of the greatest depression in the history of this dominion, in the midst of trials and difficulties the like of which this country has never known this great party to which I say again I am proud to belong is, under the leadership of Sir Richard Bedford Bennett, the party of reform.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sir?


James Herbert Stitt: I thank hon. members for that laugh. If any man ever deserved the title of "Sir," if ever a knighthood might justly be conferred upon a Canadian for the services he has rendered, no one deserves it better than Richard Bedford Bennett.
Under his leadership Canada has struck its tents in the valley of depression and is now marching forward on the highway of reform. Under his able leadership, assisted by his able associates, such as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), whose budget we are now debating,-this country will yet reach a time and place when poverty will not work its awful havoc upon the Canadian people. Although perhaps it has been in the minds of many people in this country that it may have been hard for the hon. member for Selkirk to serve the Conservative party, I want to repeat that it is easy for him now because the Conservative party is the party of reform and progressive reconstruction.
I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) in which he said that this was a policy of make believe and pretence. I admire the financial critic of the opposition, but as one soldier to another let me say to him that I think that statement was unworthy of a great soldier and a great Canadian. When one considers the difficulties which this country has been facing since 1930, when one realizes the efforts which this government has made to overcome the forces of depression which were world wide, I do not think anyone will agree with the hon. member when he says that our efforts at reform are make believe and pretence.

The Budget-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
What is the position at the present time of the Liberal party? The Liberal party has now become the Tory party. I made this statement when I went home last year to my constituency. I said that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) had changed shoes; they had reversed their roles. We find the Liberal party now upholding the constitution while the Conservative party is leading the way to reform. Once again the Conservative party is the party of the people, as it always has been, in spite of the criticism and camouflage of our Liberal opponents.
Let us look at these questions of unemployment and relief. To-day the Prime Minister is lying ill in the Chateau Laurier. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the 1,250,000 Canadians who are on relief but I ask them: Who looked after those Canadians during the days of depression? Who warmed them against the winter's cold, who clothed them against the intemperate climate, who fed them in the face of starvation?


Mr. VALLANCE:: Canada.


James Herbert Stitt: The Conservative
party under the leadership of Richard Bedford Bennett. I wonder if the time will ever come when this nation will render to the Prime Minister his due? I wonder if he will yet receive his just acclaim of praise instead of the dividends of abuse? I wonder if the credit of this country had been ruined what would have happened to the ten per cent of our population who have no employment or income?
What is the position to-day of the Liberal oarty? They laugh at the Conservative party when we try to improve our position in the markets of the world. They laugh at us when in fact we have improved our export trade by means of the Ottawa agreements. They ridicule our efforts at reform. I should like to quote to the house the words of the leader of the Liberal party in England, Sir Herbert Samuel. The condition which we as a nation are facing to-day is world wide. This condition was not born in Canada, it is the aftermath of the great war. It is unfair, it is untrue, it is not right for any Canadian public men to say that this situation is the result of Conservative policies. Who lost the markets of the world for Canada, and when were they lost? I ask hon. gentlemen opposite:	Will the people of
Canada trust you to find markets in adversity when you lost them in the days of prosperity?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Bring on the election.


James Herbert Stitt: Bring on the election; let us have power, not ideals or service. That is all hon. gentlemen opposite think about. I ask the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell):	Who cares
whether you are elected to this House of Commons? Who cares whether I am elected? Who cares whether any hon. member is elected? This country wants service, not contentious politics. This country does not want camouflage from the party which is supposed to be the party of reform.
What has happened to the Liberal party? We all know the position of that party. We all know that the markets of the world were closed to Canada during the regime of that party. We all know of Mr. Crerar, the gentleman who has been peddling his services all over Manitoba in search of nomination. What was.his policy? He said that all the country needed was a crop of 500,000,000 bushels of wheat. Those are the economies of the Liberal party. What was the explanation given by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) as to what ought to be done in connection with the marketing of wheat? "Never mind the wheat market; the wheat will look after itself." That was his theory.


John Vallance: It will if you leave it alone.


James Herbert Stitt: That seems to be the policy of the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). I would not be surprised if he has not received considerable unearned wealth through the efforts of this government. I wonder if he is willing to stand up to-night and tell his constituents how much money went into his pockets because of the five cent bonus on wheat.


John Vallance: The hon. member is not blaming the government for the grasshoppers, is he?


James Herbert Stitt: No, but the hon. member would if he could. That is about the only thing hon. members opposite have not tried to get away with.


John Vallance: You have still that to your credit.


James Herbert Stitt: When the Minister of Trade and Commerce stood in his place and asked the financial critic of the opposition the condition of world trade, what did he say? He said the answer was not ready. He knew the answer but he did not give it.

The Budget-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit, I said no such thing.


James Herbert Stitt: You gave no answer.


James Layton Ralston: I am raising a .point of order. Will my hon. friend permit me to correct that statement? I did not say the answer was not ready. I made no such statement, and I know my hon. friend is a good enough sport and debater to retract that statement.


James Herbert Stitt: You did not give any answer at all.


James Layton Ralston: That is not what you said.


James Herbert Stitt: I am glad you have clarified the matter. You did not make any answer at all.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit a question now?


James Herbert Stitt: No.


James Layton Ralston: How does he expect me to clarify it?


James Herbert Stitt: Go ahead; ask me any question.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Trade and Commerce intimated that he did not want an interruption at that time. I was not supposed to make a speech in the middle of his.


James Herbert Stitt: That answer is very much like the one you gave the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion).


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member should address the chair.


James Herbert Stitt: 
I, 1935
[Stage Direction]
The Budget-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
people during the world's greatest depression? I wonder whether you realize the magnitude of that task. Put these people in procession, coming up the hill in front of the Chateau Laurier, and how long do you think it would take them to pass by in files of four at the rate of three miles an hour, one yard apart? It would take them exactly twenty-seven days, walking eight hours a day, to pass by where the sleeper lies at the present time, the sleeper who led this house, and who gave the last measure of his devotion that these people might be looked after in this day of trial and poverty. The country does not realize what the problems have been. I stood up in my place and pleaded for public works and for the expenditure of money; we have all pleaded for it and wanted it. What did the Prime Minister say to me? He said, "If I destroy the credit of this country I shall not be able to borrow the money to feed the people." I think it is just about time the Canadian people began to ponder this question, to realize what a great service has been done during the last five years. You say that relief is not enough. I agree with you; relief is not enough. There is degradation and demoralization to every citizen who has to go on relief. But I ask every Canadian, every church member, every man in this country who professes Christianity, whether his charity has been equal to the effort that has been made by this government under its Christian Prime Minister. Let that truth sink into the minds and hearts of the Canadian people.
Jean-François Pouliot: Is the hon. gentleman asking that question of me, in common with the rest of the members of this house?


James Herbert Stitt: I am willing to ask the hon. gentleman-


Jean-François Pouliot: If you ask me that question Of will put one to you also.


Mr. ROWE:: Answer his first.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will answer his question,
surely.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman asked a question of all hon. members of this house, and I want to ask him this question. Did the hon. member, for whom I have much personal regard, read or listen to the speech delivered in Montreal by his leader, in which he said-[DOT]


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute.
925S2-14S


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The hon. member may ask a question, but he may not interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask the hon. gentleman this question-


James Herbert Stitt: I think the hon. gentleman, according to calculations, has cost this country about $28,000 already this present session, and I do not think he has done very much to assist in the problems which we have been trying to solve.


Jean-François Pouliot: Think of what the government has savc-d by not lending more money to Newfoundland, and the saving with regard to delay in nominations for the Senate.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


James Herbert Stitt: This government
has not been afraid of big business, and it has been absolutely fearless of political consequences. The dominating motive of the Prime Minister and the government has been to serve the people of Canada, to do what was right, to prevent disaster; and there has been little or no cooperation from the official opposition. Look at the price spreads commission. Was the Conservative government afraid to investigate big business? .No; it was not afraid to investigate big business. Look at the reduction we made in interest rates. This party is called the henchman of the big interests. Why, we have saved in interest charges, in the refloating of loans maturing in Canada, nearly $15,000,000 a year. Look at the action of the government in relation to the banks. What a story can be told of bravery, of service, of absolute fearlessness of vested interests. But we receive no praise for this work. The other night the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) rose in his place and spoke about the transfer of the gold from the banks to the Bank of Canada. We have taken from the banks of Canada $39,000,000 worth of gold on the basis of $20.67 an ounce. We stand to make on that transaction somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25,000,000. Does that look like a government that is afraid of big business, that is afraid of the banks? Look at the agitation that was raised in parliament! The hon. member for St. James is smiling; I believe he rather opposed that.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not here.


James Herbert Stitt: I mean the chief
whip of the opposition.



The Budget-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I am not smiling. I
am listening to the hon. member and I am astounded.


James Herbert Stitt: I want to tell the
country a conversation I had with the Prime Minister. I wondered whether the provisions were constitutional, whether we were going to get into a lawsuit or not. I wondered whether there would be delay and whether every embarrassment possible would be placed in the way of the government's obtaining that gold from the banks. The Prime Minister said to me: "It is just about time that this country found out who was running the country-the banks or the government." If the Liberal party or the Labour party or the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had passed legislation taking the gold from the banks and earmarking the profit on that gold for the Dominion of Canada, that fact would have been blazoned all over the country; it would have been looked upon as a most remarkable performance in the way of reform. One of the amazing points about the present situation is that the government has been almost afraid to advertise its virtues, almost reluctant to go out and tell the country just what these measures have meant in dollars and cents for the Canadian people.
Look at the work we have done for labour, and let the members of the Trades and Labour Congress pay attention to the remarks of their leader, Mr. Tom Moore, when he said: "This budget is a poor man's budget." We heard criticism the other day about t|he income tax rates. I wonder how many people in Canada know that if to-day a man has an income of 81,000,000, we take from him $527,000 in taxation. I wonder whether they realize that our rate of taxation on the higher incomes is greater than it is in Great Britain. Have we been given any praise for that?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is no more money now.


James Herbert Stitt: No more money! Well, we have found over $200,000,000 for unemployment relief; we have found money to guarantee the wheat pool operations, yes, and we have found money to guarantee the loans of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That matter is very easily explained to the people of Canada. I stated that this government was not afraid of public criticism; that it was not afraid of vested interests. Moreover it was not afraid to come to the assistance of a great corporation when it was necessary for the welfare of Canada that it should do so. What was the situation in connection with the $60,000,000 guarantee for the Canadian Pacific Railway? Its bonds were falling due in the

United States, and under the laws of that country it was impossible for that company to refloat loans in order to pay back its obligations. What would have happened had the government not come to the assistance of the Canadian Pacific Railway and enabled it to borrow money from the banks?-for let it be remembered that the Canadian Pacific has passed its dividends and has been losing money. The Canadian Pacific would have gone into the hands of a receiver; it would have gone into the possession of foreign investors. What would have happened to labour on the Canadian Pacific; what would have happened to the rates of pay; what would have happened to the business fabric of this country, had the government not had the courage, in spite of the political criticism that could be raised against such an action, to come to the aid of that great corporation, one that means almost the very life of the country?
Taxation of higher incomes! This budget has been described as a brave budget. The Minister of Finance must be complimented upon the manner of its presentation and the comprehensive review he has made of Canadian affairs. We have the policy of reform and the eight hour day, minimum wage and unemployment insurance measures. I told my constituents when I was elected that I would support an unemployment insurance bill. Whoever supposed that a Conservative government would enact a measure of unemployment insurance? If the Liberal party had enacted such a measure, the press of the country would have hailed it as a great work of reform, a great law of social justice. Surely it is about time that the people of Canada realize the services which this government has rendered to the nation.
Before the eleven o'clock adjournment, I ought to thank the Conservative party for the liberty they have given me, the freedom I have had within the party. I wonder how many members of the Liberal opposition have ever had the freedom that the member for Selkirk has had. Last year from my place I asked for reduction of interest rates, for the issuance of $100,000,000 of new money, for $50,000,000 worth of public works. What is the answer? We have had the policy of reform; we have had reduction of interest rates; we have had the issuance of new money to the extent of $50,000,000, and we have had an unemployment relief works policy aggregating $40,000,000.
On motion of Mr. Stitt (Selkirk) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, April 2, 1935.